@rensil, it’s unfortunate that you are puzzled but (a) it doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong in your claims, SMC never owned “Cedars”, and you have been misled or maybe fell into an assumption; (b) I am under no obligation to explain personal details about myself to you or anyone, it is not relevant, this is a point of fact we are discussing. You can look up land registry or whatever, so
Forum: Destructive Churches

Rensil, the house referred to as "Cedars" was not owned, operated by, or formally part of the Struthers Church. It was, and still is, a family home owned by private individuals, not the Church. The fact is many of the people who lived there over the years did also attend Struthers. However Alison Speirs certainly did not "oversee it all". It may have appeared that way to you b
Forum: Destructive Churches

CovLass If you are a member of a charity you can attend the AGM. Some would say SMC have been quite devious about the definition of "membership" over the years. Your rejection of Christianity: is it because of SMC?
Forum: Destructive Churches

Petitor You have got very confused by your assumptions. The house in the accounts is not the house you refer to as "the commune". Whether or not this house you consider to be a "commune" or not is irrelevant because it is a house owned by private individuals and nothing to do with SMC. The house in the accounts is not a commune. It was used by SMC to rent out to other priva
Forum: Destructive Churches

I see Chester has still not produced the letter despite saying he/she would when their conditions were met. "Physician heal thyself."
Forum: Destructive Churches

ThePetitor No you are wrong. I never recognised your use of the word "commune". That's why I put it in inverted commas. Your definition only proves that the house in Greenock is not a commune. As I said, it's a private home. The church-owned house you refer to is, not surprisingly, church-owned so they can rent it to whomever they like. I'm not sure why this interests
Forum: Destructive Churches

Petitor Speaking of being short on facts let me correct you. Yes anyone can go to the AGMs. The "commune" as you call it, is a private home so frankly it would be none of your business who rents a room in it. There is a house owned by SMC referred to in the public accounts as "Fidra operations". Is it unusual, illegal or in any way suspect for charities to own prop
Forum: Destructive Churches

Petitor All Latigo did was show information that was already publicly available. There seems to be some assumption that the congregation either don't attend the AGMS, don't want to, or cannot read the accounts. The implicaiton that this has been a revelation was already contested on here by Clive. I think he was correct to point out that there is no "smoking gun" here when
Forum: Destructive Churches

Yes, top staffer was a guy called C.Jewell who manages the coffee shops. According to last accounts he was paid about £32k p/a. The staff bill for the schools and coffee shops is clearly shown in the branch AGM and filed accounts. Individual employees salaries are almost always confidential in UK unless a paid directors which C.Jewell is. None of the pastors are on payroll. The school and churche
Forum: Destructive Churches

Petitor I just walked in and checked the AGM papers for one of the branch churches which is posted in the foyer of the building. The mission of the overall vision of SMC seems quite clearly stated in black and white: they support among other things the church school and bookshops. You could even see exactly how much money was gifted to each of these and how much remains in the branch. The AGM
Forum: Destructive Churches

Chester I don't think OSCR have any interest in theology. Some of the issues you raise in that last post are highly debatable (not from a regulatory or legal point of view), but beside the point. This OSCR "letter" you talk of: when are you going to let everyone see it? No-one said the letter to SMC, as you interpret it, actually exists. No-one denies OSCR has some recommenda
Forum: Destructive Churches

Petitor I think the short answer is that since 2007 they became an incorporated company and have to act in accordance with the law.
Forum: Destructive Churches

Hi Chester No-one accused you of lying. You say there is a "detailed letter". I say SMC have not talked about such a letter, nor has OSCR. Why won't you just show the letter? That's the part I don't get. You are not obliged to act in SMCs interest, and I think me, along with the other forum users would be interested to see just what OSCR really said, not what SMC claim
Forum: Destructive Churches

Hi Chester The fact is I am only telling you what I know. I have asked SMC if there was a set of detailed recommendations before I saw your post, and you have seen my reply. It's pretty obvious there will have been discussions over a long period of time between SMC and OSCR. The investigation lasted 2 years! Whether or not this constitutes your "detailed letter", how could I
Forum: Destructive Churches

Hi Corboy It's not a case of honesty as far as I can see. It is that the trustees are legally obliged to act in the interests of the charity. Clearly if such a letter exists and is as dsmning as suggested by Chester - it might not in the charity's interest to have it published. If OSCR wanted the public to know about it why didn't they publish it? All very confusing. I don&#
Forum: Destructive Churches

Hi Chester Thanks for your lengthy reply. I'm not going to try to respond to all your points because I think the one you want to hear is this: Yes, I - and others - asked SMC what "detailed letter" they had received, after reading about it on this forum. The response was that the concluding report of the investigation would be released by OSCR (it has), and that it was neithe
Forum: Destructive Churches

This forum was supposed to be about putting info about SMC into the public domain. If OSCR are not doing their job and there's contradictory information on SMC shouldn't it be put in the public domain also? I don't really follow what's happening with this investigation. On the one hand we have a public report which says there's nothing to see. On the other Chester has a n
Forum: Destructive Churches

@Chesterk55 Perhaps you should post it then so that these apparent contradictions can be resolved. As I said before, the official letter does appear to exonerate SMC. One might reasonably draw the conclusion that your private letter is not quite as damning to SMC as you made out.
Forum: Destructive Churches

@Chesterk55 The report on SMC from OSCR is here. The important part is this: QuoteAs we have previously publicly stated, the review of the charitable status of Struthers Memorial Church was suspended for some time to allow us to conduct a separate inquiry into various aspects of the operation of Struthers Memorial Church, including any private benefit or disbenefit arising from its activ
Forum: Destructive Churches

Hi Chester I can sense your frustration but please take a step back for a moment. Cheerylizard is not your problem, I am only pointing out what the general public and SMC members are hearing and will believe (so don't shoot the messenger). And I am not saying you don't have a point etc. etc. or have not been hurt. But please don't make the mistake you and others have made before
Forum: Destructive Churches

I've now had a chance to read through this forum. All 140 pages! Stick with me on this post please ... I'm more on your side than SMCs and could post in the future some extremely damaging information about SMC, if I felt so inclined. I am not a member but have been closely associated to SMC people in the past, over quite a long period of time. While it's interesting to see peopl
Forum: Destructive Churches

Fascinating to read what is going on in SMC and people's response to it. I think @Phoebe2 has hit the nail on the head, from my experience: insular and theologically unsound would pretty much sum it up. It's not a cult though. I am far from being an apologist for SMC and their bizarre ways, but I think it should be noted that OSCR did in fact exonerate the group and the investigation
Forum: Destructive Churches