a stupid mistake as a youngster comes back to haunt me

dodger1

[QUOTE=drewwhonumba2;43413968

Jezarel, it is statute barred....law protects you here, no moral or ethical argument....no need to pay[/QUOTE]

dodger1 wrote: »

Legally you are correct, moral or ethical argument however is open to debate. The law does not overide morals.

chattychappy wrote: »

Yep. The key difference is that the law is the same for everyone. Within a jurisdiction, everyone is subject to the same law - like it or not.

People are free to subscribe to their own morals.

My view (as a lawyer) is that if someone comes on here with a legal question then they are entitled to an explanation of the relevant law. I don't think people should be deprived of such advice or have to "apologise in advance" if they have done something most people find morally questionable. In an ideal society the law would be sufficiently clear that everybody would understand it, but it just doesn't work that way.

On the other hand, if an OP "comes on" with moral judgements themselves (eg "the greedy bankers deserve not a penny from me") then it becomes fair game for people to "pile in".

The current law is that typically debts are statute-barred after 6 years. Parliament has the power to change this to 99 years, re-introduce debtor's jails or make all debts unenforceable. Like it or lump it, 6 years it is.

[disclaimer: not giving legal advice here for anyone in particular]

I completely agree with giving op the correct legal advice, however my post was a reply to someone saying there was no moral argument. There is.