Making MSE membership mandatory?

alastairq

As I see things, BR is about, [a] recognition, and preparation!

MSE cannot do much about the lack of [a]..........


MSE's forte is with ....................................


many people chose to remain ignorant, out of a fear of 'officialdom'.

MSE is an informal melting pot

not too sure what sort of new point or argument you are making here.

why remove my two points....?



recognition [a]..is simple...the point at which the potentially insolvent person decides to tackle the debt positively....ie takes head out of sand.

your follow-on comment says pretty much what I posted earlier..does it not?

When [a] happens, is the time when aid is sought.

I stated as preparation...you decided it should be the same as [a].....why?

Preparation includes not just the legal aspects, the financial aspects, but also, the gathering of information

Provision of much of the detailed information needed is MSE's forte....and it is on tap, does not require appointments....and whatever comes out, in the end, the absolutely correct info is arrived at.
This does not just include specific BR info...but, info on dealing with creditors, or ex-creditors.....etc.



again, , of course, this flies in the face of reactionary attitudes who would rather see BR's isolated.....when spurious moral attitudes can be brought to bear.

alastairq

We have enough of a nanny state now,

Do we really want another rule on the list of 'you wil do this, and you will do that'

Dont think so

we have this so-called nanny state simply because we have all proved, in the past, to be in need of it.


I'm not advocating a rule...not for BR wannabes....but a rule, for the IS and agencies.

They all have a duty to ensure their clients are properly and correctly informed.
They do the best their budgets allow, as things stand.....I advoctae the MSE forum is added to that armoury of information....they should make clients aware of our existance..and what MSE can do.


perhaps then, we will see fewer questions arising out of ignorance of what is, a very important, legal step.

coolcait

dmg24 wrote: »

The problem with informal melting pots is that the advice is not always accurate. Also, there have been some people on here who condone manipulating the system (and at times, advocating fraudulent activity). I can't see the IS being too keen on that! :rolleyes:

I think it's long past time this point was met head on, and examined.

There is an element of truth in this accusation. I have made a change to your post (the bit in bold and blue ) to reflect a view which I can agree with. I feel that the phrase 'many people' exaggerates the problem beyond the level which actually exists.

I personally don't see the work done on SoAs as 'manipulating' the system. People do tend to underestimate how much they spend on food and other necessities. Arguably, people who are having difficulty managing their debts are even more likely to do so - not least because they may have cut back their expenditure to a point where they no longer know what is deemed 'normal' spending. And commentators on here are not afraid to point out areas of expenditure which the OR (and, by extension, others) will deem 'excessive'.

So, I do think that the examination and 'tweaking' of SoAs is a reasonable - and necessary - function of this board. Once someone goes bankrupt, their access to credit for emergencies is limited, probably non-existent. They need to learn to budget for those emergencies. The expenditure allowed by the OR is (as I understand it) based on agreed amounts. If the bankrupt person can manage to budget within those amounts, to the point where they can make some savings, then they have demonstrably learnt from their experience. Which, in my book, is a good thing.

If someone's budget shows that they spend more than an agreed amount in one area, that will almost certainly be cut. Which, IMO, is fair. On the other side of the coin, I consider it equally fair that they should be allowed the 'agreed' amount in another area, even if they have estimated that they spend less than the average.

Nevertheless, I can see why others might still see that as 'manipulating the system. Even though I disagree with that view, for the reasons given above.

I would agree that fraudulent activity is, at times, advocated on here. It may be done as deliberate trolling. It may be done out of a genuine, but misguided/misinformed desire to help. It may even be done in playing the part of a cynical - even curmudgeonly - board persona.

However, without fail, any such message is challenged by other posters - both regulars and newbies. Warnings are given about the likely, negative, consequences of any fraudulent activity.

It's all too easy to remember the posts which advocate fraudulent activity. They stick in the mind - because they are unusual, and because they shock. I could probably name you a few, and I could certainly create a 'mock' post which derives from the ones I have read.

It would be a lot harder for me to detail all the posts which have rebutted those advocating fraudulent behaviour. Mainly because, in my memory, they are summed up under the heading 'Then the Cavalry arrived' - all the posters who joined the thread to say 'em, no. That would be against bankruptcy law, and this is what could happen'.

It's extremely unfair to the decent, law-abiding (huge) majority on here that my memory works that way. An almost encyclopaedic knowledge of the ones who have advocated fraud. And a fragmented recollection of those who said 'No, that's not acceptable in real life, and it's not acceptable on here'.

That said, I'm fairly sure that other people's memories work in exactly the same way. We remember clearly the bits which are unusual, offensive etc.

The 'same old, same old' - especially when it's decent law-abiding stuff - tends to be forgotten.

So, you're correct in saying that there have been occasions when fraudulent activity has been advocated on this board, by some people (perhaps not as many 'people' as 'user names'....?). However, it has not been endorsed by the majority, and it has been actively challenged by many.

As for the topic of the thread - I don't agree with the idea of making membership of anything 'mandatory'. Far less an internet forum (much as I love this one). But, on a practical level, if people may have internet access disallowed when they are bankrupt, how could they reasonably be expected to join an internet forum?

(And I don't see the OR, or internet service providers going for 'membership of MSE' as a reason for allowing internet access as standard - it's a nice idea though)

debt_doctor

I dont think any forum could become mandatory advice (and I dont think the OP meant it in quite that way), but I agree with the general sentiment.............

I do sometimes recomend to a client to read this forum to get a 'feel' for what BR is like.

I also use the forum my self for info I am looking for in a case, if you 'google' a BR query it often brings you here! Finally, I am currently mentoring someone who is training to be a debt caseworker and I get him to read this forum for 3 hours a week.

Text books, training etc are all excellent tools, but unless youve actually been BR yourself this is the closest you can get to 'feel' what its actually like. Another issue is that the debt charities have almost no experience of post BR, as soon as youve gone BR your case is closed.

My own post BR was a complete non event, no contact (well, 20 min chat), no IPA, nothing, and my post BR advice comes mainly from you lot !

DD