Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC

Slatewriter wrote:So, AFC tutor Paul Jacobs is online giving his thanks to those who helped with the online version of AFC's Open Week, in his own words.

"Thank you from us both to Saskia our marketing manger , reception team , the tutors who have been the main team over the last  3 years for our online open weekend , of course all the students too, the regulars and the many many new students joining us.
What a wonderful 2 days , an honour privilege and joy to be part of.
Thank You again  to all of you"

Is he seriously giving thanks to 'the tutors who have been the "main team" over the last 3 years'
???

ANGRY is not a strong enough word for me right now.

Who does he mean by both? His message on facebook is with a picture of himelf and Gordon Higginson. Is he saying thank you on behalf of Gordon?

Christ only knows

Ultimately, it all stems from PJ’s ambition to become president, though, as we all are aware, he is quite an unpleasant individual.

Who would vote for him?

His behaviour, marked by frequent outbursts, has been witnessed on various occasions: shouting at fellow mediums while on the platform, berating recipients, for counld not understanding the evidence, or not acting as he wished, and, naturally, directing his ire at his own students.

Many left in tears, never to return.
He may very well be the AFC’s greatest PR disaster.

It's ironic how the SNU introduces new awards for promoting Spiritualism (Janet Nohevac Award), while some of their own tutors act in complete contradiction to that mission.

If you have ever observed him, you might wonder how on earth such a person could possibly call himself a Spiritualist.

Regarding the "Holiday Connection“:

PJ has been seen VERY OFTEN angrily yelling at JW (president) and SW (collegiate) in public on platform.

It begs the question why these Ladies would tolerate such treatment from PJ. In my opinion, it may stem from unresolved childhood trauma or something akin to battered spouse syndrome.

No person with an ounce of self-respect would allow PJ near themselves or their loved ones.

PJ has always aspired to the presidency, and the "Holiday Connection" appears to be his avenue for achieving that goal.

To any member of the SNU, it would be utterly baffling why some fo the new tutors, most of whom have been selected by PJ, are being allowed into the AFC WITHOUT full credentials as so called AFC Tutors.

For instance, Carmen Vreeburg was ALREADY listed on the AFC tutor roster BEFORE she had even completed her final board qualifications as CSNU.
While others spend 7 to 9 years progressing through the SNU to become not merely a CSNUt (t for teacher), but a fully accredited tutor for the AFC—a process that typically requires an additional 2 to 3 years.

CV and PJ share a history spanning a decade, dating back to the tragic time when CV's beloved gay brother, took his own life. She also created PJ's website and captured stunning portrait photographs of Pj, JW and SW.

You see, it does seem to pay off if you allow PJ to treat you like rubbish.  

What's the "Holiday Connection" ?

Slatewriter wrote:What's the "Holiday Connection" ?

PJ, JW, and SW frequently holiday together, as evidenced by their Facebook profiles. I believe the term "Holiday Connection" was previously employed to illustrate this camaraderie aka nepotism.

notabigjump wrote:

Slatewriter wrote:So, AFC tutor Paul Jacobs is online giving his thanks to those who helped with the online version of AFC's Open Week, in his own words.

"Thank you from us both to Saskia our marketing manger , reception team , the tutors who have been the main team over the last  3 years for our online open weekend , of course all the students too, the regulars and the many many new students joining us.
What a wonderful 2 days , an honour privilege and joy to be part of.
Thank You again  to all of you"

Is he seriously giving thanks to 'the tutors who have been the "main team" over the last 3 years'
???

ANGRY is not a strong enough word for me right now.

Who does he mean by both? His message on facebook is with a picture of himelf and Gordon Higginson. Is he saying thank you on behalf of Gordon?

Thinking on the "two-faced" discussion - perhaps PJ was referring to "he and himself"?

Slatewriter wrote:What's the "Holiday Connection" ?

Go back and read through earlier posts on the thread and you will see what the "holiday connection' subject is about Slatewriter.

notabigjump wrote:Update roll call to include known legal cases against the SNU. If as others suggest, this could increase.

Here is a roll call of honour of the growing list of people and roles who are believed to have resigned or had to withdraw their services or awards, since Jackie Wright became President. The list is growing and amongst some, are employment tribunals which are either ongoing or have been won in the complainants favour. I have removed surnames :

20 AFC Tutors plus Minister Matthew (withdrawn services)

Resigned or pushed from committees or paid employment:

Christine
Alv
Ann
Danny
Pat
Jane
Anne-Marie
Adam
Richard
Rachel (SNU)
Julia  (Resigned as elected Vice President)
Alessandro (AFC )
Dean (AFC)
Tanya AFC (AFC)
Kelly (AFC )
Will (AFC)
Minister Libby
Keith
Graham
Simone (SNUI)
Colin

To be continued….more are expected  soon….

