"Psychic News" to Close

Mr Cranske are you related

This did seem totally appropriate for the current circumstances The Sound Of Silence just what the SNU are treating everyone too.

Hello Darkness!

Or maybe if you are related this title works, the reality is it is time the NEC backed away from this problem.


We are not playing around but it appears to me the NEC and SNU have lost the plot in some way. Time to help eveyone move forward and keep PN going as an independent Spiritualist Paper or maybe it is on a Highway to H....

Ah, the Kransky's - Badley, Brutal & Gasbag.

Does anyone know how I can get my momney back? I paid £80 for the Stuart Alexander day but no-one has replied to tell me what to do. Can anyone help?

Thanks

Claire

If I was you I'd go to trading standards. They should help.

http://www.essexcc.gov.uk

Good luck!

Dan

Hi Claire a good idea to try trading standards also to the Companies Investigation Bureau especially if you paid it mid to late June because by then notification of liquidation should have been published by the directors to warn you of the risk your money would be lost

Trading Standards help protect the public and honest businesses, from rogue traders and illegal practices. We are concerned with the law that govern goods and services which are bought, hired or sold and have experienced professionals with specialist knowledge in all consumer legislation including, consumer safety, weights and measures, fair trading, consumer credit, food quality, product safety and animal welfare.
Our Consumer Advisors are available to offer you a wide range of free advice on consumer issues and can escalate a consumer problem to enforcement staff if the matter requires further investigation.
Here's how to contact us:

Call this number or email to this address if you are a CONSUMER and have a complaint or enquiry: Email address: trading.standards@essex.gov.uk
Telephone: 08454 04 05 06

Call this number or email to this address if you are a BUSINESS or an ORGANIZATION and have a complaint or enquiry: Email address: trading.standards@essex.gov.uk
Telephone: 0845 603 7626

Trading Standards
2 Beaufort Road, New Dukes Way
Chelmsford
Essex
CM2 6PS

This was posted today on Paranormalreview.com

"RE Stuart Alexander Seance. The decision to liquidate was made on 22nd May. The cheques were cashed in June. Can someone offer some advice or a legal opinion on this?"

Inspiration wrote:This was posted today on Paranormalreview.com

"RE Stuart Alexander Seance. The decision to liquidate was made on 22nd May. The cheques were cashed in June. Can someone offer some advice or a legal opinion on this?"

It was just a comment on Paranormal Review's site without any supporting evidence.

Unsubstantiated statements should be taken with a pinch of salt.

When I looked at PR this morning there were ten comments since when one has been added and two removed!

zerdini wrote:

Inspiration wrote:This was posted today on Paranormalreview.com

"RE Stuart Alexander Seance. The decision to liquidate was made on 22nd May. The cheques were cashed in June. Can someone offer some advice or a legal opinion on this?"

It was just a comment on Paranormal Review's site without any supporting evidence.

Unsubstantiated statements should be taken with a pinch of salt.

On the contrary Z, this is no unsubstantiated statement. There is, I understand, and from a number of different reliable sources, irrefutable evidence that a formal decision to liquidate took place at a Board meeting of the directors of Psychic Press (1995) Pty Ltd on May 22nd, 2010.

It is also evident that the decision to close Psychic News was well and truly in the pipeline as early as April and I suspect more information about what has really gone on is going to start coming out in the very near future. Somehow I doubt that certain people who will be named as being involved will be happy to see the truth come out, but come out it must.

I agree with you Lis, much as I am saddened that the only voice in the SNU to come out strongly against what has happened is Geoff Griffiths, I suspect that the anger others feel will result in leaks developing providing clear insights into what is actually going on.

I understand there is considerable disaffection amongst both church and individual SNU members but to date this has not become public. I can only believe they must feel constrained by a fear that public dissention may draw trouble upon either them or church.

I do hope the forthcoming interview in Two Worlds is not a nice one of how good Mr Bruton is and what the NEC is about to organise, without some balance from the information that is coming out. A real hard hitting investigative piece I hope, not one to get the SNU onside with Two Worlds.

As Z has indicated Tony Ortzen is a senior experienced journalist so I am sure Two Worlds will have done a good job and have dug deeper.

Inspiration wrote:This was posted today on Paranormalreview.com

"RE Stuart Alexander Seance. The decision to liquidate was made on 22nd May. The cheques were cashed in June. Can someone offer some advice or a legal opinion on this?"

