Psychic Press to go into creditors voluntary liquidation

Admin wrote:Interesting I asked others whether they had heard of a new centre for the SNU. Then a good friend in USA tells me they have received the same questions in America; about the SNU's purchase of a new centre and whether they are leaving Stansted. It appears that in the USA the person raising the question seems to be fairly sure that a new centre is being bought, which of course raised in their minds the same issue about leaving Stansted Hall that I had.

Curioser and Curioser; but they still can't deal with their ex staff in an appropriate manner or let go of Psychic News. I remember a story about a monkey that was so greedy it was caught because it would not release the nuts it was holding in its hand. Is there anything to all of this and the core group of the NEC with its planning. Does anyone see any parallels?

Gotta say it all sounds pretty unlikely to me - just what would the point be? And how would a new centre be organised and staffed? Anyone from the UK would need work permits to operate legally over here, always a possibility but a huge undertaking - and to what end? What has the SNU to offer in the UK let alone over here in the USA where Modern Spiritualism is scarcely known about let alone understood.

Hi Mac,

I think you have misunderstood what Admin wrote. The SNU has apparently purchased property in the UK - not in the USA. However, questions have been asked in America about what the SNU is doing (so word is spreading fast).

Word is spreading fast in the UK as well about this alleged purchase of a property for half a million pounds. The question being asked is of course just why would the SNU need another property so large it would cost that amount of money?

Is it contemplating the sale of Stanstead (a very valuable property that developers would love to get hold of) and relocating the college elsewhere? Or is this property that has been bought for some other purpose?

Lis wrote:Hi Mac,

I think you have misunderstood what Admin wrote. The SNU has apparently purchased property in the UK - not in the USA. However, questions have been asked in America about what the SNU is doing (so word is spreading fast).

Word is spreading fast in the UK as well about this alleged purchase of a property for half a million pounds. The question being asked is of course just why would the SNU need another property so large it would cost that amount of money?

Is it contemplating the sale of Stanstead (a very valuable property that developers would love to get hold of) and relocating the college elsewhere? Or is this property that has been bought for some other purpose?

oops But looking at the original piece I think you may see why I gained this wrong impression.

On the matter of half a million quid to buy another base, it really isn't so large an amount for a commercial property and there would be change left over if Stansted Hall was sold. A modern property might make more sense anyway in terms of operating costs although it remains to be seen whether there's any truth to the story - or whether this bunch have any real interest in the SNU's interests at all.....

Presently things don't look encouraging.

On another site I asked whether anyone knew about the purchase of the new centre. I received the following answer which may be of help to our understanding.

There was some talk a year or so ago that the SNU were to invest in some centralised education centre, or some form of travelling resource to cover the UK and take Stansted courses to the churches.

I replied to this information with the following post

In honesty decentralising the training to the regional areas makes good sense. I understand that there are a fair number of tutors around so the rate of training could increase. The fact that you can be a Tutor and work from home may even attract more people to teaching. It may even be possible to put on evening events by placing them conveniently closer to major population centres. Additionally modern premises could be better suited and equipped to use an array of teaching methods.

I would also feel it would discourage the elitism that may form around one single “special” centre and may indeed help to re engage the District Councils as part of the effort to create excellence. However, if each Centre has a Tutor in charge, you may see the creation of separate Fiefdoms unless due care is taken. The one thing we must all be able to see clearly by now is that the organisations that run Spiritualism are as heavily influenced by the interplay of politics and power as any other organisation created by Mankind.

I suppose my basic problem is that the content and methodology of courses needs review now. Whilst the AFC appears, by the SNU accounts, to have become a spectacular commercial success worldwide the standards of speaking and demonstrating have declined alarmingly. I understand they have developed a new “quick” method of training but quick fixes do not deliver properly trained and able Mediums/Speakers with the depth of experience for Church Platforms. College training should be a finishing school for the work done in closed development groups either in a Church or at home. Instant 3 day courses may match the modern attention span but do not deliver Mediums from beginners. Indeed they give a bigger problem because after a couple of courses people expect to be mediums these days.

