Repossession, Repossession, Repossession

MABLE

LilMissEmmylou wrote: »

for people at the start who asked if you can watch again - you sure can http://www.itv.com/Watchnow/default.html you can watch all itv shows up to 1 month after they are on tv

The most useful thing about this programme was the posts it generated on this site and in particular yours. The times I have missed programmes on ITV 1 and did not know you can watch them again via the link you posted. So I nominate you as the most useful post.

DGJsaver

Lotus-eater wrote: »

You're right, what a missed opportunity.

It could have been so much better , perhaps if the same sort of programme comes up on BBC2 it may do a more in depth , more educational job :beer:

Jorgan_2

Phirefly wrote: »

I love spendaholics. Its the hidden gem of the schedules. Its so much more credible than these silly sensationalist freakshows.

Agree, I turned over to it once this load of dross had finished.

What a waste of a decent opportunity to actually show people were they are going wrong. I imagine people will be talking about this in work today, but very few will have grasped the reality of what was shown.

BenL

The show should have explained that the repossesed family spent money on loads of other stuff.

They made it sound like they kept borrowing more money from the house so they could keep it and then make mortgage repayments.

No mention of holidays etc.

That pond was his pride and joy from the bit at the end of the show. 3 courses of bricks ontop of a patio, liner and a pump.

I want a "What happened next" show now so we can see where they live now.

Are they with parents? Renting? Did they have to pay a letting agent 2 months salary and loads of fees? Council gave them somewhere else straight off?

Generali

These things usually have a spin, generally along the lines of what a load of bstrds big business is or look at this plucky chap, battling against the odds.

Regarding the second type of show, there was one about a poor unfortunate chap who ended up in a wheelchair after a tragic car accident.........caused by him being completely paralytic and crashing into a roundabout (which presumably had slammed on it's brakes). Rumour at the time (long before the documentary) was he punched his 'mate' in the face who tried to dissuade him from driving.

I don't wish any harm to him (despite the fact he was a violent pr1ck before the accident) or anyone else. My experience is that TV spins a story to get the emotional response the makers want.

I know a few people working in different bits of the meeja and of all the perceived mid and upper market stuff out there, TV spins spin more than Murali and Shane Warne's lovechild IMO.

jamescredmond

Jorgan wrote: »

Agree, I turned over to it once this load of dross had finished.

What a waste of a decent opportunity to actually show people were they are going wrong. I imagine people will be talking about this in work today, but very few will have grasped the reality of what was shown.

absolutely spot on.
but no tv production co. is going to worry too much re factual content when programme quality is judged entirely/exclusively on ratings.

Iwatched the prog and have to agree with you that this was an opportunity missed, but I can't pretend that I was completely surprised, given that the emphasis is centred on entertainment value in the making of modern tv.

verdict? voyeuristic, uninformative, dumbed-down.

btw, to anyone who, through events beyond their control (sickness, unemployment not predictable, bereavement, etc), who held back from excessive spending even when times were good and now find themselves in mortgage trouble: you deserve sympathy/support/respect.

to those who bought the plasma tv, sports car, xmas holiday in barbados and !!!!lessly binged on and on: the party's over. put that champagne glass down and put the cigar out.

Phirefly

Jorgan wrote: »

I imagine people will be talking about this in work today, but very few will have grasped the reality of what was shown.

So true, and while it is 'entertainment', this spreading of ill-conceived knowledge is so dangerous and the reason why the the Mail-mentality morons in this country are in the majority. Worrying.

jamescredmond

Phirefly wrote: »

So true, and while it is 'entertainment', this spreading of ill-conceived knowledge is so dangerous and the reason why the the Mail-mentality morons in this country are in the majority. Worrying.

good call. I forgot all about the Mail and its readership, who salivate over house price increases and health scares.

I see them in cafe's, all reading the D.M. well-dressed, laptop in bag, slightly fading sun-tans.

and I wonder: do these people actually believe what they're reading?!?

but please tell me these people are not in the majority.please.

Phirefly

Perhaps its because I'm in a room surrounded by them (not for much longer hopefully) that I think they are in the majority - anyone else ever sit there amid inane, unsubstantiated conversations based on articles half read in the Daily Moron knowing full well you should really educate these people but you can't be bothered because know it would just be futile?

That or if I think that they are the majority, its a nice surprise if I ever find out they're not :huh:

Hermia

BenL wrote: »

The show should have explained that the repossesed family spent money on loads of other stuff.

They made it sound like they kept borrowing more money from the house so they could keep it and then make mortgage repayments.

No mention of holidays etc.

That pond was his pride and joy from the bit at the end of the show. 3 courses of bricks ontop of a patio, liner and a pump.

I want a "What happened next" show now so we can see where they live now.

Are they with parents? Renting? Did they have to pay a letting agent 2 months salary and loads of fees? Council gave them somewhere else straight off?

They programme makers clearly wanted that couple to be the sympathetic focus of the programme. They obviously knew that the bimbo and the guy who is buying geegees (to presumably overcompensate for some personal deficiency?) were going to be the 'villains' of the piece. The shots of the father crying and the child's bicycle being packed away were obviously meant to make us sympathetic. It was just ridiculous how the programme just skimmed over the whole thing so quickly.

I definitely wanted to know how they got a council house bearing in mind my friend ended up in a hostel with two small kids as the council said she wasn't an emergency (her husband left her and cleared their joint accounts and remortgaged the house before he went so she ended up being evicted).