Current Legal Proceedings Against The SNU

Employment Tribunals x 2
Civil Proceedings x 1

Let's all hope there will be happier times ahead soon.

To see that so many people have left the SNU/AFC in the two years JW has been President is surely very disturbing. There is something fundamentally wrong in the operation of the SNU and AFC by those currently in power. It is hard to see how there could be happier times ahead soon or even eventually, unless the current management ceases to be in power.

Interestingly, both the AFC and SNUI websites still list these names as currently active. Not very transparent.      

How about the NEC or Maurice Barbanell Centre?

What qualifications does Finance Director JU possess?
After all, the SNU is overseeing a budget of £14 million to £16 million.

High5 wrote:What qualifications does Finance Director JU possess?
After all, the SNU is overseeing a budget of £14 million to £16 million.

Good point High5. Perhaps a LinkedIn search is worth a shot.

High5 wrote:What qualifications does Finance Director JU possess?
After all, the SNU is overseeing a budget of £14 million to £16 million.

Good Friends?

Lis wrote:

notabigjump wrote:Update roll call to include known legal cases against the SNU. If as others suggest, this could increase.

Here is a roll call of honour of the growing list of people and roles who are believed to have resigned or had to withdraw their services or awards, since Jackie Wright became President. The list is growing and amongst some, are employment tribunals which are either ongoing or have been won in the complainants favour. I have removed surnames :

20 AFC Tutors plus Minister Matthew (withdrawn services)

Resigned or pushed from committees or paid employment:

21

To be continued….more are expected  soon….

Current Legal Proceedings Against The SNU

Employment Tribunals x 2
Civil Proceedings x 1

Let's all hope there will be happier times ahead soon.

To see that so many people have left the SNU/AFC in the two years JW has been President is surely very disturbing. There is something fundamentally wrong in the operation of the SNU and AFC by those currently in power. It is hard to see how there could be happier times ahead soon or even eventually, unless the current management ceases to be in power.

In any normal business there would be an outcry by the Shareholders and the probable dismissal of the Chairman and CEO with these numbers. Any business with this level of exit would be deemed a basket case.

Slatewriter wrote:

trueprogression46 wrote: All the tutors who are being persecuted are Empaths!

Your previous statement seems to show that you have some insider knowledge,
and your subsequent words seem to suggest that those persecuting the tutors are not empaths, but are in fact narcissists?

Would you agree with either of these assessments?

A subject well worth pursuing especially after High5's comments . One wonders what a psychologist may make of all the antics of the two major players JW and PJ

High5 wrote:Ultimately, it all stems from PJ’s ambition to become president, though, as we all are aware, he is quite an unpleasant individual.

Who would vote for him?

His behaviour, marked by frequent outbursts, has been witnessed on various occasions: shouting at fellow mediums while on the platform, berating recipients, for counld not understanding the evidence, or not acting as he wished, and, naturally, directing his ire at his own students.

Many left in tears, never to return.
He may very well be the AFC’s greatest PR disaster.

Just from people I know who have experienced him in Aus I have enough stories about PJ shouting at tutors, reducing people into tears and them leaving his course before it ended. I have also an instance of PJ and JW in the same dem, trying, individually, to give a message to someone who could not except their first or second piece of evidence despite their obvious intent to force it on them.

Why oh Why did JW throw so much support behind him

I remain puzzled, perhaps due to not have a full understanding of what happened previously, but how did/could PJ have been able to return to working at the AFC after having been removed by the previous president and their management team, and for reasons which would, if true, have surely meant his reinstatement was contrary to all good practice?

Perhaps someone might help clarify the conditions under which PJ was removed and how that removal could be overcome by the current president.

Clearly, the conduct of PJ is still giving rise to concerns, with a significant number of complaints about his behaviour and attitude toward other tutors and students alike. Even here in Australia, the word is out - beware PJ - this is not a tutor you want to have!

notabigjump wrote:

High5 wrote:What qualifications does Finance Director JU possess?
After all, the SNU is overseeing a budget of £14 million to £16 million.

