Panorama: Can't Pay, Won't Pay

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

So are you saying that most people in that area are idiots?
Seems rather patronising.

Did I say that? Therefore no i'm not saying that!

I clearly implied that as NR was the main bank to fall, I am asking the reason why and considering that NR had a mortgage book with 70% of customers from the NE - how many are now homeless..... as Pro lives there, he should see local press coverage easier than me who lives down south.

But going on your last post maybe my mindset will change to reflect your 'blind accusation'

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

How is that then?

what? Read the thread and you'll see the answer

( #100 second para)

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Did I say that? Therefore no i'm not saying that!

I clearly implied that as NR was the main bank to fall, I am asking the reason why and considering that NR had a mortgage book with 70% of customers from the NE - how many are now homeless..... as Pro lives there, he should see local press coverage easier than me who lives down south.

But going on your last post maybe my mindset will change to reflect your 'blind accusation'

I was going from your accusation of the bank "screwing over the poor by offering them grandeur that was never realisically possible". To me this suggests a certain weak mindedness from those that took up the offer.

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

I was going from your accusation of the bank "screwing over the poor by offering them grandeur that was never realisically possible". To me this suggests a certain weak mindedness from those that took up the offer.

No mate, I was specifically referring to Northern offering 125% LTV. It just so happened that they are NE based and rolled it out there........

StuTheDon

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No mate, I was specifically referring to Northern offering 125% LTV. It just so happened that they are NE based and rolled it out there........

ok - so if I'm a cleaner, and know I am on minimum wage, and a bank offers me a mortgage of 100k then I should just take it and not stop to think I maybe can't afford it?

So, by that logic, if McDonalds offer me a free Big Mac then I should take it, and then sue them when I get fat?

WRT Northern Rock - they were not the biggest bank to fail, they were the first. It was RBS with the biggest debt burden I believe - so are all people in Scotland tarred with your brush too?

never-in-doubt

StuTheDon wrote: »

ok - so if I'm a cleaner, and know I am on minimum wage, and a bank offers me a mortgage of 100k then I should just take it and not stop to think I maybe can't afford it?

So, by that logic, if McDonalds offer me a free Big Mac then I should take it, and then sue them when I get fat?

WRT Northern Rock - they were not the biggest bank to fail, they were the first. It was RBS with the biggest debt burden I believe - so are all people in Scotland tarred with your brush too?

Who says all cleaners are on min wage? Why pick a cleaner and not an office worker? Yet again you are generalising......

However, yes - the banks are to blame cos they should see that this 'person' cannot afford it - instead you know what they done? Raise the risk level to 125% LTV! Good move eh? :rotfl::rotfl:

I never said NR were the biggest bank - where did you get that from? I said they were the main bank to fail - i.e. 'main' meaning the most referred to not 'main' as in biggest!

I am Scottish! I'll leave it at that shall I. Ignorance doesn't replace stupidity.

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No mate, I was specifically referring to Northern offering 125% LTV. It just so happened that they are NE based and rolled it out there........

So it was offered, I know of no law that said anybody had to take it.

never-in-doubt

uktyler wrote: »

A credit check does not tell the banks everything though does it? It tells the bank about the money they have borrowed, and NOT how they spend it.

To get a mortgage, a little more is done than just a credit check

uktyler wrote: »

So everyone was advised to lie about their income? If someone advised me to lie I would not. If your financial advisor told you to jump off a cliff I take it you would? The financial advisor's may of suggested it, but the borrows actively committed the offence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3478635.stm

I quote the heading 'Could you believe that a bank would invite customers to defraud it? It may sound incredible, but that is what some of Britain's biggest mortgage lenders have in effect been doing'.

uktyler wrote: »

I don't think I have judged you wrongly, you have already admitted borrowing more than you should have done. I called you financially naive, and I stand by that.

I did say I borrowed more than I should have but you know what? I have savings that would cover me in such an eventuality. Please don't preach to me when clearly, you know nothing about me.

I think my posts on here more than proves financially naive and me don't mix

uktyler wrote: »

The facts are that people borrowed money they could not afford, YOU borrowed more money than you should of. The banks need to take responsibility, but so do the borrowers. You seem to think that people who lied to get a big mortgage are completely innocent, and the big nasty banks are to blame.

And you accuse me of wearing blinkers?:rotfl:

The banks are to blame - why do you fail to miss this! Its laughable......

I'm glad you got that right; I borrowed more than I should of - not borrowed more than I can afford!

You must wear blinkers cos you think the banks are innocent!

woody01

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Its a fact that the banks are to blame - look around you, we're in a bloody recession LOL!

The stupid banks not properly auditing peoples finances are to blame, along with certain banks (greed) and certain CEO's (greed).

People need to take responsibility of their finances.

NO BANK HAS EVER marched around your house, led you to its doors, and forced you to take their credit facilities.

Ignorance doesn't replace stupidity

It adds to it in your case.
Clearly you are not very bright or you would see the argument here.
NO-ONE has said that the banks are blameless. You on the other hand lay it 100% at the feet of the establishment and that is ridiculous even by your standards (having read some of your posts in other parts of the forum).

THE DECISION TO BORROW CAN SOMETIMES BE FORCED OUT OF YOUR HANDS!

Borrowing, with the intent, that if you cannot afford to repay you will not, is called STEALING!

never-in-doubt

uktyler wrote: »

The banks don't force people to borrow, they offer.

If this is you being ''forced' you must be a very weak willed individual.

Eh? How is it possible to twist the truth to blame the customer? The customer went in and asked for £3k, the bank then offer £7k - who is to blame? It is the bloody bank of course! Responsible lending! If the customer could afford £7k they'd have applied for £7k.