Debt suicide. The banks' fault or the deceased? Blog Discussion

going2die_rich

You! You borrowed it and should have the common sense to know when to stop. It's just like drinking. No one can be responsible for your actions, only you.

Yes it is easier to get credit now than a decade ago and parents dont seem to teach children growing up in their teens and university students how to control their finances. But no one can say they are that niave that they thought the banks weren't lending money out to make money themselves.

This is nicked off another post I read, but if someone gets drunk is it the bartenders fault for continuing serving them or yours for not knowing when to go home and sober up?

I do honestly feel sorry for people in debt as banks could easily spot when people are borrowing beyond their means and should simply stop it. But if people don't know when to stop, wouldn't they just go and borrow off less monitored places than banks?

I know some people's debts are created through hard times in life with break ups in marriage and partnerships or some other unforseen circumstance, but a lot of the people just borrow to live a life they can't afford.

Everyone needs to teach their children that they have to live within their means and that if the grass is greener on the other side of the fence then they need to work to get it.

How many parents are going to push themselves more into debt this xmas just to buy presents they can't afford? Can you as a kid remember every present from every xmas? Well if you can't it's unlikely your kids will so cut back now.

Anyone killing themselves due to debt is obvisouly selfish, as most of them have a partner and children and it just leave them with the debt. God if you really must end it all at least make it look like an accident so that your insurance pays up and your family's not left bankrupt. But you need to remember that it might wipe the debt off but who's exactly going to pay for your childrens future, university, maybe their weddings? Grandchildren losing out.

You are much better off working yourself into an early grave than trying to take the easy way out and leaving your family with the burden of your debts. Take 3 or 4 jobs if needed, single parents do it just to survive for their children so I don't think it's much to expect from people who have just lived outside of their means.

Paul_Herring

going2die_rich wrote:

This is nicked off another post I read, but if someone gets drunk is it the bartenders fault for continuing serving them or yours for not knowing when to go home and sober up?

Erm - not the answer you're looking for since it ruins the analogy, but it's actually the bartenders fault:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/30017--h.htm#136

HMG wrote:

141 Sale of alcohol to a person who is drunk
..(1) A person to whom subsection (2) applies commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly-
....(a) sells or attempts to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk, or
....(b) allows alcohol to be sold to such a person.
..(2) This subsection applies-
....(a) to any person who works at the premises in a capacity, whether paid or unpaid, which gives him authority to sell the alcohol concerned,

ScarFace_4

I have to agree with going to die rich - well said.

I was really disappointed with the programme - just another example of "sensationalistic journalism" - a not like the web site at all.

Martin - you need to get your over inflated ego under control. we dont need another Nicky Campbell!!:rotfl:

I know TV is all about ratings but you fail to mention:

- nobody forces anyone to "apply" for credit - it is a conscious action by the applicant. So people need to stop trying to blame others for their debts.

- If the guy had been refused credit at RBS bank he would have gone elsewhere & priobably did. Another conscious action on his part. The market is huge so he wouldnt have had a problem getting it and I agree it needs some curbing (rather than just pure regulation.)

- the banks are not "the oppostion or enemy" - thats just the usual tosh sensationalist journos use. They are however to be treated with a pinch of salt and to be reviewed very critically before agreeing to do business with.

Martin - please get back to doing what you do well and best. Common sense, practical advice which is BALANCED!!:T

Its what we love this site for!!

MSE_Martin

Scar-face I'm slightly confused - did you read my blog? You seem to be arguing against it but actually are agreeing with it.

The one exception is banks are the opposition - plainly and simply. Their job is to flog us products and make money - the only way to be a decent consumer is to consider them the opposition. I've written this many times (and i've done a 12 page essay on it in the centre of the Money Diet).

ScarFace_4

Thats my point - the website and blog are a lot more "balanced" than the TV programme. Dont get me wrong - i luv this site!

The TV programme was just a slanging match that was just aimed at getting ratings. it didnt achieve anything practical other than continuing the "them and us" between consumers and lenders.

IMHO this just doesnt help anyone - least of all people in a similar situation to the guy who took his life.

MSE_Martin

Thanks for the compliment ScarFace. Of course the site and the blog are much more detailed, its the nature of the medium - the key is reaching as many people and getting a message across.

While I must admit I am very much not in charge or the programme - it is the producers who edit and put it together - and I only have limited say in the final piece, i think the above is unfair.

The programme is 27 minutes long... of it there was a 2.5 minute interview with the bank; 2.5 minutes before hand looking at the Richard Cullen case. That's 5 minutes out of a 22 minute programme.

The rest was looking at personal responsibility and how people get themselves into debt, the impact on their relationships, and that sorting it out yourself is the most important.

While the programme included some practical stuff, it isn't a 'how to' programme it is a 'documentary programme' that reports what's happening - so my role is dual; as both expert and presenter to explain the situation and help people through.

The blog I wrote is about the Debt Suicide, yet the programme was concentrating on something differnet.

In my opinion the programme was helpful and eye opening for many. You say

IMHO this just doesnt help anyone

Actually if your read the discussion both here and in debt free wannabee a number of people have commented something along the lines of "the programme opened my eyes and makes me knuckle down to deal with my own debts." And for me, even if that's only one persons reaction - never mind more - its worth it.

Martin

southernscouser

Martin, can I just ask. What is the point of Trevor McDonald on that show? :rotfl:

They should just give it to you! :beer:

ScarFace_4

Thanks for the replies above Martin.

i dont think we will agree on everything but on your last remark - fair point!:T

i just hope as a country we can dig ourselves out of the debt we are in. I hear today that per person we have twice as much debt as the european average.

Cheers

Wyndham

ScarFace wrote:

I hear today that per person we have twice as much debt as the european average.

Cheers

But that figure includes those of us who are stoozing. My debts are now huge, but I have money to pay it back, but while it's 0% I'm not going to. And where did I learn about stoozing - this site of course.

Though I have to agree (very strongly) with those who say that personal finance is a personal resposiblity. Only borrow what you can afford.

ampersand

ScarFace wrote:

I was really disappointed with the programme - just another example of "sensationalistic journalism" - a not like the web site at all.

Martin - you need to get your over inflated ego under control. we dont need another Nicky Campbell!!:rotfl:

I'm surprised that a couple of msers have been critical and the latter comment is not exactly in the spirit of the site.
Remember - 'Please be nice to all MoneySavers'?