What do you think?

Merlinexcalibur

I retain my analogy between the person in example #2 and a benefit scrounger. They want something for free and end up better off than people who respect themselves.

I suppose you could tell that to the many thousands who are losing their jobs every day. I expect they, too, displayed the ignorance I am reading in your post. That will be my final post on this thread - which I think is just to whip up antagonism TBH - as I have no time whatsoever for people who are ignorant and speak from an ignorant stand or point of view. It could happen to you one day.

Incidentally, I had a substantial sum of money stolen off me by 'respectable' people ... who never paid it back, nor ever were but borrowed it nonetheless. Amongst a whole load of other scams, manipulations to take other people's money from them when they were wealthy themselves.

Wealth is not all about money. Fools naivety. Morals do not come with wealth. From what I've observed the more wealthier the more obnoxious they are.

I mean, look at me, I have some quite weatlhy relatives. And plenty of them are and do have some influence over important, changing decisions. But I do not have time for people who judge without experiencing for themselves.

30000 people just lost their jobs at Woolworths. What a terrible tragedy.

Some need to learn that there is a difference between 'won't pay and cannot pay'. If you don't have the money what the bleeding hell are you supposed to do? Euthenize yourself to do society a big favour?!

PROLIANT

No

I would just like to reiterate the wording of the poll:

Do you think it is morally right to evade your debts after spending your credit line?

There are many permutations of this poll that could be answered, my question was the latter.

PROLIANT

No

Dear Merlinexcalibur, this is not about redundancies et al, somebody who works and pays stamp and tax when he or she losses their job they will claim contributions based jobseekers allowance - not income based allowance which the majority of dole scrounging toe-rags claim.
Please do not fuel a heated argument or debate by throwing misdirection in to the thread :naughty:; you are so off the mark on this one sir.

Silver_Rocket

gomer wrote: »

Don't be so up yourself 'mate'. You were not the only person who disagreed with him or made the same remarks, other people made the same remarks on the other thread long before you but they didn't feel the need to credit themselves for this poll.

He doesn't have to answer your questions.

He doesn't answer them very well anyway as it turns out.

Mate.

Silver_Rocket

LongTermLurker wrote: »

Your second paragraph is correct, 100% - but that's not what people have been on about. What gets people's goat is that that the goal of those making the claims, particularly the OP on that thread, is simply to get out of paying. They are looking for a loophole so that they don't have to meet their responsibilities.

OK, let's look at two scenarios

1. I take out a loan for £10,000 and after paying some of it off I find my circumstances have changed and I can't carry on the payments. I ask the lender for help/time but they don't want to listen. They act like backstreet loansharks and threaten me with debt collectors/eviction/etc. While looking at my options, I notice that they didn't send me the information I would expect to receive. Looking further into it, I find the agreement wasn't enforcable and choose to protect myself by defending myself (or paying a professional to do so) in court. I have no qualms about that.
2. I take out a loan for £10,000 and after paying some of it off I see an advert saying "not all credit agreements are enforceable". I contact the agency and, looking at my documentation, they tell me it's an illegal contract. I shout "woohoo!" and smile in the knowledge that I have paid £500 for a 10 grand motor. I'm the same person that claimed damages a few years ago because I wasn't watching where I was going and tripped in the street over a less than perfectly laid pavement. I had an "accident" but never mind, I can make money out of it being someone else's fault.

I retain my analogy between the person in example #2 and a benefit scrounger. They want something for free and end up better off than people who respect themselves.

Incidentally, iirc, someone on the other thread suggested that a poll be started, so I don't see how "me man" can be accused for starting it, though yes, it's not the least biased wording I've ever read but I guess people will vote how they feel and won't see him as a preacher who's gospel must be obeyed.

How many people do you really think set out taking loans knowing about this requirement of the CCA?

Considering so many of the agreements before 2007 are unenforceable I would say very, very, very few.

You couldn't go out and do this tomorrow. The CCA is stuck to by the letter now.

This is just an example of the lax attitude of banks who conned and tricked each other and then all of us into the worst downturn since The Great Depression.

