Monday, Jun 05, 2006
Borrowed to death
Guardian: Prosecute bad lenders over debt suicides, says whistleblower
Further evidence that lending in Britain is out of control. Calls are coming from all quarters to restrict lending, although it's all a bit late for that!
Posted by inbreda @ 09:13 AM (158 views) Add Comment
8 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. uncle tom said...
Yes, it should be recognised that most people are not particularly good with money, and that checks and balances should be in place to prevent or discourage reckless borrowing - and to prevent borrowers (and savers) from being deliberately confused or misled.
But the BBC's hand-wringing love of the blame culture is quite nauseating.
Come on Mr Cameron - bite the bullet and pledge to abolish the licence fee if elected. You know it will win votes, and it will blow the lid of any pretence of impartiality on the part of our arrogant bloated anachronism - that is the BBC.
2. Nails said...
When i lost my job in aug last year. I went into the bank to cancel my pension scheme. Even though I has just lost my job they seemed conviced i need a credit card and morgage. Nasty Evil HSBC
3. Les said...
Yes, but people have a"get out of jail free" card nowadays in the form of I.V.A`s and the all new bankruptcy laws,which almost encourage bad debt.Borrow £20k,squander it up against the wall and pay back £5k.Tempting, is it not.
4. inbreda said...
I used to work as a stato for Egg, and although it wasn't the stated company aim, it was fairly obvious that a lot of effort went in to achieving maximum indebtedness. The aim was to calculate the maximum someone could borrow without defaulting - i.e. they can afford to make minimum repayments only. It was then done rather well. Sell 0% credit cards. Once the balance was run up, offer a loan. If they stop using the card, offer 0% for another period. Then another loan etc etc. If they don't default, increase the limit. Worth noting that minimum repayments used to be a lot higher (5% or more), but they were reduced to 3% meaning that someone can live to be 1,000 and still never pay off a credit card balance. Once they've got you in the trap your only escape is death, IVA, or bankruptcy.
5. inbreda said...
And the most annoying thing is that when it blows up in the face of the banks it'll be the honest saver that pays for the banks losses.
6. Ticktock said...
-Come on Mr Cameron - bite the bullet and pledge to abolish the licence fee if elected. You know it will win votes, and it will blow the lid of any pretence of impartiality on the part of our arrogant bloated anachronism - that is the BBC.
For all its faults (and i agree there are many) the BBC has to preferable to its alternatives. Do we really want more Corporate news channels? A British Fox News instead?
The 'liberal' bias of the BBC is a totally necessary balance to the inevitable 'right' wing bias of Corporate News stations, and whatever your personal politics, this has to be healthy for the Nation.
While the government propaganda element of the BBC is indeed 'nauseating', the Corporate propaganda of, say, Sky News, is often self-serving fiction of the most dangerous kind. ( I would hasten to add, that such 'news' wouldnt be tollorated in a healthy democracy by the rest of the media as a whole, & I suspect wouldnt be here either, if it were not already mostly owned by the same person)
Who do you trust more, the BBC, or News. Corp.?
7. uncle tom said...
Ticktock - abolishing the licence fee need not be the end of the BBC - more a major reality check that would force them to cut the fat and complacency out of the system.
You use the digital technology available to make parallel broadcasts - free to view with commercials, and pay to view without - you give the viewer the choice. The cost of doing this is minimal, compared to what the corporation spends at present.
Their mandate would not change, except that they would not be allowed to trade at a loss.
The overpaid suits and 'autocuties' would absolutely hate the prospect - the licence payers (and voters) would take a very different view!
8. Ticktock said...
Tom -
Do you not think that the 'free to view' would eclipse the 'pay to view' section very quickly, thus making the later (eventualy) economicly un-viable?
The BBC would likely become dependant upon their Corporate Sponsors funding very quickly (as advocates of your arguement are, I'm sure, well aware!)
The unique funding system of the BBC is what makes gives it its relative (suposed) independance.While this independance is certainly spurious at times, it is far greater than that which is enjoyed by the Corporates. An hour watching the 'fair and unbiased' coverage on Fox News in the States, or that of their brothers at Sky in the UK, should make this very clear.
Inefficiency can be tackled in many ways without the selling of the soul, and as the saying goes, you don't always appreciate what you've got until its gone.