Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

[cymruambyth]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

It wasn't directed at you .....

It was a general comment following on from Niddy's post 95

[Angry Cat]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Banter can be helpful and discussion can be healthy, however many members of these forums are desperate when they find them and need help. They can either be put off by the nature of some posts or unfortunately get given incorrect advice.

There are many names that I recognise that I have 'lost' due to "problems", so please can we all be careful.

Point taken, cymrambyth!

I had not previously posted on this thread and now apologise for having done so.

[cymruambyth]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Banter can be helpful and discussion can be healthy, however many members of these forums are desperate when they find them and need help. They can either be put off by the nature of some posts or unfortunately get given incorrect advice.

There are many names that I recognise that I have 'lost' due to "problems", so please can we all be careful.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Peter what are you trying to say, exactly? Having read your bitter rant on credit today I'm in two minds whether to ban you just for those comments; however as you never wrote it on here I'll let it go. But be warned it HAS shown your "true" colours.....

I am surprised that you had not previously seen it?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Exactly. As I always say; morals mean little in a court of law

However it appears that certain judges bring morals into things; when they have no right in doing so!

[differentjudge]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

its not about morals
not about right from wrong

its who can put up the best argument to the judge

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I'm really not going to get into this again. Either behave, stay on track with the discussion or we'll close this thread - it's not rocket science!!

This site does not and will never tolerate abuse against people in debt and some of the shyte above is sailing close to the wind.

Peter what are you trying to say, exactly? Having read your bitter rant on credit today I'm in two minds whether to ban you just for those comments; however as you never wrote it on here I'll let it go. But be warned it HAS shown your "true" colours.....

I'm seriously not impressed with some of the idiotic comments on this thread.

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Well Done planB. many of us have similar stories to your own.

regards
Garlok

[PlanB]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I joined Niddy Skool in February and it's been a lifesaver when pursued by 23 creditors for £150k of unsecured debt. I had a great business module which fell flat on its face when the banks caused the Credit Crunch. No credit = no business. So I relied on the cards to support stuff (including daughter). I threw in the towel in 2009 and went into a DMP. That worked until ironically the DMP company went bust in January (Solace Financial). Trying to deal with all 23 DCAs became a full time job so I sourced this website on Google. I did look at others such as CAG but it was obvious to me that some of the 'advisers' were just showing off and exercising their egos. So after following Niddy's 12 (maybe more) steps I have £75k accepted as unenforcable by the creditors (wow) and another £61k iffy because of recons (blank page with just my name - you know who you are Barclays) and illegible application forms with no terms (MBNA x 3). So the question is should I find a way to pay the UE ones (sell my home and my children perhaps) or carry on being an Immoral Woman?

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Quote Peter Bardsley Credit Today 29th May 2010

Hi
One of the main offenders has the screen name PT257.
Currently he is on the Egg thread of the forum on the legal issues section.

There he is advising people not to pay there egg credit card agreements pending a "Test Case" he is involved in on June the 4th.
I belive he is employed by one of the debt cancelling firms.

This particular thread has created no end of problems for us with people following the advice and then coming to us when the creditors enforce.

Needles to say I can find no record of any such hearing.

The thread is called " Egg agreements and what I think is wrong with them"

I have complained to the site and tried to post contrary arguments on thread but they are moderated and just do not appear.

P


regards
Garlok

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Quote Peter Bardsley "Credit Today" 20th May 2010

Hi

I am afraid I agree. I used to be a contributor to CAG in the earlier years and at that point it was pretty much a discussion forum ,it was possible to glean bits of information and a lot of users found it very helpful. At that point I do not believe it offered advice as such it was as I say a discussion group.

Now however the site has been taken over by so called "Legal experts", Some of which as you say even claim to be solicitors.

I am unsure of the motivation of these people, one are two are I believe involved in the business, perhaps it is in there interest to perpetuate the myth. More likely these are people who are bathing in the praise from the people they are" helping "and the status that they lack in their real life

Here is very little discussion now one of these luminaries will give information on why a particular agreement is unenforceable and every one else just agrees and thinks they don’t have to honour there commitments to the creditor.