I'd say if someone was drowning in debt and they found a way to cut some of it by proving the banks had broken the law then why shouldn't they?

Silver_Rocket

Merlinexcalibur wrote: »

I suppose you could tell that to the many thousands who are losing their jobs every day. I expect they, too, displayed the ignorance I am reading in your post. That will be my final post on this thread - which I think is just to whip up antagonism TBH - as I have no time whatsoever for people who are ignorant and speak from an ignorant stand or point of view. It could happen to you one day.

Incidentally, I had a substantial sum of money stolen off me by 'respectable' people ... who never paid it back, nor ever were but borrowed it nonetheless. Amongst a whole load of other scams, manipulations to take other people's money from them when they were wealthy themselves.

Wealth is not all about money. Fools naivety. Morals do not come with wealth. From what I've observed the more wealthier the more obnoxious they are.

I mean, look at me, I have some quite weatlhy relatives. And plenty of them are and do have some influence over important, changing decisions. But I do not have time for people who judge without experiencing for themselves.

30000 people just lost their jobs at Woolworths. What a terrible tragedy.

Some need to learn that there is a difference between 'won't pay and cannot pay'. If you don't have the money what the bleeding hell are you supposed to do? Euthenize yourself to do society a big favour?!

Top post!

:beer:

LongTermLurker

No

Merlinexcalibur wrote: »

I retain my analogy between the person in example #2 and a benefit scrounger. They want something for free and end up better off than people who respect themselves.

I suppose you could tell that to the many thousands who are losing their jobs every day. I expect they, too, displayed the ignorance I am reading in your post. That will be my final post on this thread - which I think is just to whip up antagonism TBH - as I have no time whatsoever for people who are ignorant and speak from an ignorant stand or point of view. It could happen to you one day.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. There's a difference between claiming benefits while looking for a new job and claiming benefits for the rest of your life because you know how to play the system.

Yes, I've been on the dole for a long time (a very long time) but during that time I still went round the industrial estates with the rest of the town knocking on doors and asking if there was a job. Being out of work isn't a new thing and I expect/hope that many of the people being made redundant this year will find a job a lot quicker than those made redundant several decades ago.

And no, I wasn't being antagonistic. As you said yourself, there's a difference between cannot pay (my example #1) and won't pay (example #2). I'm clueless as to where your rant about wealth, respectability and ignorance comes from - we were debating whether it's right to try and get out of paying for something just because you don't want to

Top post!

I thought it was bol - er - rubbish. He didn't read or understand my post and slagged me off quite nastily, then went off at a tangent talking about wealthy relatives and respectability. It had no bearing on anything I could see.

[Deleted User]

No

Mr P, i think you know my stance and i think the poll results reflect the same.

Technicalities are cheap, only the weak and shameless will use them.

PROLIANT

No

Well so far it seems the majority vote tells us something - it is a minority out there who are set on doing the "wrong thing"
Keep the votes and "opinions" flowing, it will be most interesting to see the results in a weeks time.

dolally_2

Not sure - requires further debate.

Supercharge_Me wrote: »

Mr P, i think you know my stance and i think the poll results reflect the same.

Technicalities are cheap, only the weak and shameless will use them.

I think that last line is a little harsh, and the wording of the poll is definitely slightly loaded Mr P!!

I am sure you know from previous posts that I am definitely against people who see an "out" and use it to basically write off debt that they would prefer not to pay.

I do think, however, that a line needs to be drawn between your usual scam artist types and the people who are at the end of their tethers. I am talking about people who took out the credit in good faith and genuinely expected to be able to pay it back. I would rather see the debts written off for some people who, hounded by calls and letter, become depressed and struggle terribly with everything.

I know I'm just being a softy but I know what it's like to "fear the phone", fortunately I was able to repay what I owed (thank you cccs) but the calls were horrible. I am sure for somebody who knows that they will not be in a position to repay the debts this must be so much worse.

Of course it is not morally right to "evade" paying your debts purely because of a loophole but this is not the same thing as a person writing off debts that they, for one reason or another, will never be able to pay.

People can not live on morals alone :rotfl: