This thread has been brought to you by "Friends of the Daily Mail"
Friends of personal responsibility more like. People on this forum love to hate the bankers and rightly so. But they never mention the people they lent the money to, those who borrowed way too much money knowing they had no hope paying it back.
Of course I feel sorry for those who are in debt through circumstances not under their control and those are the ones that usually come of worse. But those swinging the lead loke those who had not paid a dime in rent for over 12 months, deserve everything they get.
This thread has been brought to you by "Friends of the Daily Mail"
Friends of personal responsibility more like. People on this forum love to hate the bankers and rightly so. But they never mention the people they lent the money to, those who borrowed way too much money knowing they had no hope paying it back.
Of course I feel sorry for those who are in debt through circumstances not under their control and those are the ones that usually come of worse. But those swinging the lead loke those who had not paid a dime in rent for over 12 months, deserve everything they get.
Friends of personal responsibility more like. People on this forum love to hate the bankers and rightly so. But they never mention the people they lent the money to, those who borrowed way too much money knowing they had no hope paying it back.
Of course I feel sorry for those who are in debt through circumstances not under their control and those are the ones that usually come of worse. But those swinging the lead loke those who had not paid a dime in rent for over 12 months, deserve everything they get.
Really? And you can't see it's all part of the same problem and that those who borrowed beyond their means, during a culture of excess were encouraged to by the banks & bankers. Who now grow richer still, the bailiffs being nothing more than the paramilitaries of the bankers in the boardroom.
Divide and rule. Hate the little person, demonise him, reduce him down to a feckless dole bludger who should never have wanted things he was told he should want.
The programme is filthy, hero worshipping the fleas on the rats on the sinking ship while demonising and abstracting down into pallid cliché, the victims.
Like I say, the mentality and views expressed here have the finesse and depth of a Daily Mail article.
Burgled of possession that arent technically yours in the first place? You buy something on credit, you pay for it. You owe someone money, you pay them back or deal with the consequences. These people get plenty of warning and gettig bailiffs/ sheriffs in is the last resort usually.
Or shall I just cancel the Direct Debit on my sofa, mortgage, etc and save myself a few quid?
Bailiffs in general, although not the ones featured in this particular problem because this was about high court bailiffs, take ANYTHING at all of value, a TV, sofa, your car etc that may not be related to the original debt. There were examples in this programme however of them looking for additional assets, and they had the ability to make people homeless in cases where the fees were ridiculous, just piled up and victimising someone already heavily in debt.
I have personally taken part in blockading a shop that was pushing those high interest payday loans in Liverpool and look forward to doing so again, it's all part of a racket which should be illegal as it is in Sweden.
Bailiffs should not be able to take ANY other possessions except those that relate directly to the debt.
Bailiffs in general, although not the ones featured in this particular problem because this was about high court bailiffs, take ANYTHING at all of value, a TV, sofa, your car etc that may not be related to the original debt. There were examples in this programme however of them looking for additional assets, and they had the ability to make people homeless in cases where the fees were ridiculous, just piled up and victimising someone already heavily in debt.
I have personally taken part in blockading a shop that was pushing those high interest payday loans in Liverpool and look forward to doing so again, it's all part of a racket which should be illegal as it is in Sweden.
Bailiffs should not be able to take ANY other possessions except those that relate directly to the debt.
So what you are saying is people should be allowed to take out loans on things, not pay for them and then not have their assets seized either? Thank God you're not in power.
Bailiffs breaking glass sounds like gaining completely illegal and unlawful entry TBH.
Although the bailiffs will of course try to justify it.
Disgraceful.
They gave the guy PLENTY of chances to go he was being a stubborn arse and locked the door. And obviously they had permission but hey don't let facts get in the way of a good rant eh
So what you are saying is people should be allowed to take out loans on things, not pay for them and then not have their assets seized either? Thank God you're not in power.
Assets not related to the debt should not be confiscated no.
Bloody hell where are you buying Mac Books from? You can buy a new one for £800 so £1.5k for an older model second hand isn't going to happen
I am not an apple sheep so apologies if i am not an expert. Still he bought that new at one point , if i recall he had debts for a number of years. Instead of buying overpriced apple products he could have put the money towards his debts. A 15inch one new would have cost 1.5k roughly if looking at the apple official website , his looked large enough to be a 15inch one.
If he sells it now it probably will be a few hundred quid , but he must have bought it for over a grand at some point. Surely for someone in high debts and with a low paying wage he couldn't have afforded that.
Doubt a warrant from the High Court covers (although petty) criminal damage.
It's not criminal damage because they are officers of the court acting within the law.
Anyway the overstaying tenants were hardly in a position to start making complaints about criminal damage to a property they should not have been in. And the agent for the landlord/letting agent, the South African guy, was no doubt just grateful to get the property back.
So what you are saying is people should be allowed to take out loans on things, not pay for them and then not have their assets seized either? Thank God you're not in power.
You've pretty much described the business model for banks in the City of London & Wall Street, of course no one's asking them to return their assets.
It's not criminal damage because they are officers of the court acting within the law.
Anyway the overstaying tenants were hardly in a position to start making complaints about criminal damage to a property they should not have been in. And the agent for the landlord/letting agent, the South African guy, was no doubt just grateful to get the property back.
Breaking and entering / smashing glass is not part of their remit and most bailiffs would be reluctant to do so.
Refer to comment regarding open doors and windows being the only means of lawful entry - this does not include smashing glass and breaking windows.
It is Still criminal damage to the property whether the tenants were over-staying or not.
I am not an apple sheep so apologies if i am not an expert. Still he bought that new at one point , if i recall he had debts for a number of years. Instead of buying overpriced apple products he could have put the money towards his debts. A 15inch one new would have cost 1.5k roughly if looking at the apple official website , his looked large enough to be a 15inch one.
If he sells it now it probably will be a few hundred quid , but he must have bought it for over a grand at some point. Surely for someone in high debts and with a low paying wage he couldn't have afforded that.
Its value when he bought it is a vast difference from now, yes, he could have managed his debts better and not bought it in the first place but thats semantics, that particular horse is long bolted. You suggested he could have sold it to help when realistically selling it wouldn't have made much of a difference at that point.
Oh, and I'm not an 'apple sheep' either, but I didn't realise knowing how much products cost made someone a sheep
Really? And you can't see it's all part of the same problem and that those who borrowed beyond their means, during a culture of excess were encouraged to by the banks & bankers. Who now grow richer still, the bailiffs being nothing more than the paramilitaries of the bankers in the boardroom.
Divide and rule. Hate the little person, demonise him, reduce him down to a feckless dole bludger who should never have wanted things he was told he should want.
The programme is filthy, hero worshipping the fleas on the rats on the sinking ship while demonising and abstracting down into pallid cliché, the victims.
Like I say, the mentality and views expressed here have the finesse and depth of a Daily Mail article.
Have you even watched the program, or are you on another anti establishment rant?
Have you even watched the program, or are you on another anti establishment rant?
Yes, I've watched the programme and it's a very poor means of argument to resort to snide, belittling digs simply because someone has a different view from your own.
And what's wrong with anti establishmentarianism? The establishment, after all, is what encouraged endless credit and those who can't afford to put purchasing above payment, with grossly inflated interest rates.
No one needs a huge wide screen TV or iPad. True so why encourage those who need them least and can afford them least to get themselves into huge debt to purchase them at far above the retail price?
Anyway, toddle off and read your Daily Mail, dear. Ooops sorry snide dig, but when in Rome...!
Comments
Although the bailiffs will of course try to justify it.
Disgraceful.
Just ignore the obvious Troll.
They have a warrant from the High Court. There's your justification.
Friends of personal responsibility more like. People on this forum love to hate the bankers and rightly so. But they never mention the people they lent the money to, those who borrowed way too much money knowing they had no hope paying it back.
Of course I feel sorry for those who are in debt through circumstances not under their control and those are the ones that usually come of worse. But those swinging the lead loke those who had not paid a dime in rent for over 12 months, deserve everything they get.
Friends of personal responsibility more like. People on this forum love to hate the bankers and rightly so. But they never mention the people they lent the money to, those who borrowed way too much money knowing they had no hope paying it back.
Of course I feel sorry for those who are in debt through circumstances not under their control and those are the ones that usually come of worse. But those swinging the lead loke those who had not paid a dime in rent for over 12 months, deserve everything they get.
Really? And you can't see it's all part of the same problem and that those who borrowed beyond their means, during a culture of excess were encouraged to by the banks & bankers. Who now grow richer still, the bailiffs being nothing more than the paramilitaries of the bankers in the boardroom.
