goldfinger
- 09 Jun 2005 12:25
Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).
Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.
cheers GF.
hewittalan6
- 10 Mar 2008 11:49
- 6676 of 81564
Buy him some red ink futures for his birthday, Bos. You know he'll thank you.
ExecLine
- 11 Mar 2008 10:15
- 6677 of 81564
About time!
MP's will have to put in chitties for expenses that are anything more than 25 soon:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7289294.stm
hewittalan6
- 11 Mar 2008 10:53
- 6678 of 81564
Ladies of negotiable affection around Kings Cross don't give receipts, so thats half the MP's knackered.
The other half will have to get receipts for "rent" from boys on wimbledon common.
oblomov
- 11 Mar 2008 11:03
- 6679 of 81564
It is very bad , whats happened on Wimbledon Common - years since I've seen a Womble - frightened off by the MP's.
hewittalan6
- 13 Mar 2008 15:46
- 6680 of 81564
Don't know if anyone is interested, but I have just been informed by HBOS that from midnight on Saturday they are pulling out of subprime lending to all self certification cases and to full status cases where the proceeds are for the purpose of debt consolidation.
partridge
- 14 Mar 2008 10:09
- 6681 of 81564
Better late than never. IMO this present crisis caused by bankers' greed and there is a lot of misery to come for people who should never have got involved (and probably had not got a clue what they were getting into).
hewittalan6
- 14 Mar 2008 10:37
- 6682 of 81564
Interesting view, Partridge.
By extension of course, what you are saying is that it was not caused by the greed of ordinary people wanting newer cars, holidays abroad and better houses.
What you also seem to be implying is that those now facing repossession or bankruptcy had no idea that if you borrow money, you must repay it.
I find both those things hard to accept. For me, the root of it all in this country is a combination of consumerism, the right to buy and a creeping change of all things from priviliges to rights.
People were given a right to buy homes at a discount rate. The argument that they had paid over the years is tosh. They had paid for rent and no more. Even that was subsidised. They squandered the discount buying consumer goods and services they had not earned. This was not a problem as their equity rose as quickly as they could spend it and they just kept remortgaging or securing cheap loans to satisfy their unsecured debts. This was driven by a strange notion that a high quality lifestyle of nice cars / clothes / holidays and socialising was a given right, not an earned privilige.
They moved onwards and upwards in the world, but now money is tight, they cannot realise any more and they are paying for a profligate lifestyle. That is their choice.
I find it hard to blame bankers for that, particularly as they were filling an identified desire in the market.
Alan
oblomov
- 14 Mar 2008 11:27
- 6683 of 81564
Blimey, Alan! I agree 100% with your post - am I ill?
High time people took responsability for their own actions rather than blaming someone else when their greed/stupidity leads them into problems!
It's a bit like someone buying a knife from an ironmongers then complaining to the shop because they cut themselves!
kimoldfield
- 14 Mar 2008 11:52
- 6684 of 81564
Yes, solid reasoning there Alan. Another thing that has become a 'right' is the idea that people should sue for everything under the sun that goes wrong with their life. I had a slightly burned corn flake this morning; my solicitor is dictating a letter to Kellogs as I write this. 10m should about cover my distress I think.
oblomov
- 14 Mar 2008 12:00
- 6685 of 81564
I'm very distressed reading about it, Kim, ask your solicitor to add a further 1m for me!
hewittalan6
- 14 Mar 2008 12:03
- 6686 of 81564
And as a shareholder in Kellogs, can you ask your solicitor to sue you for making such a thing public, thereby reducing the companies value, and kellogs for allowing it to happen with complete disregard to shareholder value, on my behalf.
jimmy b
- 14 Mar 2008 12:38
- 6687 of 81564
That must have been a terrible experience kim ,,,,i once got up in the night to eat some Kelloggs sultana bran ,only to find it was just bran flakes !!! no sultanas anywhere ,(i emptied the box) ,it goes without saying i was up all night very distressed.
oblomov
- 14 Mar 2008 13:01
- 6688 of 81564
When I was a kid, I ate a curlywurly and my mouth was glued shut for 3 days.