It begs the question about Stansted Hall, which is in a very valuable location, in addition it must be expensive to run and maintain. Clearly traditionalists would hate to see this go and I doubt anyone would be brave enough to announce its sale until it was a Fait Accompli. I am sure the current NEC would deny any such motives but their action with Psychic News shows tradition falls well behind ruthless commercial action in their planning. It’s a burning question, is Stansted Hall a sacred cow for the SNU, or a white elephant in the eyes of its executive committee (or even a cash cow to complete the animal comparisons).

Oh well it will be very interesting to see what transpires. Given the rigid way the NEC have stuck to their plans with PN, despite all the wheels falling off, I am sure they have similar plans in mind which they will deliver in an equally single minded way and ruthless way. Whoever helps them with the upcoming 10 year plan will just have to factor in these significant decisions, which it seems could well have been made already.

Jim

It is increasingly looking like the Psychic News item was only a decoy to disguise the real target.
However, the world does move on, as do all who sail on her and any attempts to deiiver accurate evidential Mediumship must be welcome. A mission statement from the NEC would also be welcome.

When it is considered that the SNU utterly, immediately and contemptibly reneged on its agreement with Arthur Findlay over the purpose and use of the Arthur Findlay College as a University for gifted Mediumistic individuals, instead grabbing the loot and misappropriating it, wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity - should the liquidising of The Arthur Findlay College and its substantial lands prove to be the real intention - to cleanse themselves spiritually in belatedly returning the proceeds to Arthur's family?

What an example of Spirituality and honourable conduct in this increasingly materialistic world, a beacon of morality and demonstrating practical 'how to live' vibrations to the World.
As the SNU seem to view themselves as the apex of Spiritual understanding, can they afford not to?

mac wrote:

zerdini wrote:Mac, are you suggesting karma isn't real?

I know, I know..... I'm spoiling it for the folks who believe it is. I'd be getting my wrists slapped again by the moderator on that certain website where it happened before.

Telling things straight isn't allowed - you have to sugar coat it for those who can't deal with directness....

jeeeezzzzz......

Just had to answer your post from long ago Mac!

What's the saying 'tell it as it is!'.

Joanie

petal34 wrote:

mac wrote:

zerdini wrote:Mac, are you suggesting karma isn't real?

I know, I know..... I'm spoiling it for the folks who believe it is. I'd be getting my wrists slapped again by the moderator on that certain website where it happened before.

Telling things straight isn't allowed - you have to sugar coat it for those who can't deal with directness....

jeeeezzzzz......

Just had to answer your post from long ago Mac!

What's the saying 'tell it as it is!'.

Joanie

You're a long-term member of one of the websites, Joanie, and a newbie on the others.

The owners of the websites, and certain contributors to forums on them hated me to express things directly or to challenge what had been said. In those cases they confused a challenge to beliefs and claims with disrespect of the individual.

I always say that if you can't defend your position you shouldn't be putting it into the public domain for discussion.

mac wrote:

petal34 wrote:

mac wrote:

zerdini wrote:Mac, are you suggesting karma isn't real?

I know, I know..... I'm spoiling it for the folks who believe it is. I'd be getting my wrists slapped again by the moderator on that certain website where it happened before.

Telling things straight isn't allowed - you have to sugar coat it for those who can't deal with directness....

jeeeezzzzz......

Just had to answer your post from long ago Mac!

What's the saying 'tell it as it is!'.

Joanie

You're a long-term member of one of the websites, Joanie, and a newbie on the others.

The owners of the websites, and certain contributors to forums on them hated me to express things directly or to challenge what had been said. In those cases they confused a challenge to beliefs and claims with disrespect of the individual.

I always say that if you can't defend your position you shouldn't be putting it into the public domain for discussion.

Salutes Mac!

According to my sources within the SNU it seems that all the former PN staff have now received their long overdue redundancy payments.

Better late than never I suppose!.

Hmm Z

How would the SNU pay the Psychic Press staff. We are in the midst of a Liquidation and they pay up not the SNu. Anyway the full cost is, I expect, over 50,000 pounds where is it coming from?

Recheck this please I have other sources that say this has not happnned. Are you sure the SNUtipus have not made the HM Government pay out on their behalf for their ill deeds. Or are the SNU up to something new to try and rescue themselves.

If its true just how much money are the NEC spending at the moment ..with their new centres as well. Amazing are they accountable to the Membership?