Inspiration, you say cheques were cashed in June so I guess that means your own cheque was cashed then. Can anyone else on here confirm their seance cheque was cashed? It's hard to believe they would do something like this, They'd be bound to get caught. It does sound a bit fishy though.

On the contrary Z, this is no unsubstantiated statement. There is, I understand, and from a number of different reliable sources, irrefutable evidence that a formal decision to liquidate took place at a Board meeting of the directors of Psychic Press (1995) Pty Ltd on May 22nd, 2010.

Let us be shown the evidence then we can make up out own minds. As Gascoyne stated at Conference that a decision had been taken to liquidate it should not be difficult to produce the evidence that it took place on May 22nd.

I think that is for time to produce Z, not a Forum, let the CIB get involved or let this move on to the point where the liquidator can properly be engaged. I am somewhat surprised at your positive support to the NEC and Mr Bruton.

In terms of this latest information I am sure that the people who need to know this occured are well aware of it even if they wished now it had not or could be unrecorded.

It does leave me a little concerned about what we may read in future, it may seem you have something up your sleeve you wish to reveal in due course. Sadly I am sure that the information we are seeing is the start of a flood which may make Mr Brutons Two Worlds interview rather hollow.

Well time will in this case bring everything out, let us see.

Admin wrote:I think that is for time to produce Z, not a Forum, let the CIB get involved or let this move on to the point where the liquidator can properly be engaged. I am somewhat surprised at your positive support to the NEC and Mr Bruton.

In terms of this latest information I am sure that the people who need to know this occured are well aware of it even if they wished now it had not or could be unrecorded.

It does leave me a little concerned about what we may read in future, it may seem you have something up your sleeve you wish to reveal in due course. Sadly I am sure that the information we are seeing is the start of a flood which may make Mr Brutons Two Worlds interview rather hollow.

Well time will in this case bring everything out, let us see.

You have obviously misunderstood my post, Jim.

I can categorically state that I do not support the NEC or Mr Bruton whom I do not know.

Like you and Lis, and some others on here, I am not a member of the SNU but I am interested in getting the facts not speculation.

There is nothing up my sleeve except my arm.

Mr Bruton's interview in "Two Worlds" gives his point of view and shouldn't be prejudged.

Z the date, the decision is a fact. It is not speculation. Fact. 22nd May 2010.

PS I am glad there is nothing up your sleeve except your arm!

The remarks made in the retiring SNU President’s address to the members at the Conference at Blackpool in early July, and those made by the new President, David Bruton, have given rise to considerable interest, as much for what they do not say as for what they do.

It is worth examining Mr. Gascoyne’s points:

1. Over previous years the President made clear the need for SNU members to support Psychic News, in other words - “Use it, or lose it.”

2. In July 2009 he said the future of PN was in the member’s hands but his words were not heeded.

3. It appeared to Mr. Gascoyne that there was no “real motive or incentive from the majority of SNU Spiritualists or the Movement in general to keep it (Psychic News) going …”

4. “ … apart from a few individuals who feel it should be kept going for historic or sentimental reasons.”

5. “feeling sentimental about it does not pay the high costs involved in publishing a weekly newspaper.”

6. Trustee’s Report noted “their concerns over the financial situation regarding Psychic Press (1995) Ltd.”

7. The situation at present (that is 3 July 2010) the Company (Psychic Press (1995) Pty Ltd) “cannot continue” – “it is no longer in a viable financial position to do so” and “we (the NEC) now have no choice (but) to take the appropriate action and liquidate it.”

8. “Due to the fact that Psychic Press (1995) Ltd is responsible for publishing Psychic News this now means that this in its present form will cease publication on the 31st July 2010.

9. “Over the past few weeks the Union has been looking at various ways of retaining Psychic News.

10. It is “quite clear … it cannot be done in its present format.”

11. “There has to be a completely new approach if it is to be revived and this has to be considered very carefully.”

12. Mr. Gascoyne did not remove David Bruton from his position of Executive Director of Psychic Press – this was an NEC decision - requested by David Bruton – “due to his other commitments.”

13. The rumour that Mr. Gascoyne “personally took the decision to close down Psychic News” is “completely untrue.”

14. Mr. Gascoyne has, “with the full knowledge of the other SNU Officers and those concerned spent a great amount of time and effort in trying to keep it going and also finding the finance to do this. Otherwise it would have shut down weeks ago.