I have been excluded from that site now simply because I challenged some of the assertions made there.

In my day job I have seen many people who have come into our office and asked us to intervene with lenders, they have followed advice given on the CAG site and ended up with a CCJ.

The problem is that these forums can be very attractive to people who are in financial difficulties ,offering a quick fix. The idea is introduced that the agreement they have is unenforceable so they do not have to pay at all.

When this advice comes from someone purporting to be a solicitor ,many take it to be true ,and basically stop paying their debts.
By the time they find out it is all nonsense they have lost the window of opportunity to negotiate with the creditor or make alternative payment agreements.


Regards
Garlok

[PlanB]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Wait a minute. I'm not dodging debt, I'm dodging debt collectors. I will pay back what I can when I can. The DCAs use psychological bullying to make people pay more than they can afford. Funny how they changed my status from a "valued customer" into a "debter" when I got into a pickle financially. I signed a 'credit' agreement (maybe/maybe not) not a 'debt agreement'. UE has nothing to do with my morals and everything to do with defending my position. Surely murderers don't go into court without a damn good counsel to fight their corner?

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Hi Niddy,

I think your post no.83 sums it up completely. However what gets up a lot of people's noses on this matter is the apparent constant sniping implication that anyone who is in this mess is a "debt dodger". That simply is not true. There are posters including on here whose choice of words and their known past performances eslewhere bring about this atmosphere. Again this comes from the capitalism that Peter himself has said on this very thread is "that is the way it is!"

A group of smart Alec financial people and unethical lawyers formed the Claims Management Company movement looking for the fast buck that Peter himself with his own posts has said here "Tough that is the way it is". That is the reason why this "debt dodger" name calling has come from. And I object most strongly to being lumped in with that name.

It is perfectly plain to anyone, from a practical point of view, that to go into this fight for that is what it is going to be expecting sympathy and support,expecting ethics and morality from what is a totally amoral financial sector, then they are sadly deluded people. I think the Hitler analogy could be very offensive to elements of our community. We had to fight Hitler on the same terms in the end as he was using, Kill or be Killed. And I won't even explore the Biblical quotations here. Let that suffice.

Let us just examine this. In my working life, on first leaving school and egting my first job, I opened a bank account. At that time the government of the day accepted in full its fiscal responsibilities and the Chancellor of the Exchequer set the "Bank Rate". the banks then charged one half of one percent above the Bank Rate for overdrafts on current accounts and bank loans. If you saved money in a "Deposit Account" you were paid interest at one half of one percent below the Bank Rate.

At that time we had a stable economy, agriculture could feed us and we manufactured value added goods to trade with the rest of the world.

Now we don't even have an economy, you will be extremely lucky to get any return on savings, many people are letting the banks use their money for free, yet we have credit interest charges on current accounts of 9% above Independent Bank of England base rates at least rising to 29.9% and above on credit cards and television advertisements showing 4200% APR yes 4200% APR rates on loans from supposedly reputable companies.

The fiscal position of the country is dire and like the recession of around 1991 it is the likes of ordinary decent folk who have to pick up the tab in the end. Remember it was the big banks irresponsible behaviour in lending huge sums of the country's money to Third World countries with never a hope of recovering it. Most of that money went into the hands of gun runners and drug dealers. Who picked up the tab-- we did. Lamentable Lamont on the excuse of the ERM riased and raised and raised the interest rates. There are calculations out there if you look that equate the money raised by that ruinous policy to the amounts lost in those Third World loans. The real reason then to ruin hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives, finally collapse manufacturing, collpase the property market was purely to serve the gambling needs of the City of London and its bankers.

