Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Thanks Niddy,

I started this so that views could be aired properly on a subject which in itself does not cover politics, social policy at all. I wanted to hear people's views on the attitude approach and mindset that was needed to tackle the problems we have. The vast overwhelming majority of posters seem to have a concensus which is good.

It is pointless fighting back with whatever law you have to hand unless you have the emotionless deadhand ruthless unprincipled attitude that the lawyer you are going to face has, if ever God forbid it got into a courtroom. It useless debating morality at that point because for sure there ain't gonna be any there. He/she is there to win for their client and nothing else will matter.

I will not be drawn or provoked into a slanging match.

regards
Garlok

[cymruambyth]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I agree please, please do not let this follow the same route as other sites!

What I want to know is how the morality argument can be successfully used against banks. (Guess where my next battle will be?)

[The Debt Star]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

What I want to know is how the morality argument can be successfully used against banks. (Guess where my next battle will be?)

Hardship claims come to mind I suppose, but even they are hard to establish and harder still for the FOS to help with.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I used to have morals like everyone else when I was in full-time employment as I earnt my wage and did what I believed to be right and paid my bills.

Then I was made redundant in 2007 and everything I had built up and worked for came crashing down and was on an almighty sliding slope and just could not find the exit.

As my debts which were good debts started turning into bad debts purely because I did not have the means to meet them anymore my ethos totally changed in unison with the threats etc I was getting I suppose you could say those bad debts were really not bad debts at all as slowly bit by bit I was learning the real world of the financial sector.

I realised that it was time to put up the barriers and fight back just as they fought with me as you where all right there was no compassion when I needed help.

One thing out of all this I have learnt if I do not have the hard cash to pay for something then it stays put as never again will I listen to the financial sector some may say that is a tough line to take maybe so but at the end of the day I am debt free or rather will be.

I have no morals none what so ever anymore when it comes to debt as they have what I can afford and no more and if I can use the law to my advantage so be it as they certainly do the same.

Dog eat Dog so they say.

Regards

[differentjudge]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

we are using the same laws as the finance companies to protect ouselkves...

when we use them they accuse us of trying to avoid paying back what is owed....

when they use them thay say that it is morally right we pay..

Some people are better placed/educated to argue more forcefully and unfortunateley the judges listen to solicitors/barristers and not LIP's

[caspar]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I agree please, please do not let this follow the same route as other sites!

What I want to know is how the morality argument can be successfully used against banks. (Guess where my next battle will be?)

Want a moral argument against a bank? Have another look at the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines - they give a pretty good moral stance, and I've found they can be quite a handy source to quote in letters etc...

[peterbard]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

No, you misread what I am saying. I am taking the definition of morality and applying it to the debate here. It is not my view, it is the definition of the word. Sadly a word's definition cannot be wrong - it is what defines the word.

What I then go on to say is that the banks fiduciary duty is wrong. I don't give two hoots what the courts say about this, I believe the democratic public would vote with me on this one, not you.

Unfrortunatwly we are all constrained by the fact that the the courts do think two hoots about(as you put it).I am coursed with being a realist i am affraid.

And to ne honest the Rankins and others have weighed the argument on morality very much in there direction.
Far be it from me to compliment NID, but i think he has seen this, and recognises the need to differentiate between these debt dodgers and the people who are doing anything just to suvive, the sooner the court realise that. That the legislation is being used correctly again, and for our protection, the sooner the ballance will be restored. The process has started, we saw it in Harrison where the judge critisisd the credior, not a hint of critisism for the debtor quite rightly so.
But you have to be morraly predjudiced, i am sorry but there is now way arround it. There is nothing wrong with using any sensible method at your disposal to keep food on the table, but if you are financing a trip to Tahiti on the proceeds that is a differnt thing and wholy immoral.

THe argument about if the banking industry is a total read hering as far as we are concerned. What we are concerned abotut is that they treat us fairly,
A body can be totaly corrupt yet stil act fairly( i understand HItler liked cats) in some instance, the big issues of morality are totally beyond our reach in an individual sense. You dont agree with the system then use your vote and get it changed

We can make them act fairly, by showing how unfairly they have treated us.

Probably to confuse matters further i must say that i have extreem difficlty equating fairness and morrality, dispite what it may say in the OED. Morality is a much more important term than fairness in my view, if someone cheats on thier spouse he is said to be immoral, or if he betrays his country or familly, not paying your bill doesnt come into the same ball park in my view, it is still wrong though.
Peter

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Far be it from me to compliment NID, but i think he has seen this, and recognises the need to differentiate between these debt dodgers and the people who are doing anything just to suvive,

Spot on Peter, see this - which I have posted on all sites that I was actively posting on - ie the morality issue itself, in my point of view

Unenforceability Q & A

To quote;

As the question has been asked, we'll try best to answer, diplomatically and honestly. Hopefully then, if anyone else wants to know "under what circumstances would someone want to question the enforceability of a debt, other than to dodge it" we can link back to this explanation. Lets not dwell on it, lets not worry about it, instead lets just leave it and those that want an answer, can refer to this and have their answer.

Below are 2 examples, of why someone may wish to pursue unenforceability;

• The Debt-Dodger
  This will be someone that has got themselves into debt, for whatever reason and has seen the coverage on the news etc and thinks they can just follow this process and walk away, debt free. Its not true nor is it that easy! You can never walk away. There are always consequences, such as Default entries being registered against you, possible CCJ's, possible Charging Orders, Fraud Indicators the list goes on. A debt dodger is not welcome here. We will not give them the time of day, they are easy to spot - they all came unstuck when they'll start to get default notices!
  
• The Last Resort
  This will be someone that has tried everything, they are paying Peter by taking from Paul and their outgoings far exceed their income and they may be considering an IVA or Bankruptcy. In this situation, the debtor may have been in a great job or whatever, they then lost that job and could no longer afford their liabilities. We do not judge, we all make mistakes. Therefore, the debtor tries to speak to the lender and negotiate some type of repayment plan - maybe paying 50% per month until they find a job. Usually the lender (creditor) will say no, and sell the account to a DCA. Obviously the debtor is left scratching their head because they have tried almost everything and the lender has repaid their years of loyalty by threatening them with bailiffs or whatever.
  
  The debtor then realises the lender is in fact using illegal bullying methods and decides to fight back. They therefore attempt unenforceability for a couple of reasons, mainly to get them off their back - some normality, as such. But secondly as a little revenge. You'll find almost every person we help on here has tried to negotiate in some way prior to posting on our forums - but when they keep hitting a brick wall, what do you expect?

The above examples, though not exhaustive, are the main two reasons that someone may decide to "question the enforceability of a debt, other than to dodge it" and the majority of users to this site definitely form part of the latter...

We are actually anti Rankine esque users, we actively support survival but avoid debt dodgers.

I trust that sets the record straight, and confirms you were spot on with your assessment of how I see things and want this site to perform.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

& please no smart arse comments about my mentioning paying peter by taking from paul - it's a figure of speech but highly coincidental here

This was done years before I knew of the rivalry between the two of you

[cymruambyth]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

[Paul.]

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

[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

[peterbard]

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

[peterbard]

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

[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?