Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2012 15:00:35 GMT -5
it looks to me like baptism would be pretty much standard fare for all attendees.
|
|
|
Post by stevemid on Jul 19, 2012 8:47:06 GMT -5
Mmmm. Can't really understand why the misdirection. The info that I typed in corresponded with the position shown at the bottom of the screen. Oh well, just type in West Hanney. You will easily see the meeting and dining tents in the lower left hand corner of the village. The image was taken in 2009 on a nice sunny day. You can also click lower left where it says 2004. You will see a snaphot that was obviously taken shortly after the tents came down that year as their outline is still clearly visible.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 19, 2012 13:04:20 GMT -5
Mmmm. Can't really understand why the misdirection. The info that I typed in corresponded with the position shown at the bottom of the screen. Oh well, just type in West Hanney. You will easily see the meeting and dining tents in the lower left hand corner of the village. The image was taken in 2009 on a nice sunny day. You can also click lower left where it says 2004. You will see a snaphot that was obviously taken shortly after the tents came down that year as their outline is still clearly visible. I think the E should be W.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2012 21:55:07 GMT -5
Mmmm. Can't really understand why the misdirection. The info that I typed in corresponded with the position shown at the bottom of the screen. Oh well, just type in West Hanney. You will easily see the meeting and dining tents in the lower left hand corner of the village. The image was taken in 2009 on a nice sunny day. You can also click lower left where it says 2004. You will see a snaphot that was obviously taken shortly after the tents came down that year as their outline is still clearly visible. I think the E should be W. But in Christ, there is no E or W~
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 19, 2012 22:02:35 GMT -5
I think the E should be W. But in Christ, there is no E or W~ ;D
|
|
|
Post by humphrey on Nov 15, 2012 10:05:11 GMT -5
The subject of the closure of West Hanney continues to be much talked about.
Does anyone have anything more definitive on the finances of the setting up of the new grounds?
By all accounts the new people who are caretakers on the new grounds are lovely people and I hope things go well for them and they don't get in any way swallowed up by the controversy that the new grounds have created.
One thing that has been made evident with time is the character of different individuals involved in the saga.
Those who have made insinuations and statements about the Hanney owners and thought they could get away with it have basically been caught out as time goes by. That type of behaviour never helps anybody. Time going by did not lead to their insinuations sticking, but rather time has allowed people to examine the validity of them. With time people watching from the sidelines have been quietly given the opportunity to discern what’s been actually going on.
Obviously when the ‘in law’ made his 'attack' in his testimony at the last Hanney convention, it brought the situation to the fore. I can see cases for and against him doing this – he obviously felt the ‘unfairness’ very keenly. The West Hanney family ,and blood relatives, remained very dignified , through their restraint and silence. And with time, their continued right spirit , their warmth to other friends, their obvious heartiness and integrity for spiritual things (made very visible by their lack of vengeance) stands out as a beacon - in contrast to attitudes that have been shown towards them through actions and words of others.
It’s good that time does allow our eyes to adjust to see things as they are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2012 17:45:04 GMT -5
Don't see what's cheeky about taking a £1m dividend.
In fact, taking money like that out of the business is probably more scriptural as they can then use that money for good causes and various needs in and out of the kingdom.
But leaving the money in the business and and growing it?...... well, it could lead to the temptation of living for this life with the "pulling down of barns and building greater' etc .
We wouldn't want any of the friends succumbing to that !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2012 19:32:06 GMT -5
It works like this.
The Armstrongs, accumulate a few of those nice juicy dividends.
they purchase a property in England alongside all the other good deeds they do with their money.
They are able to kindly let the caretaker couple use it while also supporting themselves with a little business on site.
They also enquired if the english overseer could use the property in any way- a bit like the owner of the room letting Jesus use it for the last supper.
Apparently, the overseer said 'yes'.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 16, 2012 19:56:51 GMT -5
It works like this. The Armstrongs, accumulate a few of those nice juicy dividends. they purchase a property in England alongside all the other good deeds they do with their money. They are able to kindly let the caretaker couple use it while also supporting themselves with a little business on site. They also enquired if the english overseer could use the property in any way- a bit like the owner of the room letting Jesus use it for the last supper. Apparently, the overseer said 'yes'. I doubt that's the order in which it happened... but then perhaps you didn't intend your narrative to be sequential.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 16, 2012 20:09:47 GMT -5
It works like this. The Armstrongs, accumulate a few of those nice juicy dividends. they purchase a property in England alongside all the other good deeds they do with their money. They are able to kindly let the caretaker couple use it while also supporting themselves with a little business on site. They also enquired if the english overseer could use the property in any way- a bit like the owner of the room letting Jesus use it for the last supper. Apparently, the overseer said 'yes'. I doubt that's the order in which it happened... but then perhaps you didn't intend your narrative to be sequential. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 16, 2012 21:02:12 GMT -5
I doubt that's the order in which it happened... but then perhaps you didn't intend your narrative to be sequential. Why? I imagine the conversation with the overseer happened well in advance of the purchase of the grounds.... and was the reason for the purchase, not a consequence of the purchase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2012 5:00:37 GMT -5
It works like this. The Armstrongs, accumulate a few of those nice juicy dividends. they purchase a property in England alongside all the other good deeds they do with their money. They are able to kindly let the caretaker couple use it while also supporting themselves with a little business on site. They also enquired if the english overseer could use the property in any way- a bit like the owner of the room letting Jesus use it for the last supper. Apparently, the overseer said 'yes'. I doubt that's the order in which it happened... but then perhaps you didn't intend your narrative to be sequential. You’re right ! As always, there are positive and negative things happen in any group. This was definitely a negative experience for most of us watching everything develop from the sidelines - see Humphrey’s post. Poor handling and decision making, poor leadership all round, and some poor behaviour thrown in.