And I will now leave this thread to its own devices which was started as an attempt to be informative to those who have been frightened and bullied by the illegal immoral behaviour of the financial sector looking for soft targets. Please never use the word Industry within my hearing that implies something good fair, useful.

regards
Garlok

Hi
I don’t understand why you keep trying to drag this debate into a personal level. My record on helping people in debt is well documented on many forums and in my ongoing voluntary work I am not going to waste my time justifying myself to you.
The fact is there are debt dodgers, and there are people in genuine difficulty. I know that, you know that, and more importantly the courts know that.
I don’t know why you keep banging on about morality, I don’t. Are you seeking some kind of absolution?
As far as changing the system is concerned, yes good luck with that. Some of us however find that we have to work in the real world.
Peter

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

if were dealing with a "moral issue" here then i can quote a respected QC on this, when asked in conference about moral points he replied

"there is no such thing as a moral offence nor can you be punished for breaking the spirit of the law"

Says it all in my opinion

Hi
Yes I agree that this should be the case, the statue with the scales and the blind fold (lady justice) on top of the Baily and all that.
However I dint need to tell you that the reality, especially in an LIP situation can be completely different.
Judges comment commonly that in their opinions that the debtor is trying to use a loophole in the law. When there is leeway in how a piece of legislation can be interpreted, (which I would say is a lot of the time) then the prejudice of the judge is bound to be a factor in the outcome.
Also as seen in Harrison that prejudice can make a positive outcome. It would be nice to think that these cases can be judges blindly on the facts but unfortunately I think it is seldom the case.
Perhaps if you are a hundred percent sure of the technical merit of your case and you are willing to go the distance I may agree.
Peter

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Hi Niddy,

I think your post no.83 sums it up completely. However what gets up a lot of people's noses on this matter is the apparent constant sniping implication that anyone who is in this mess is a "debt dodger". That simply is not true. There are posters including on here whose choice of words and their known past performances eslewhere bring about this atmosphere. Again this comes from the capitalism that Peter himself has said on this very thread is "that is the way it is!"

A group of smart Alec financial people and unethical lawyers formed the Claims Management Company movement looking for the fast buck that Peter himself with his own posts has said here "Tough that is the way it is". That is the reason why this "debt dodger" name calling has come from. And I object most strongly to being lumped in with that name.

It is perfectly plain to anyone, from a practical point of view, that to go into this fight for that is what it is going to be expecting sympathy and support,expecting ethics and morality from what is a totally amoral financial sector, then they are sadly deluded people. I think the Hitler analogy could be very offensive to elements of our community. We had to fight Hitler on the same terms in the end as he was using, Kill or be Killed. And I won't even explore the Biblical quotations here. Let that suffice.

Let us just examine this. In my working life, on first leaving school and egting my first job, I opened a bank account. At that time the government of the day accepted in full its fiscal responsibilities and the Chancellor of the Exchequer set the "Bank Rate". the banks then charged one half of one percent above the Bank Rate for overdrafts on current accounts and bank loans. If you saved money in a "Deposit Account" you were paid interest at one half of one percent below the Bank Rate.

At that time we had a stable economy, agriculture could feed us and we manufactured value added goods to trade with the rest of the world.

Now we don't even have an economy, you will be extremely lucky to get any return on savings, many people are letting the banks use their money for free, yet we have credit interest charges on current accounts of 9% above Independent Bank of England base rates at least rising to 29.9% and above on credit cards and television advertisements showing 4200% APR yes 4200% APR rates on loans from supposedly reputable companies.

The fiscal position of the country is dire and like the recession of around 1991 it is the likes of ordinary decent folk who have to pick up the tab in the end. Remember it was the big banks irresponsible behaviour in lending huge sums of the country's money to Third World countries with never a hope of recovering it. Most of that money went into the hands of gun runners and drug dealers. Who picked up the tab-- we did. Lamentable Lamont on the excuse of the ERM riased and raised and raised the interest rates. There are calculations out there if you look that equate the money raised by that ruinous policy to the amounts lost in those Third World loans. The real reason then to ruin hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives, finally collapse manufacturing, collpase the property market was purely to serve the gambling needs of the City of London and its bankers.

And I will now leave this thread to its own devices which was started as an attempt to be informative to those who have been frightened and bullied by the illegal immoral behaviour of the financial sector looking for soft targets. Please never use the word Industry within my hearing that implies something good fair, useful.

regards
Garlok