Good point High5. Perhaps a LinkedIn search is worth a shot.

Regarding JU, I know him only as an excellent healer. Is it possible that the SNU aka JW might be willing to sacrifice good people to further their own agenda?

This brings me to my question:
Are NEC members personally liable for any potential mistakes made within the committee, meaning their private assets could be at risk? This situation is akin to church presidents, who, despite not receiving compensation for their hard work on the church committee, could still endanger their homes and livelihoods.

High5 wrote:

notabigjump wrote:

High5 wrote:What qualifications does Finance Director JU possess?
After all, the SNU is overseeing a budget of £14 million to £16 million.

Good point High5. Perhaps a LinkedIn search is worth a shot.

Regarding JU, I know him only as an excellent healer. Is it possible that the SNU aka JW might be willing to sacrifice good people to further their own agenda?

This brings me to my question:
Are NEC members personally liable for any potential mistakes made within the committee, meaning their private assets could be at risk? This situation is akin to church presidents, who, despite not receiving compensation for their hard work on the church committee, could still endanger their homes and livelihoods.

Unless each individual NEC member had "personal indemnity insurance" or some other exclusionary insurance provided under the cover of the SNU's insurance, there may well be personal liability for actions taken contrary to the regulations regarding charities, or some other legislation. Certainly, if I was a member of the current NEC, I would want to be being reassured (if that was possible) by the current president, that the decisions of the NEC did not go against proper policy, procedure, rules, regulations or legislation.

Lis wrote:Certainly, if I was a member of the current NEC, I would want to be being reassured (if that was possible) by the current president, that the decisions of the NEC did not go against proper policy, procedure, rules, regulations or legislation.

However, if the current president lacks such knowledge—not out of malice, but simply due to limited oversight and intellectual capacity—???
That may sound harsh: but the previous financial director was self-emploeyd bricklayer...nothing wrong with that profession, but managing up to 14 million??

High5 wrote:

Lis wrote:Certainly, if I was a member of the current NEC, I would want to be being reassured (if that was possible) by the current president, that the decisions of the NEC did not go against proper policy, procedure, rules, regulations or legislation.

However, if the current president lacks such knowledge—not out of malice, but simply due to limited oversight and intellectual capacity—???
That may sound harsh: but the previous financial director was self-emploeyd bricklayer...nothing wrong with that profession, but managing up to 14 million??

I have checked linkedIn and companies house and the only certification listed is a certificate for Xero accounting software. However JU is listed as a full-time senior accountant with a company called Eazitax. At companies house there is only one person with significant control for this company with reserves of £22K on last filing. He is not listed as a person with any control of the company.

It may be that he has simply failed to add his accountancy credentials, yet this is unusual for a site such as linkedIn which is a showcase of skills.

High5 wrote:

Lis wrote:Certainly, if I was a member of the current NEC, I would want to be being reassured (if that was possible) by the current president, that the decisions of the NEC did not go against proper policy, procedure, rules, regulations or legislation.

However, if the current president lacks such knowledge—not out of malice, but simply due to limited oversight and intellectual capacity—???
That may sound harsh: but the previous financial director was self-emploeyd bricklayer...nothing wrong with that profession, but managing up to 14 million??

Ignorance of one's legal duties is not an excuse nor an escape clause from liability. Indeed. those who take on such roles as those in the SNU NEC have an explicit duty to be aware of their legal responsibilities.

As to whether a bricklayer has or has not the necessary skills required of a financial director would, of course, depend on their academic and professional background and qualifications.

[quote="notabigjump"][quote="High5"]

Lis wrote:there is only one person with significant control for this company with reserves of £22K on last filing. He is not listed as a person with any control of the company.

wow...£22K compared to 14+ million

Lis wrote:
Ignorance of one's legal duties is not an excuse nor an escape clause from liability. Indeed. those who take on such roles as those in the SNU NEC have an explicit duty to be aware of their legal responsibilities.

True. That is precisely my point: people are being installed who are easily persuaded but have little real understanding, like lambs to the slaughter.

He and his wife (both are fab healers) are far too lovely to be thrown under the bus.

High5 all too often people do not realise the risks they run as committee/directors of a not for profit. Fail to maintain insurance, personal liability, failures in OHS causing legal action (stress claims), personal liability, operating outside of the powers granted by the articles of association/constitution, personal responsibility, insolvent trading, ditto.