|
|
|
Post by pelagius on Jan 8, 2013 20:19:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 12, 2013 17:14:03 GMT -5
Throws a major question mark over the claim 'we do not own church property!' A rose by any other name!
|
|
|
Post by toparrow on Jul 18, 2015 6:22:16 GMT -5
The workers did not believe in tv yet willing to have them in holiday cottages on convention grounds to make cash.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 18, 2017 18:46:07 GMT -5
The following details are what I've been able to make out so far about the convention site that replaced West Hanney and the two others.. I haven't double-checked this thoroughly ... it's on my TODO list. There's quite a lot of stuff on that list, because researching the 2x2s is just the gift that keeps on giving.
The Deanwood Forest convention ground, where the "Gloucestershire 1" and "Gloucestershire 2" conventions are held (two weeks one after the other), appears to be owned by a Ltd. Northern Irish company, the director of which I'll not name myself, considering the policy of this board. Seek and ye shall find. He's a wealthy elder. The company was set up for something to do with medical equipment, tootled along not doing anything much for a good while, then (if I'm reading the public accounts correctly) was loaned a large amount of money (over a million) in order to purchase the Deanwood Forest convention ground and convert it. The public accounts of this company may be found by searching in the companies house website, UK, using the name of the elder.
The loan might easily have been from the elder himself. Since elders manage money for the 2x2s, we cannot know whether this was the elder's own personal money or (more likely in my opinion), the church coffers.
On the Deanwood Forest council site it's possible to search for the planning application documents that turned a former horse-event place into a convention site with holiday cottages. You can get the postcode to do that from Deanwood Holiday Cottages themselves. Copied in to some emails are the overseer of the UK, the deputy of his who sadly killed himself, and a third man who is said to be a nice chap but has left the work, at least for the moment, apparently due to feeling the strain and difficulty sleeping.
Planning for the site was done by an architecture company in Ely, run entirely by 2x2 people. The name of this company may be found on various planning application documents. Conversion of the site, including conversion of an old farm building into a dedicated convention hall, was done by 2x2 people; even the plumber and the electrician I'm told.
The site is run as holiday cottages for most of the year (Deanwood Holiday Cottages) and a caretaker couple (professing) look after it. During the convention, workers stay in the holiday cottages but there are dormitories for the lesser folk (someone tell me if I'm mistaken -- there are dormitories in the planning applications).
My personal opinion is that this site was likely purchased using money donated in wills and given to workers, likely mixed with money from private businesses. The elder who owns the site is clearly very wealthy. But all that donated money has to go somewhere. I expect wealthy elders are all independently wealthy and simply manage "church" money because they're good with money. Move along, nothing to see here!
The site is operated as a for-profit business for most of the year.
If people do not think it is strange that full accounts and explanation of how this convention site was put in place are not available, they are lambs to the slaughter and may as well give their money to whoever looks like they're already rich, in the hope that some of it might somehow or other end up being used to "spread the gospel".
The present UK overseer's second in command guy (I think) preached at Gloucestershire 1 this year, talking a fair bit about children "prospering" if they stay in the faith, and imploring people to try to get their colleagues to come to the meetings, since they don't advertise. Boiled down, it arguably sounded like "We know most of your children won't stick with it and our numbers are shrinking, and we can't advertise [because we have too many secrets to hide], so try to drag in other people if you can. Your children will prosper -- spiritually or financially I won't bother clarifying -- if they stick with us, honest."
The UK overseer preached this year at Gloucestershire 2.
One question I have is was any money donated in the Republic of Ireland spent in purchasing this site? And if so, was capital acquisition tax paid on it when it was aggregated, or was it simply driven across the border to Northern Ireland? I'm not implying anything; merely a question.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 18, 2017 22:03:35 GMT -5
The workers did not believe in tv yet willing to have them in holiday cottages on convention grounds to make cash. Right! I noticed that! Wonder what they do with the TV's when they have conventions and the "friends" live in the cottages?
|
|
|
Post by swarupa on Jun 21, 2017 23:46:35 GMT -5
earlier said that workers live in cottages during convention- perhaps they can get some new inspiration
|
|