15. The decision to liquidate was taken by the Board of Psychic Press (1995) Ltd and this has subsequently been endorsed by the National Executive Committee.

16. As the (retiring) SNU President Mr. Gascoyne announced he felt “that the Union churches and members should be informed first of all about the decisions made and reasons why.

17. He was sure that the “Psychic Press Report” would present “ideas for the future of Psychic News.”

The first two points suggest that it was up to SNU members to buy Psychic News if they wanted to see it continue. The paper’s future was entirely in their hands. But, did the company which ran Psychic News, or the parent company, the SNU, make any effort to increase circulation – among the SNU member churches and individuals? It would appear not.

One might also add that despite Mr. Gascoyne suggesting the fate of the paper was in the members hands – the members were not consulted before the decision to close down PN was taken. Would the membership of the SNU (quite apart from the many other subscribers of PN who were also not consulted) have decided that Psychic News should close? I seriously doubt that they would have.

Next, Mr. Gascoyne claimed there was no real motive or incentive from the majority of SNU Spiritualists or the Movement in general to keep Psychic News going apart from a few individuals who didn’t want to see it close for historical or sentimental reasons, and that sentimental reasons don’t pay the high costs of publishing a weekly paper.

One might well ask Mr. Gascoyne just how he established the validity of these claims. Did he approach “the majority of SNU Spiritualists”? Did he canvas the “Movement in general”? How did he determine there were only “a few individuals” who didn’t want to see PN close? How did he identify that the reasons of these ‘few individuals’ were purely historic or sentimental?

He was apparently suggesting there was NO ONE who had any desire or motivation to keep Psychic News because it had, for them, a meaning or purpose – a value. This is clearly untrue, as the many emails and phone calls expressing concern and unhappiness at the closure of PN undoubtedly testify.

Mr. Gascoyne then moved on to talk about the “high costs” of publishing a weekly Psychic News – though he does not, in his address give details, and draws attention to the “concerns” of the SNU Trustee’s regarding the “financial situation,” before moving quickly on to say that, as of that day, (3rd July 2010) the company could not continue because it was not in a “viable financial position” and there was NO choice but to liquidate it.

According to Mr. Gascoyne there was no choice but to liquidate the company because it was no longer financially viable but, to date, though Psychic News has ceased publication, the company, that is Psychic Press (1995) Ltd, has not been put into liquidation.

It is now over five weeks since the SNU membership were informed – and it still has not happened. Why? Not financially viable means unable to operate – insolvent – cannot pay its debts, etc. A serious situation and one, once the directors of the company are aware, that requires swift action to ensure compliance with legal requirements.

Either, the claim the company was not financially viable was untrue, or, if true, proper procedure has not been followed. Why?

Mr. Gascoyne also claimed that Psychic News would cease publication on 31st July. In reality, the plug was pulled on PN a week earlier, with the last edition dated 24th July. Again, no explanation for this change has been offered.

Interestingly, in relation to Psychic News ceasing publication, Mr. Gascoyne uses the words “in its present form,” which must suggest that Psychic Press might be once again published in some other form. Such an interpretation is strengthened by Mr. Gascoyne’s further remark that the “Union has been looking at various ways of retaining Psychic News” though not in its present format.

Mr. Gascoyne suggested that this “looking at various ways of retaining Psychic News” had been occurring “over the past few weeks” – an even more interesting comment as it might appear, from that wording, this consideration of alternative format, or attempts to retain Psychic News, has only very recently been considered. In reality, as I hope will eventually become clear, discussion, consideration, as to other forms of Psychic News, has actually been going on for quite a long time - much longer than a “few weeks;” just as the idea of closing Psychic News has been in the pipeline for very much longer than a few weeks.

Three other significant matters are drawn attention to by Mr. Gascoyne. First, the issue of Mr. Bruton’s departure from the role of Executive Director of Psychic Press (1995) Ltd., and secondly, Mr. Gascoyne’s denial of personally making the decision to close Psychic News. The third matter is of course the decision taken by the Board of Psychic Press to “liquidate.” I will examine those shortly in a further post.

Lis wrote:Z the date, the decision is a fact. It is not speculation. Fact. 22nd May 2010.

PS I am glad there is nothing up your sleeve except your arm!

Where is the evidence that it is a fact?

It may be correct but so far no-one has produced any evidence to support it.

