High Court blow for UK homeowners

abaxas

Really2 wrote: »

No it's legally wrong (as they have defaulted on contract but not ilegal EG you wont go to prison), how can it be morally wrong if the person as no choice.:rolleyes:

WWWWWWWWWUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMM
TTTTTTTRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL.

Calling someone a 'troll' never wins any arguments. This is definitely an argument.

But back on topic again becasue we are all looking like a bunch of !!!!!s!

If people do need help, how do you propose we do this without indirectly disadvantaging others?

I dont beleive there is a way.

fluffykittens

can I just say I am appauled with the attitudes of some members of this site. Abaxas you talk utter crap, you say you have been through it before, yet you hold those in a similiar situation in such great contempt, maybe it would be a more fulfilling experience for you, to offer your advice how you pulled it around for yourself, rather than acting holier than thou.

kennyboy66_2

abaxas wrote: »

To get back on topic....

Isn't defaulting on debt 'morally wrong'. By definition is removes availability of credit from someone else.

Apart from your peverted little world where you would probably have debtors prisons, then the answer is, it depends on the circumstance.

It is morally wrong to borrow more than you know can repay. This applies to individuals as well as companies (the "phoenix" company re-births are truly despicable).

However, illness, unemployment, divorce & death can mean that people circumstances change dramatically - are these people immoral ? - of course not.

And before you start chuntering on about insurance, remember that not all risks are insurable & payouts generally only last so long.

huntersc

abaxas wrote: »

Incorrect.

Black and white is the ONLY way to deal with it. You cannot give advantage to those who have been disadvantaged.

Isn't giving advantage to those who have been disadvantaged the basis of our current tax system and all social systems to which we subscribe?

Would you suggest I no longer pay the tax I do for you to send your kids to school/get treatment on the NHS/drive your car on the road?

I would suggest you leave the superiority complex at the door, there are always people better off than you and you will always need hand outs from those people. You enjoy the standard of living you have because other people are giving advantage to you who are, and have been, disadvantaged.

You may not get help in the form of the courts because you don't currently need it but you've had legislative help all your life, indeed much of it before you were born which is helping you now.

DON79

Well said fluffykittens! :T

why not let others benefit from positive experiences of how someone else coped and got through it rather than just bring them down by calling them morally wrong and chavs etc etc

abaxas

fluffykittens wrote: »

can I just say I am appauled with the attitudes of some members of this site. Abaxas you talk utter crap, you say you have been through it before, yet you hold those in a similiar situation in such great contempt, maybe it would be a more fulfilling experience for you, to offer your advice how you pulled it around for yourself, rather than acting holier than thou.

You right, I should apologise for being so brutally honest. And I'm sorry if some have taken offence.

However, if people want advise on coping, ask away or is there a place I can help?

kennyboy66_2

abaxas wrote: »

You right, I should apologise for being so brutally honest. And I'm sorry if some have taken offence.

However, if people want advise on coping, ask away or is there a place I can help?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................

huntersc

abaxas wrote: »

To get back on topic....

Isn't defaulting on debt 'morally wrong'. By definition is removes availability of credit from someone else.

I think you need to go back to economics 101. No, defaulting on debt, particularly a mortgage, does not necessarily remove available credit from someone else, indeed in the banking sector it's very rarely so. Even on a macro level it doesn't always work like this.

As for your question of economic morality, it's an interesting subject. I could sit here and discuss it all day but before we go further I'd like your definition of morality and on which principles economic morality is based.

Once we have a definition and a basis for this morality we can discuss the morality of charging people interest for something that one does not own. Like charging someone interest for money that doesn't in reality exist.

Crikey this could turn into an interesting topic.

abaxas

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................

Aghhhh,

The crank comment was right! I get angry and rant, then realize I've looked like a plonker and get zzzzzzed!

Dan:_4

abaxas wrote: »

If people do need help, how do you propose we do this without indirectly disadvantaging others?

I dont beleive there is a way.

How would someone agreeing to a temporary payment plan with their lender disadvantage someone else?