Divide and rule. Hate the little person, demonise him, reduce him down to a feckless dole bludger who should never have wanted things he was told he should want.
The programme is filthy, hero worshipping the fleas on the rats on the sinking ship while demonising and abstracting down into pallid cliché, the victims.
Like I say, the mentality and views expressed here have the finesse and depth of a Daily Mail article.
Bailiffs in general, although not the ones featured in this particular problem because this was about high court bailiffs, take ANYTHING at all of value, a TV, sofa, your car etc that may not be related to the original debt. There were examples in this programme however of them looking for additional assets, and they had the ability to make people homeless in cases where the fees were ridiculous, just piled up and victimising someone already heavily in debt.
I have personally taken part in blockading a shop that was pushing those high interest payday loans in Liverpool and look forward to doing so again, it's all part of a racket which should be illegal as it is in Sweden.
Bailiffs should not be able to take ANY other possessions except those that relate directly to the debt.
Did you watch the programme?
No it was perfectly legal as there was a court order to that effect.
So what you are saying is people should be allowed to take out loans on things, not pay for them and then not have their assets seized either? Thank God you're not in power.
They gave the guy PLENTY of chances to go he was being a stubborn arse and locked the door. And obviously they had permission but hey don't let facts get in the way of a good rant eh
Bloody hell where are you buying Mac Books from? You can buy a new one for £800 so £1.5k for an older model second hand isn't going to happen
Assets not related to the debt should not be confiscated no.
I am not an apple sheep so apologies if i am not an expert. Still he bought that new at one point , if i recall he had debts for a number of years. Instead of buying overpriced apple products he could have put the money towards his debts. A 15inch one new would have cost 1.5k roughly if looking at the apple official website , his looked large enough to be a 15inch one.
If he sells it now it probably will be a few hundred quid , but he must have bought it for over a grand at some point. Surely for someone in high debts and with a low paying wage he couldn't have afforded that.
Doubt a warrant from the High Court covers (although petty) criminal damage.
It's not criminal damage because they are officers of the court acting within the law.
Anyway the overstaying tenants were hardly in a position to start making complaints about criminal damage to a property they should not have been in. And the agent for the landlord/letting agent, the South African guy, was no doubt just grateful to get the property back.
Not correct, a bailiff can only gain entry via an open door or window. Smashing glass is breaking and entry even with a warrant.
You've pretty much described the business model for banks in the City of London & Wall Street, of course no one's asking them to return their assets.
Actually it does, once an act becomes criminal not civil which is what a warrant is an actual law has been broken.
A bailiff, any bailiff, does not have the power to break and enter. Ever.
Those featured in the programme are not bailiffs, they are High Court Enforcement Officers.
Anyway they are not 'breaking and entering' as you put it they are enforcing a High Court writ of possession.
Actually the circumstances in which a High Court Enforcement Officer is legally allowed to break in are limited. Especially at a domestic address.
http://www.hceoa.org.uk/faq/have-you-been-visited-by-a-high-court-enforcement-officer.html
Breaking and entering / smashing glass is not part of their remit and most bailiffs would be reluctant to do so.
Refer to comment regarding open doors and windows being the only means of lawful entry - this does not include smashing glass and breaking windows.
It is Still criminal damage to the property whether the tenants were over-staying or not.
Its value when he bought it is a vast difference from now, yes, he could have managed his debts better and not bought it in the first place but thats semantics, that particular horse is long bolted. You suggested he could have sold it to help when realistically selling it wouldn't have made much of a difference at that point.
Oh, and I'm not an 'apple sheep' either, but I didn't realise knowing how much products cost made someone a sheep
Have you even watched the program, or are you on another anti establishment rant?
Yes, I've watched the programme and it's a very poor means of argument to resort to snide, belittling digs simply because someone has a different view from your own.
And what's wrong with anti establishmentarianism? The establishment, after all, is what encouraged endless credit and those who can't afford to put purchasing above payment, with grossly inflated interest rates.
No one needs a huge wide screen TV or iPad. True so why encourage those who need them least and can afford them least to get themselves into huge debt to purchase them at far above the retail price?
Anyway, toddle off and read your Daily Mail, dear. Ooops sorry snide dig, but when in Rome...!