Banking Industry

Tozer

setmefree wrote: »

Oh that's quite simple Fedz amongst others made comments on the other poll that i started, that i was biased, so just in case i gave advice which may have been incorrect to other subjects i removed my posts, but no wrong advice was given, infact i have had a DCA say sorry to one person who they tried to enforce a statute debt on

How strange.

Tozer

setmefree wrote: »

Very fair point, but how many people are now suffering from depression and have actually attempted to and have commited suicide due to reposession of their property's .
do the banks care about them i think not.

Oops thanked you by accident rather than quoting. There you go - something for free even if I disagree! :rotfl:

Can you not see that a stable banking system would lead to fewer repossessions?

setmefree

Tozer wrote: »

Can you not see that a stable banking system would lead to fewer repossessions?

And can you not see that without the tax payers public funding, the Banking industry would eventually sink, so the big boys should have some respect for the little man, instead of just blaiming the small person for being careless with their money when they are in financial trouble.;)

Fedz

setmefree wrote: »

And can you not see that without the tax payers public funding, the Banking industry would eventually sink, so the big boys should have some respect for the little man, instead of just blaiming the small person for being careless with their money when they are in financial trouble.;)

Your above statement is almost laughable.

The operative word in your above post is 'careless' - so what you mean is you want to sign-up for things and when you're careless you shouldn't be charged or pushed to pay borrowed money back regardless of signing and agreeing to the charges and terms.

Is not being in financial trouble your own fault then for being careless (your words, not mine).

This is exactly why banks are cutting back due to 'careless' people ...

Goes back to my earlier statement of not accepting responsibility for your own actions

setmefree

Fedz wrote: »

Your above statement is almost laughable.
Is not being in financial trouble your own fault then for being careless (your words, not mine).

This is exactly why banks are cutting back due to 'careless' people ...

Goes back to my earlier statement of not accepting responsibility for your own actions

Well in that case Northern Rock should hand back all the public funds to the B of E straight away, and bail itself out, as you say be responsible for it's own actions.

also you say banks cutting back due to careless people, mmm so are you saying that there has been no careless lending done by the banks in the first place.;)

Fedz

setmefree wrote: »

Well in that case Northern Rock should hand back all the public funds to the B of E straight away, and bail itself out, as you say be responsible for it's own actions.

I agree NR had a what turned out to be a vulnerable business model but, they also have a get out clause- the BoE - this is a borrowed money and NR does have to pay this back it's not a grant.

Banks also have a higher responsability than the average joe, I'd trust the bank to pay back £1,000 it borrowed off me over my next door neighbour.

setmefree wrote: »

also you say banks cutting back due to careless people, mmm so are you saying that there has been no careless lending done by the banks in the first place.;)

That still doesn't negate careless borrowing and running bank accounts in full knowledge of the consequences.

Why do people try and defend irresponsable behaviour by blaming somthing or someone else

It's called not accepting ones own responsability

setmefree

Fedz wrote: »

I agree NR had a what turned out to be a vulnerable business model but, they also have a get out clause- the BoE - this is a borrowed money and NR does have to pay this back it's not a grant.

Banks also have a higher responsability than the average joe, I'd trust the bank to pay back £1,000 it borrowed off me over my next door neighbour.


That still doesn't negate careless borrowing and running bank accounts in full knowledge of the consequences.

Why do people try and defend irresponsable behaviour by blaming somthing or someone else

It's called not accepting ones own responsability

That's very correct N.R. certainly did have the B of E to bail them out, and i know they have to pay it back, but who bails the individual out, they can't turn to anyone hence they lose the lot.

I'm not defending irresponsible behaviour ,what i am stating is that the banks have been just as irresponsible, hence the offer of secret deals as stated by the government.

The financial side is just one piece of the larger picture, people just dont have confidence anymore.

We have a government who have been investigated over different things in the past, undisclosed donations, cash for peerage, a pointless war,loss of information etc etc, and then they announce that struggling banks can do secret deals with them.

They can drop the interest rates as much as they like, if the general public has no confidence in them it aint going to make any difference at all.

Fedz

So if that's the case why is everyone jumping to save with NR again, confidence in NR restored - share price rising and people flocking to save at NR

NR shares are rising while others are diving

The BoE bailing them out saved it going under, so as they have to pay back that money, the plan worked

Governments are governments and their behaviour is another thread in itself but, it's sometimes the case of who you know not what you know

Do you really think that it'll be heaven if another party was in and none of this woud happen, course it would

setmefree

Fedz wrote: »

So if that's the case why is everyone jumping to save with NR again, confidence in NR restored - share price rising and people flocking to save at NR
NR shares are rising while others are diving
The BoE bailing them out saved it going under, so as they have to pay back that money, the plan worked

Ah and if public funds were made available to struggling individuals, then Bankruptcy's and reposessions wouldn't exists what they
N.R. shares are rising because me the tax payer has bailed them out, and will continue to bail them out, it stops widespread panic amongst the banking industry on behalf of the government.:rolleyes:

Fedz

setmefree wrote: »

Ah and if public funds were made available to struggling individuals, then Bankruptcy's and reposessions wouldn't exists what they
N.R. shares are rising because me the tax payer has bailed them out, and will continue to bail them out, it stops widespread panic amongst the banking industry on behalf of the government.:rolleyes:

I can understand what your saying and in laymens terms I totally agree but, their's more, much more than what's on the surface hence why (in my opinion) it was a positive decission made by the government.

An individual signs an agreement to pay the mortgage and you do so in full knowledge that if you don't keep up to repayments your house may be repossesed. Not forgetting you can also get insurance to cover redundancy, illness ....etc.

The NR obviously doesn't sign a similar kind of agreement in context of your above post to my knowledge.

Now you honestly can't tell me if for example you had a bank and had a decission making position that you would lend people eg: £250k to buy a house and if they couldn't pay back the money because they lost their job due to for example stealing at work, that you'd let them off and say ok no worries start paying back when you get out of prison and get another job.

Meanwhile you have a workforce, shareholders ...etc to pay. You'd never last and would loose millions ... don't you agree?

How would you run a bank, explain to me your ethical ways for helping the small person

I'm not being underhanded I'm genuinely interested setmefree