When seeking knowledge of the continuity of life we look for evidence of survival (facts which can be substantiated).

This is the truth of Spiritualism - evidence, evidence, evidence!

It should be the same in all other areas too, don't you agree?

Who would simply accept survival if we just said it's a fact without any supporting evidence?

Mr. Gascoyne denied he was personally responsible for the decision to close down Psychic News. He states emphatically, this is completely untrue. The decision to liquidate was taken by the Board of Psychic Press, not Mr. Gascoyne.

As it happens, information now becoming available would suggest that Mr. Gascogne may have played quite a significant role in the demise of Psychic News, as may have the new President, David Bruton.

Perhaps we should also point out that David Bruton, the newly elected President, did, though removed as Executive Director of Psychic Press, at his request, “due to his other commitments,” continue on the 4 person Board of Psychic Press - as Chairman - and can also hardly be said to have had no involvement in what the Board decided would be the fate of Psychic Press and Psychic News this year.

So when exactly did the Board of Psychic Press (1995) Pty Ltd actually decide that Psychic News was no longer financially viable and must be placed in liquidation? Certainly one significant date is May 22nd, 2010, when a Psychic Press Board Meeting took place. Apparently a decision to that effect was formally made at that time. Sources also confirm this decision was subsequently endorsed by the National Executive Committee of the SNU. I understand that ‘endorsement,’ or ratification occurred at a NEC Board meeting on June 12th, 2010.

However, word has it that by the beginning of April 2010, there was already in existence a ‘Working Party’ set up to consider the future of Psychic News. We are trying to corroborate this. Apparently the working party ultimately ‘recommended’ to the Board of Psychic Press that the company should be liquidated, and this recommendation was what was approved on May 22nd, 2010, though action was deferred till the decision was ratified by the NEC.

Now I am not saying that a parent company, concerned about the financial viability of one of its subsidiaries, should not have the right to investigate that subsidiary's ability to continue functioning. Nor am I suggesting that a company should not, if it genuinely finds that the situation is so serious, decide to 'cut its losses' and put that subsidiary into liquidation, or at least administration. It might well be considered 'good business practice' to make such difficult decisions, despite the fact that there would be many who are upset by the decision. Ultimately a company cannot just keep a non-viable subsidiary in operation, no matter how distressed people might be to see it cease to exist.

The questions that arise in this situation are however more about whether the subsidiary (Psychic Press - Psychic News) was in fact no longer financially viable; whether attempts were made to resolve any financial problems; whether the parent company actually wanted to see that subsidiary cease to operate for other reasons, whether the decisions made were based on genuine financial issues or on other priorities; whether a fair and independent assessment of the viability of the subsidiary was undertaken; whether other solutions were sought or other financial options considered; whether the proper procedure for winding up the subsidiary were followed, and whether it is a process that will stand scrutiny.

It is evident, that many are not happy with the closure of PN. It is also evident that there is disquiet about the manner in which the closure of PN has been handled. There is considerable confusion due to the lack of transparency of the actions of the Directors of Psychic Press and the NEC.

As a postscript, however, I would ask the question: Surely the SNU, must realise that it is in the best interests of Spiritualism throughout the world, to accept the offer being made to purchase Psychic News, allowing it to remain as an Independent Voice for all Spiritualists. This would not prevent the SNU from establishing its own in-house publication, able to reflect the views and values of the SNU, but would ensure that all those who have been disadvantaged by their closing of PN would be fully recompensed by the new owners, especially since it is evident that the SNU has no intention to so honour those outstanding obligations.

As a postscript, however, I would ask the question: Surely the SNU, must realise that it is in the best interests of Spiritualism throughout the world, to accept the offer being made to purchase Psychic News, allowing it to remain as an Independent Voice for all Spiritualists. This would not prevent the SNU from establishing its own in-house publication, able to reflect the views and values of the SNU, but would ensure that all those who have been disadvantaged by their closing of PN would be fully recompensed by the new owners, especially since it is evident that the SNU has no intention to so honour those outstanding obligations.

When did the SNU ever consider the best interests of spiritualism?

I take your point Veritas! It does seem that the executive of the SNU is not considering the best interests of Spiritualism - rather what they consider their best interests. I don't know why I was so surprised to discover this - past history after all does highlight that the SNU power brokers have seldom really been in touch with what true Spiritualists are about.