Bring Back Debtors Prisons

[Guest Guy_Montag]

given that everyone & their brother is going to be bankrupt in a few years. I suggest we abolish bankruptcy now, & re-intorduce debtors prisons. Where people can be held, and, where possible, allowed to carry on their trade or profession until their debts are cleared (plus cost of room & board). Those that don't have a trade or profession that can be carried out from inside a cell, probably don't contribute much to sum of human happiness or knowledge and can be used for medical experimentation.

[backtoparents]

given that everyone & their brother is going to be bankrupt in a few years.  I suggest we abolish bankruptcy now, & re-intorduce debtors prisons.  Where people can be held, and, where possible, allowed to carry on their trade or profession until their debts are cleared (plus cost of room & board).  Those that don't have a trade or profession that can be carried out from inside a cell, probably don't contribute much to sum of human happiness or knowledge and can be used for medical experimentation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as the darkest cells are reserved for irresponsible lenders and corrupting fly-by-night financial advisors, I see no problem with this.

Deviants.

[Guest Guy_Montag]

As long as the darkest cells are reserved for irresponsible lenders and corrupting fly-by-night financial advisors, I see no problem with this.

Deviants.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I imagine they would fit into the medical experimentation category.

[Homebird]

I envisage a slight problem with the amount of prison space required to contain everyone in debt in the UK.

[Elizabeth]

As long as the darkest cells are reserved for irresponsible lenders and corrupting fly-by-night financial advisors, I see no problem with this.

Deviants.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good idea. Ursury used to be a legal offence.

[IMD]

One of the few ideas I sympathise with religion on* is the Islamic provision that it is wrong to charge interest.

(NB: this is not because I am anti-Islamic, but anti-theisitic...)

[delboypass]

Homebird,

he didnt say debt - he said bankruptcy - only a slight difference.

Wouldnt need to much space. THese would be realistic prisons..not like the creches that are provided today.

Peoples life expectancy would be low so plenty of room for turnover..

Harsh but fair!

[libitina]

As long as the darkest cells are reserved for irresponsible lenders and corrupting fly-by-night financial advisors, I see no problem with this.

Deviants.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one forced these people to sign up....they were just driven by their own greed.

[Elizabeth]

No one forced these people to sign up....they were just driven by their own greed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What? The people who borrowed or the people who lent?

[Solvent Celt]

One of the few ideas I sympathise with religion on* is the Islamic provision that it is wrong to charge interest.

(NB: this is not because I am anti-Islamic, but anti-theisitic...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's frowned upon in Christianity (which is why it was illegal here).

That's why we have the image of Jews as money grabbers... only they were allowed to lend money.

Lending at usurious rates is still illegal but I don't think it has been decided by case exactly what that level is.

I regard store cards charging 29% APR as usury.

[libitina]

What?  The people who borrowed or the people who lent?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I actually meant the people who borrowed, but reading it again, it works both ways really doesn't it?

[doogie]

That's why we have the image of Jews as money grabbers... only they were allowed to lend money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed it's about all they were allowed to do, because they were barred from most trade associations.

[Elizabeth]

Lending at usurious rates is still illegal but I don't think it has been decided by case exactly what that level is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does that mean that someone with a big debt on the basis of store cards could run a test case?

[Homebird]

Homebird,

  he didnt say debt - he said bankruptcy - only a slight difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, OK.I actually read the post properly this time.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Homebird

[JST]

Does that mean that someone with a big debt on the basis of store cards could run a test case?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/q]

Anyone can apply to court to have a consumer credit agreement set aside on the basis that it is 'extortionate'. The lender may, however, argue that the agreement simply reflected the risk involved on their part (e.g. lending to someone with a poor credit rating). Each case would be considered on its own merits.