Admin wrote:Hmm Z

How would the SNU pay the Psychic Press staff. We are in the midst of a Liquidation and they pay up not the SNu. Anyway the full cost is, I expect, over 50,000 pounds where is it coming from?

Recheck this please I have other sources that say this has not happnned. Are you sure the SNUtipus have not made the HM Government pay out on their behalf for their ill deeds. Or are the SNU up to something new to try and rescue themselves.

If its true just how much money are the NEC spending at the moment ..with their new centres as well. Amazing are they accountable to the Membership?

I never said the SNU paid it. It was statutory redundancy pay viz.

Statutory redundancy pay basics

You have the right to a statutory redundancy payment if you are an employee who has worked continuously for your employer for at least two years and you are being made redundant.

Statutory redundancy pay is also due when a fixed-term contract of two years or more expires and is not renewed because of redundancy.

You do not have to claim statutory redundancy pay from your employer, they should automatically pay it to you. If your employer does not give you statutory redundancy pay when you are entitled to it you should write to them asking for payment. If your employer still refuses to pay you or cannot make the payment you could make an appeal to an Employment Tribunal.

How much statutory redundancy pay you will receive depends on:

•how long you have worked for your employer
•your age
•your pay

Statutory redundancy pay

The calculation for your statutory redundancy pay is based on:

•how long you have been continuously employed
•your age
•your weekly pay, up to a certain limit (£380 current maximum, this will increase to £400 on 1 February 2011)

You will get:

•0.5 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was under 22
•1 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was 22 or above, but under 41
•1.5 week’s pay for each full year of service where your age was 41 or above

For example: If you are 45, your weekly pay is £380 per week (£400 per week from 1 February 2011) and you have completed 15 years’ full service, you will receive £6,460 statutory redundancy pay.

Step one: 1.5 weeks x 4 years full service when you were 41 or above = 6 weeks

Step two: 1 week x 11 years service when you were under 41 = 11 weeks

Step three: 6 weeks + 11 weeks = 17 weeks x £380 (max weekly wage) (£400 from 1 February 2011) = £6,460 statutory redundancy pay (£6,800 from 1 February 2011)

The online calculator can help work out how much statutory redundancy pay you might be entitled to
The number of weeks’ redundancy pay you should receive is worked out up until a set ‘relevant date’. It is important to know when this date is so you can work out how many full years of continuous service you have.

The 'relevant date' can be a number of dates. In most cases it will be the date when your employment ends (eg the last day of your notice period). In some situations it will be different:

•if your employer gave you a statutory notice period until a set date, then changed your notice period to finish earlier - the relevant date will be when your notice should have finished before it changed

•if you are on a trial period for another position within the company and your employer lets you go because the work is not suitable - the relevant date would be when your original contract ended before the trial period
•if you do not have a statutory notice period (eg because of a payment in lieu arrangement) the relevant date would be when your employment contract would have ended if you had a statutory notice period.

Redundancy pay under £30,000 is not taxable.

I was just pleased to hear that the PN staff received their statutory redundancy pay. As for the other matters..... I have not the slightest interest as I am not a member of the SNU.

zerdini wrote:According to my sources within the SNU it seems that all the former PN staff have now received their long overdue redundancy payments.

Better late than never I suppose!.

hooray for that - better late than never, it's said, but better not late at all is how I see things....

Ok thanks for the definition Z so its the UK Government who has been forced to pay out. I thought for a moment the SNU had found a conscience.

It did make me wonder where they are finding teh cash if they were to pay this out plus open a Lincoln Pioneer Centre and these rumours of teaching centres

Gosh these threads have been left a long time. We are still here and ready to report anything we get to those who are following the thread by automatic updates. However, this thread had many non member watchers so if any of you know them just give them a nudge that there is a new post.
I just wonder if anyone has heard anything at all. Last known, from the creditors meeting, meetings were to take place about the asset ownership, the masthead and archives

Does anyone know the progress it’s about 3 months and nothing seems to be going on. Maybe after the Berley’s fiasco this liquidator is being ultra cautious but I would have expected something by now. Surely discussions and even the obtaining of any necessary legal advice should not take this long.

I suppose the fact that the NEC is not crowing about their claims being vindicated may at least be a positive sign. I also note that publiceye was supposedly involved in all of this but we have not heard from her either so things must be in limbo.

I still have not had confirmation of Z’s comment that the Government scheme has paid the staff the small proportion of their entitlements. Z’s sources are usually good so I presume they have.

What an absolute shambles, what a mess the NEC have made of this, the lives of their staff and the beloved Psychic news.

The creditors meeting indicated the NEC has substantial debts to write off from Psychic Press which would have escalated dramatically with all the bungled liquidation, non liquidation then liquidation again. The paper has now been close for nearly 8 months and restarting it will be harder for anyone. Of course had they accepted the funds offered way back before the closure no one needed to lose anything, especially the loyal staff. The losses faced by everyone must now be substantial, especially with the costs loaded on from liquidation attempts So from taking the money and losing nothing to losing a figure which a reasoned estimate would place to be well above 150,000 pounds with lost staff entitlements. On top of that the NEC would have been able to present a plan for the future not an attempt to liquidate and subsume the assets.

Instead of now looking about as bad as it could ever appear over these actions the NEC may have been heroes by doing the right thing last year

I've had this running through my mind only a few days back, wondering if the liquidation process was actually underway. We've heard nothing from publiceye recently or about the registered title wrangle....

It's worse than a shambles it's a damned disgrace and I wonder how the NEC can live with what they've done and with what they haven't done that they ought to have!!!

The debacle over PN I see as symbolic of the state of Modern Spiritualism whose public face in the UK - and perhaps elsewhere - was once symbolised and represented by the SNU.

Sad, but seemingly too late to be changed.....

Well said Mac

Roy Stemman and Sue Farrow are both trustees of the STF so they could say something.

zerdini wrote:Roy Stemman and Sue Farrow are both trustees of the STF so they could say something.

They could, but......

It would appear that whatever is happening is very much behind closed doors I just hope the NEC are not concocting another Black Adder like scheme another cunning plan B.....

This posted elsewhere by Public Eye
Psychic News assets for sale
by publiceye Today at 0:00


I recived an email Last night at 21.50, to say that the assets of Psychic press 1995 will be for sale The Deadline for reponses is 4pm on friday 25th March 2011. offers of over £150,000. I and other intrested partys have been unable to contact the Liquidators to get a full picture of what is actualy for sale, as she seems to have not come in yet all morning then went strait to lunch.
The Email States that Quote An indefinite licence to publish the paper and to hold and
use the archives. UnQuote.

I replied
Re: Psychic News assets for sale
by Admin Today at 12:42


Thanks Public Eye, if your information is correct (I am sure you have been close enough to be accurate) then they are after an awful lot of money for what they are offering.

I am concerned of this of an indefinite licence. If the assets are up for sale then they belong to the buyer, indeed to be up for sale thay must have always belonged to Psychic Press 1995 Ltd. What is clear is that the SNU would not sell these assets if they were the owner, they made that clear back in August last year so who or what is the licence coming from.

This of a "licence" sounds like a way to make the dishonourable NEC sound better about making their, now transparently incorrect, statement that the "owned them". I suspect we see some weasel words from their self appointed liquidator to create some spin. This gives them a strange chance to say, we own them but out of the kindness of our hearts we will give a licence to a buyer to recover Creditors money (of which they are likely to receive a fair chunk as a major creditor). Then if the buyer falls over the assets go back to the SNU.

Utter bosh from the look of it, as I would expect any intelligent thinking person will probably realise. Had the assets actually belonged to the SNU they would have kept them and told everyone to go away. They have made that very clear at all stages in this terribly sad and sorry saga

In that case the liquidation would be over now in a totally insolvent way with only the Liquidator getting paid out.

Well thats my take on it based upon events to date.

Of course if someone bought it and the SNU banned it with their members then they could get a self fulfilling wish by then getting the assets in a very underhand way. Very much in keeping with their cunning strategies to date that have hurt so many.

Hi Public Eye,

Could you please clarify to whom the words: "An indefinite licence to publish the paper and to hold and use the archives" applies?

Are you saying that Psychic Press is for sale and the purchaser would also have to purchase this license in order to publish Psychic News or does what you got actually convey that a condition of sale would be that the SNU is given an indefinite license to publish PN and to use the archives?

It is important to establish which option this statement actually means.

I'm struggling to understand any of this.

Can anyone please simplify what's being offered, by whom and to whom?

Mac,

I am not certain

For the sake of simplicity it would appear that the Liquidator is putting the masthead and archives up for sale, for 150,000 pounds or more.

Now we know that the SNU claimed ownership of these assets. If that were the case then the liquidator would have nothing to sell.

Therefore Psychic Press 1995 must have owned the assets. The declaration made by the SNU (on their website, at the Creditors meeting and in August last year) of owning these assets must have been incorrect. Indeed as they did not own them then Psychic Press 1995 did.

Indeed last August, when the Directors knew the Company was insolvent, their first duty was to protect the creditors, not shareholders, from losses in a liquidation. So as PP 1995 owned those assets they should then have sold out to the JV Trust to prevent further losses.

However, that was then and now the Liquidator is offering the assets for sale. To raise the maximum for the Creditors these should go to the highest bidder. However, it appears that her offer to sell is conditional as it is only for an indefinite licence for the use of the masthead and archives.

Now this would mean that once the use of the masthead and archives ceases then the ownership would revert to someone.

It is, however, rather unclear whether
1. The buyer must grant an indefinite licence of use to the SNU or
2. Someone gives the buyer, for a large sum of money, a licence to use the masthead and archives so long as the paper stays in print.

Neither seems likely
A. I can hardly invisage a buyer paying all that money and then handing an indefinite license of use to the SNU.
B. Who would be granting the buyer just a licence for something they are buying from the liquidator. If the assets belong to PP 1995, a company which should go on to be liquidated, then there is no residual owner to grant a licence or take the assets back. In this case I can only believe it is a creation of the liquidator to enable the SNU to retain some hold over the assets albeit they are unintitled to.

Of course if over 150,000 is paid it is not entirely impossible that the company liquidation would cease, especially if the SNU forgave some of their debt (or left it as outstanding) and all the other creditors were paid out. Psychic Press 1995 would then remain in existence, having granted a license of use for the time the new publisher was in existence. The SNU would stll own PP 1995 and if the new publication failed ownership would revert to PP 1995 and therefore the SNU.

You can see all the elements of my earlier premonition, an NEC Blackadder Cunning Plan, falling into place. If all the other creditors are paid leaving only the SNU unpaid they can keep the Company alive and then when the new publisher falls over they get the assets back.

Of course they are, as the mouthpiece of a large body of Spiritualists, in a position where they may be able to hasten the end by trying to influence the circulation. Of course, if perchance a Trust bought the licence, they may also try to stress to some third party that a trust supporting a commercially invalid business is operating outside the guidelines of the charity commissioners, the very reason they claimed the SNU were unable to continue support.

However, I am sure anyone stumping up the money would not fall into the trap of safeguards on those issues. Then if also the licence was entirely unconditional, free and perpetual it may be an alternate way to move forward in this morass. However for a licence for something which needs investment to get it going again the price is far too high.

Surely the UK Company law has not become do wimpish and owner friendly that the NEC and a Liquidator can be allowed to pull off such an unethical and unspiritual stunt. We all realise that both of those parties seem to want this but can they?

The final question I have is what happens with Public Eyes Company and Trade Mark registration?

Jeez - what a mess!

I can scarcely follow even though you've simplified it as much as you have. Thanks for trying to make it less complicated.

This business looks like running for months more. What a total disgrace.

On another thread publiceye gave us some great enlightenment to the crazy world of the NEC and their Liquidator

