Jings - Leggoland

[the gunslinger 3,366]

these threads never fail to deliver.

[Zappa 0]

It's worth taking into account that while Leggo does get some things right on the money, he also gets some things completely wrong.

 

He slagged Whyte off rotten then eventually changed his tune and tried to convince us that Whyte was a good guy shortly before we went into administration.

 

Whyte then became a bad guy again and the "True Blue Knights" were the good guys while Charles Green quickly became a "snake oil salesman" in planet Leggoland before another about course and Green was all of a sudden a good guy.

 

It seems to me that the only consistent thing coming from Leggo in the past year is inconsistency.

 

#pinchofsaltloyal

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Thanks for the reply.

 

It seems someone has asked Leggat to discredit you publicly.

 

I wonder who that could have been?

 

I am in no doubt where the information came from and I doubt anyone else will be who has followed events these past two years.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Now I'm confused. When I said earlier the RST administered the account, I was told "that was rubbished on here by several posters only last week". Now you're saying the RST did in fact administer it?

 

No big deal but plenty of confusion, I'd say.

 

At the time when I was Secretary of the Trust in late 2009 I identified that there were issues with the Gersave Scheme regarding: Definitions, Purchases, Repayment of Contributions, Interest and Administrators; the most serious of which in my opinion was that contributions were being refunded to members in circumstances other than on death, such refunds were not allowed under the rules of the scheme. Furthermore inadequate records were kept and were not fully reconciled to my knowledge during my time in office, although the then assistant secretary and my successor in office Gordon Stewart, certainly did a lot of hard work on it and my understanding is that he came close to a full reconciliation though I never saw the figures.

 

I raised this issue with the auditors but they did not consider it their duty to audit the scheme as the monies did not belong to the Trust.

 

I re-wrote the rules to remedy the issues that I had identified and these were adopted by the Board after lengthy debate particlarly on the issue of refunding contributions.

 

However I was subsequently prevented from implementing the necessary changes.

 

I will write a more detailed piece on this when I have more time but suffice to say for the moment that I am not aware of any evidence that any money was missappropriated, certainly rules were broken but that is not the same thing.

 

I hope this will answer some of the questions that have been raised in the meantime.

[plgsarmy 111]

At the time when I was Secretary of the Trust in late 2009 I identified that there were issues with the Gersave Scheme regarding: Definitions, Purchases, Repayment of Contributions, Interest and Administrators; the most serious of which in my opinion was that contributions were being refunded to members in circumstances other than on death, such refunds were not allowed under the rules of the scheme. Furthermore inadequate records were kept and were not fully reconciled to my knowledge during my time in office, although the then assistant secretary and my successor in office Gordon Stewart, certainly did a lot of hard work on it and my understanding is that he came close to a full reconciliation though I never saw the figures.

 

I raised this issue with the auditors but they did not consider it their duty to audit the scheme as the monies did not belong to the Trust.

 

I re-wrote the rules to remedy the issues that I had identified and these were adopted by the Board after lengthy debate particlarly on the issue of refunding contributions.

 

However I was subsequently prevented from implementing the necessary changes.

 

I will write a more detailed piece on this when I have more time but suffice to say for the moment that I am not aware of any evidence that any money was missappropriated, certainly rules were broken but that is not the same thing.

 

I hope this will answer some of the questions that have been raised in the meantime.

 

Dear Gersave member, we are not giving you your own money back because you are not dead. That would have been popular.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Dear Gersave member, we are not giving you your own money back because you are not dead. That would have been popular.

 

But those were the rules and presumably those who wrote them and spent how much was it, please remind me of the exact figure because it was before my time, tens of thousands of pounds if I recall, put them there for a reason.

 

I agree with you that it was bad rule and it was one of those that I re-wrote to meet the practical situation that you faced as Treasurer; but that doesn't excuse the fact that the rules were routinely broken.

 

I am pleased to note that you are not contesting that fact and that your radar is still working well.

[plgsarmy 111]

But those were the rules and presumably those who wrote them and spent how much was it, please remind me of the exact figure because it was before my time, tens of thousands of pounds if I recall, put them there for a reason.

 

I agree with you that it was bad rule and it was one of those that I re-wrote to meet the practical situation that you faced as Treasurer; but that doesn't excuse the fact that the rules were routinely broken.

 

I am pleased to note that you are not contesting that fact and that your radar is still working well.

 

I am not confirming or denying anything, except that the RST is sitting on £93K of members money. You are the one who brought up rules and other business that doesn't belong on a public forum.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I am not confirming or denying anything, except that the RST is sitting on £93K of members money. You are the one who brought up rules and other business that doesn't belong on a public forum.

 

Why doesn't it belong on a public forum?

[Zappa 0]

Is there no NDA in place at the Trust?

[craig 5,199]

Dear Gersave member, we are not giving you your own money back because you are not dead. That would have been popular.

 

Instead of being facetious you might want to have taken a look at the Gersave rules in place at the time. If BH is correct that the rules of the scheme didnt allow refunds unless on death then the Board were derelict in their duties in actually refunding.

 

Surely those who made contributions were also given a copy of the schemes rules ? If so, all you actually needed to do was inform them that a refund couldnt be made under the terms of the scheme and then point them to the relevant section or Article.

 

Your explanation is a very poor attempt at giving reason why refunds should be made and, in fact, rather than defending the RST makes them look even more foolish for making refunds that were clearly not allowed to be made under the Gersave rules.

 

Assuming BH's account is accurate of course.