Couldn't eat or drink a thing - nearly starved to death.
This was in the days when you didn't sue, unfortunately. Very traumatic for a nine year old, I've never really got over it - do you think its too late to sue?
kimoldfield
- 14 Mar 2008 13:06
- 6689 of 81564
I confess it did leave me feeling a bit flaky. My solicitor cannot sue me Alan, as he is already acting on my behalf; he has though, apparently advised a rival firm to start proceedings against me as he now feels he can never touch another Kelloggs product having learned of my terrible experience. I fear that there could be further repercussions for me so have instructed another firm of solicitors to sue my solicitor for not pointing out the possible ramifications of my actions. I am hoping that I will come out of this with something positive; I have been advised that Kelloggs would have provided with me with a whole new box of unburned corn flakes had I approached them first. No way would I accept such a bribe to keep quiet. 10m, nothing less.
Oblo,. my solicitor advises me that you have a good case for suing Kelloggs as a separate matter, he suggests 5m as you were secondary to the distress caused to me. He charges 5% of any amount recovered but nothing if you do not win. He no longer likes corn flakes.
kimoldfield
- 14 Mar 2008 13:08
- 6690 of 81564
Oblo, the curlywurly thing; you would have to sue the shopkeeper who sold it to you, he would in turn sue the manufacturer.
Jimmy b, the sultana thing is no longer a currant issue :o)
partridge
- 14 Mar 2008 13:34
- 6691 of 81564
Accept fully the point that people should be responsible for their own actions, but imo the average joe public is both basically honest and has knowledge of financial affairs amounting to the square root of nowt. When bank managers had customer interests at heart this lack of financial acumen was not a problem, but when those interests changed there was a very fertile ground to plunder if thought fit (and most were encouraged to do so). Perhaps because of the beloved FSA, documentation surrounding even the simplest transaction these days seems bewilderingly complicated and many of those who put their trust in bankers and their ilk are now rueing the day.
hewittalan6
- 14 Mar 2008 15:16
- 6692 of 81564
Should we all sue the FSA????? ;-)
Seriously, For 4 years adverts must contain a warning no smaller than the main text. Every piece of paper for a regulated contract must contain the "Your home is at risk" bit in large type. You get a minimum of 4 written quotations, each one advising of exact costs and a "rate shock" as to exactly how much more you will pay if rates go up by each %.
What else can be done short of sending a civil servant to oversee every interview is beyond me. If banks and lenders are responsible for this, then bookies are responsible for those losing and McDonalds are responsible for all the porkers in coronary care units, kellogs are responsible for Kims damaged teeth and the CEO of Ford(UK) must be taken out and shot for the number of car crashes.
Remember the old tory government advertising that we should all opt out of pensions??? Now we are encouraged to sue those who advised us to.
Remember the old endowment mortgages? The tax system was designed to encourage that and yet we are encouraged that this was mis-selling.
The point is, the IFA or bank is too easy a target, when in truth government policy and everyones desire for more for less is the basic cause.
partridge
- 14 Mar 2008 16:33
- 6693 of 81564
Alan - So when the punter asks the financial salesman about "the home being at risk" sentence (which he or she probably does understand) what is the response? Guess we might agree to differ on that as well! (FWIW my view is that the reply would be on the lines of "we have to put that in because your home is security for the loan" or something equally bland). I have no doubt you are representative of the good guys in the industry, but I do believe there are/have been a lot of sharks.
oblomov
- 14 Mar 2008 17:16
- 6694 of 81564
Kim,
can't remember where I bought the curlywurly, but do remember Terry Scott used to advertise the blessed things. As he's dead, can I sue June Whitfield?
">
kimoldfield
- 14 Mar 2008 18:12
- 6695 of 81564
Good grief, I'd forgotten all about that ad. Sorry Oblo, going to have to sue you now - for reminding me of it!!
It's amazing what you find on You Tube!