Re: Psychic News assets for sale
by publiceye Yesterday at 21:36


The liqidator owns the company, but because the newspaper went into liquidation five months after they stopped printing it and the fact that they anounced on the SNU web site that they were not liqudating the company, but keeping it for the sale of the books. Coppled with this I started my company before they liquidated their company and their company liquidated at a later date after they had stoped using the name. They have no rights to that name, Good will can only be estabished if a comany is trading with the name at the time of liquidation, as soon as a company stops trading then good will can not be estabilsed and that is the UK law.
I taked to the liqidator yesterday and I pointed that out to her, I also told her that I have taken legal advice about people trading using the name that I own. She told me that the only asets that are for sale are the arcives not the name. I pointed out to her that her add said the liecence to use the name Psychic News, she said that this was going to be changed. I also pointed out that arcives for any British newspaper are held at the British libary and they can be accesed by anyone. The company is for sale, but their is nothing to sell.
I have taken legal advice from lawyers who specialize in Intelectual property and company names and I have been adviced that even if someone uses my name without my permmision them the assets of anything used in the prosses will be taken by the court and they will have to pay a hefty fine.
I have been told that the SNU are willing to go into a jiont venture to get the paper back out and that it is the other two partys that will not work with them. The SNU opposed my trade make and are now open to pay the leagal costs, for that as you can only oppose a mark if you are the legal owner which has now been clearly estabished that they are not.
I think it was all a plan to not pay the creditors and still have the paper, this is because, why try to trade mark a name at the same time place on their web site that they will not be bringing the paper back out. If I had not applyed for the trade mark first they would have been able to do this.
I now have two papers online under my company Psychic News LTD and the both paper will go to print as soon as all the legal issues are finalised.
Someone made a coment that they seam to know what they were doing on an earlyer post. I think that buy the end of all this people will see just how thick some people really are. I have paid for experts to sort this when it could have all been sorted if people would just talk to each other insted of ignoring them, but at the end of the day they have to listen and pay the price of their actions. I ask all the people involved in this situation to sit down and talk, I am sure that everyone just wants a newspaper that they can have a vioce out their. I have been given backing form my local council to publish my papers and I am now considering putting this paper my self, just to get it out their.

I replied

publiceye wrote:
I taked to the liqidator yesterday and I pointed that out to her, I also told her that I have taken legal advice about people trading using the name that I own. She told me that the only asets that are for sale are the arcives not the name. I pointed out to her that her add said the liecence to use the name Psychic News, she said that this was going to be changed. I also pointed out that arcives for any British newspaper are held at the British libary and they can be accesed by anyone.
I have been told that the SNU are willing to go into a jiont venture to get the paper back out and that it is the other two partys that will not work with them.

What a muddled web, your comment about her having to change the ad because she cannot sell the title Psychic News is interesting. It seems that having said she would talk to you earlier she failed to and has left the whole thing in a worse state. I do believe that if Psychic Press 1995 was resurrected and began to produce the paper again its existing rights to the name, established over so many years, would be a sufficient defence for them. However I have always wondered about the right to transfer the name elsewhere which would cause conflict with your company and name registrations.

The point about a joint venture is laughable, why would anyone else join in a joint venture. Presumably the idea was to pay out all the debts which would mean if the SNU contributed they would get all that back and a bonus as their debt was paid out. What a cunning idea of theirs but after their appalling behaviour on all this and the stunts they have pulled why would anybody go into a partnership with them. Clearly this was just another cunning plan concocted between the NEC and their appointed liquidator.

Indeed it was not just the cost of paying out the creditors but can you really imagine the SNU shelling out their proportion of the expense involved in relaunching Psychic News, Losses, Advertising, Wages etc., until it reached break even. As an experienced senior Finance Manager I would be surprised if you had any change left out of 150,000 ponds to do that part.

The NEC reminds me of the monkey with its hand stuck in the cookie jar. In this case it is to hold onto the masthead and archives. They have kept going on and on thus causing more harm to others as well as damaging the SNU's reputation. Scarily. although this is a creditors liquidation, it appears they have had the help of the two firms of liquidators who they appointed to come up with new ideas one also presumes that the Committee of Inspection is unable to have any impact or is being ignored. Surely someone should have told them long ago to let go of these things and move on.

I think it was all a plan to not pay the creditors and still have the paper, this is because, why try to trade mark a name at the same time place on their web site that they will not be bringing the paper back out. If I had not applyed for the trade mark first they would have been able to do this.

Well had not the whistle been blown on here, which lit some sort of a fire, it is clear to me PP1995 would have been liquidated prior to the SNU convention in Blackpool. Yes publiceye you state a very important point...Had the SNU owned the masthead they would not have tried to register a trade mark. Had they done so they would have just let the creditors go I suspect. In honesty publiceye it appears your action may lead to some monies paid out as a bonus to stopping another cunning plan of theirs.