"This board is for help not for judgement" - how do you take that?

headoutofsand

fatou256 wrote: »

the shame and embarassement ids nto due form the Br per se but more the feeling of failure it is a shame that creditor who use harassment do not feel shame for their action ! and i knwo some of my creditor use pretty illegal methods to get where they wanted have they been told off

for once i do not feel ashame for sticking my fingers up to some of my creditor as most of them were ruthless , and even putting charges after charges and added interest on the top of it ! they were even offering me loan even thghou they knew i wasnt able to repay them as i was inhsopital and having no job but hey they offer me loans, overdraft credit card etc... even natwest kept one accoutn open even though i request it to close for the sole purpose of puttign charges on it for being overdranw by 10 p ended up with an unauthorise overdraft of 800 pounds go figure

funnyly enough today i receive statement of a bank account which is in overdraft , managed by my OR to be told they slap an 150 pounds charge on it ?!?!?! even though i am bankrupt and they know it and wont get one penny form me they still do it !

i am not passing judgement onto fellow BR because the situation is difficult and having lost quite a bit in the process for once i would like to see creditor put into their place and be held accountable .

the majority of people looking down on BR are the one who are ignorant of BR and its mechanism.

And so say all of us. I have no feelings for the creditors, If they had done some digging in the first place they would have found out there was no way, If something went t+ts up with the business they would get the dosh back. Like you and many others, they were throwing loans around like confetti, even though I had NO assets.

All they could see was "Give your dog a bonus" they were blurred by their own greed and self destruction was to follow like night follows day.

I could see it coming so why couldn't they? Oh of course BONUS culture, blinkered FSA officials and big fat (bonuses) bosses exploding in their fat greed.

coolcait

Thank you very much all of you for sharing your views.

I do find it interesting that 'judgement' seems to be depicted as negative. Yet everyone who posts advice is using their 'judgement' in drawing up that advice. Even when the recipient agrees with the advice.

It's not entirely accurate to say that every bankrupt has avoided paying at least some debts to their creditors. Statistics (in Scotland at least) do show that there are cases where creditors get paid everything they are owed, plus interest. Does that mean the person shouldn't have been bankrupt? Not necessarily. If a person can pay an IPA, does that mean that they could have paid their debts, and therefore not needed to becomke bankrupt? Again, not necessarily.

I remember a post on here a few month ago where someone asked (more or less) when they actually became 'debt-free'. You often see posters saying 'that's me debt-free' as soon as their bankruptcy is awarded. Yet, in the Scottish system at least, you're not technically 'debt-free' until you have been discharged. And your bankruptcy isn't over until your trustee has been discharged - which explains how IPAs can run for three years even though you can be discharged after one year.

From the Scottish legislative point of view, bankruptcy isn't about the debtor writing off their debts (with the general exception of the Low Income Low Asset rules - and even then some people will find themsleves paying an IPA). The underlying aim of the legislation is to manage the bankrupt estate so that creditors get paid back. I agree that there are huge issues with trustee fees, and that this is not what the legislation envisaged either! However, if people are being led to believe that bankruptcy is about being 'debt free' from the date of bankruptcy, but the legislation has a different aim, then there will inevitably be a clash of expectations.

It may be that the underlying assumptions and aims with English legislation are significantly different, and people are genuinely 'debt free' as soon as they become bankrupt (though why then would IPAs exist, and why would BI be an issue?). And, if that is the case, then it could be that someone posting here gets seen as 'judgemental', when they're actually giving genuine, kindly meant, information from the 'wrong' side of the north/south divide.

Devil's advocate question - would it be 'judgemental' to decide that another poster is being 'judgemental' rather than 'helpful'?

Merry_Gentry

coolcait wrote: »

Devil's advocate question - would it be 'judgemental' to decide that another poster is being 'judgemental' rather than 'helpful'?

Now there's a conundrum!!! Thanks for waking my brain up this morning - I shall be giving this a lot of thought!! :cool:

crow

"I do find it interesting that 'judgement' seems to be depicted as negative. Yet everyone who posts advice is using their 'judgement' in drawing up that advice. Even when the recipient agrees with the advice."
There is a huge difference between using judgement to decide what the best course of action is and what other courses exist, and judging a person. Being judgemental refers to judging the person and whether he is right or wrong etc, not in using your analytical skills and experuence to evaluate options.

I don't think it is appropriate to use a morals as basis for your advice, because as I said earlier, morals are a personal thing, and you do not have the right to impose YOUR morals on someone else, or to criticise them because you feel what they did was wrong or what they want to do is wrong based on your moral values. That is being judgemental. It is perfectly possible to give advice without being judgemental, and that is the stated aim of the board. Anyone who cannot do that should refrain from making comments.

Several times since joining this site I've seen people simply criticise others for what they're trying to do. It is clear they just poke around looking for someone to have a go at - how moral is it to have a hobby that involves criticising vulnerable people who may genuinely be on the point of suicide, or may literally be having to look down the back of the furniture looking for pennies so they can give their kids dinner money?

I will be honest and say I am considering bankruptcy after struggling with a DMP. One reason why I am considering it is simply to avoid harassment from creditors, because I do not see why I should struggle for years to pay back debts when my creditors are using illegal activities to get money from me. I could renegotiate my DMP to one that may be affordable (the one drawn up by a management company isn't), but the creditors rejected it anyway so they won't accept lower payments, and hence the harrassment won't stop.

I don't deny the debt is mine and that I should pay it back, but why should I suffer harasment and illegal activities when I am genuinely trying to do so?

My personal circumstances, that I won't divulge mean myself and (especially) my partner are in a delicate and vulnerable mental state, and my main responsibility lies in protecting myhself and family. Some might have a moral objection to that and say that I should suffer the consequences of my debt. Personnally I don't care about your morals. If I ask for advice, I expect to be advised about my position and my options, NOT about your opinion of me and what your morals beleive is acceptable for me to do. Breaking the law is different and everyone has a responsbility to point out potential breaches of the law in case the person asking didn't realise he could be breaking the law. But again, that is not beng judgemental, it is advising the person of the law.

fatou256

crow wrote: »

"
My personal circumstances, that I won't divulge mean myself and (especially) my partner are in a delicate and vulnerable mental state, and my main responsibility lies in protecting myhself and family. .

this is why i choose BR i had my second nervous breakdown due to creditor harassment ! i think in this board at soem point we are all ina vulnerable state as the pressure the creditor putting should be be subject to a lot more control from the OFT and FSA. this is why Bankrutpcy come in to offer protection wether you pay an IPA/IPO or not . i wish you the best in the future and don't think Br is an end to itself far from it !

kdean

Morals are a personal thing and are unimportant really. I boils down to guilt. People in general know what is right and wrong (or should at least) and deceiving someone for their own gain is considered wrong. Those people who would feel guilt after doing something that is considered wrong are perceived to have good morals and those who feel nothing either way are usually perceived to have bad morals. I am not saying that is a good thing but morals are just a label, the root of the problem is whether in society it is considered acceptable to deceive somebody for your own gain which we all know in practice is wrong but it has not stopped anyone one of us doing it at some level or another.

I do believe that it is perfectly acceptable to point out the pros and cons of a decision so that everybody can make their own decision on the matter. I for one could not condone something I felt was wrong but I would not go out of my way to make them feel bad about their decision either.