I had, as voluntary director and treasurer of two not-for-profits. A Theatre Company, a Social, Women's, Gay and Aboriginal Rights company, that lost its Government Funding. Despite this we finalised a production and put it into the Adelaide Fringe, rewriting a piece which ran at the Space Theatre in the Adelaide Festival centre and closing solvently.

I also worked at stopping Wheelchair Sports SA going insolvent, a local icon, when I stepped in they had no idea of their  impending death, hours of free work.

All that time I knew the legal needs and so should any finance person, and as a Director the law will assume ignorance is no defence.

Maybe, as an aside, the last play in the Space Theatre  about the social issues in our world was named "Everything's Fuck'd." May be apt with what is going on.

The SNU us not a small organisation so the risks are much greater.

A reply at last, and as far as Companies House is concerned you are on your own. Such a change since I trained as an Accountant. Privatisation and years of pro business leaves us here. The only reason we were able to block the SNU phoenixing PN out of liquidation is simple, they never owned the assets of Psychic Press. I doubt they, under the bequest from Arthur Findlay, own the building the AFC runs from. I hope no one in the SNU is relying on either Charles Coulston or George Hewitt, in the PN affair their advice seems to have failed the SNU, backed up by Hadley's  expertise.

However, you will really have to work hard to break through this new approach and will have to be a shareholder i.e. an SNU member.

Such is modern life when the regulatory bodies cannot act.

SPIRITUALISTS' NATIONAL UNION(THE) – Co No 00071661
SPIRITUALISTS' NATIONAL UNION TRUST – Co No 11382378

Thank you for your email.

Companies House is essentially the registry of UK company information. In other words, it receives statutory documentation from limited companies and other corporate bodies and makes that information available for inspection. Its main role is to ensure that companies promptly file statutory information required under the Companies Act, and to make this information available to the general public, within the time scales laid down by legislation. As such, it cannot give legal advice or guidance other than the basic guidance published on its website.

Companies House does not have the investigative powers of other organisations to look into any allegations of fraud or sharp practice in the way a company or its directors may operate.

It is the company’s responsibility to provide us with correct and timely information which we place on the public record. We do not have the statutory power or capability to verify or validate the accuracy of the information that companies send to us.  We accept all information that companies deliver to us and place it on the public record. The fact that information has been placed on the public record should not be taken to indicate that Companies House has verified or validated it in any way.

The Registrar is required to register all documents that are delivered to Companies House in apparent compliance with the law. It is the presenter's responsibility to make sure that any document delivered to the Registrar is complete, accurate and legally compliant. There is a difference between fraudulently filed documents from parties unknown and documents delivered by a company itself. The Registrar is not an arbiter of fact or law: that is the function of the court and must include on the public record any information which is properly delivered.  Proper delivery means the document meets all necessary examination criteria, but we have no way of knowing whether or not the information is factually accurate.

I would also like to explain that there is no longer a requirement for a private limited company to hold an AGM. If the company has entered a clause into its own Articles to state that an AGM must be held, it would be an internal company matter that Companies House are unable to become involved with. The company's articles of association are its internal rulebook, chosen by its members. Every company is required to have articles, which are legally binding on the company and all its members. The articles help to ensure the company's business runs as smoothly and efficiently as possible and will set out how decisions are taken by the members and directors as well as various matters connected with the shares. If a company is acting in breach of their Articles of Association, it is an internal matter for the company to resolve. Companies House is unable to intervene

A Directors conduct and indeed the conduct of a company is a matter that the Insolvency Service would investigate. The insolvency Service would also deal with that specific part of the Companies Act. If you have evidence of sharp practice and you feel there has been a deliberate intent to mislead, you may wish to consider contacting the Insolvency Service who may be able to investigate your concerns. Further information can be found at the below links;

Intelligence Hub

The Insolvency Service

4th floor, Cannon House

18 Priory Queensway

Birmingham

B4 6FD

Telephone: 0300 678 0017

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/phoenix-companies-and-the-role-of-the-insolvency-service/phoenix-companies-and-the-role-of-the-insolvency-service#the-insolvency-services-role

Any allegations or suspicions of fraudulent behaviour should be reported to Action Fraud, the national fraud and cybercrime reporting centre for the Police. You can do this by visiting www.actionfraud.police.uk  or phoning 0300 123 2040.

I am sorry that I am unable to help further at this point, but I hope that I have been able to explain our position and that the information given is of assistance.

Kind Regards

Andrew
Breaches Case Manager

www.gov.uk/companieshouse