Sharesmagazine
 Home   Log In   Register   Our Services   My Account   Contact   Help 
 Stockwatch   Level 2   Portfolio   Charts   Share Price   Awards   Market Scan   Videos   Broker Notes   Director Deals   Traders' Room 
 Funds   Trades   Terminal   Alerts   Heatmaps   News   Indices   Forward Diary   Forex Prices   Shares Magazine   Investors' Room 
 CFDs   Shares   SIPPs   ISAs   Forex   ETFs   Comparison Tables   Spread Betting 
You are NOT currently logged in
Register now or login to post to this thread.

THE TALK TO YOURSELF THREAD. (NOWT)     

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.

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!

bosley - 15 Mar 2008 20:52 - 6696 of 81564

one of the funniest reviews i have ever read. :)))))

well, it made me laugh.

kim, i agree. it is truly amazing what you can find on youtube. type in " worlds biggest nose ". speaking as someone with a very big nose, i certainly felt a whole lot better after watching that ;) also, try " man with can in mouth " :)

oblomov - 15 Mar 2008 23:37 - 6697 of 81564

Do you remember this one, Kim?

">

kimoldfield - 17 Mar 2008 02:04 - 6698 of 81564

Bosley, next time I'm in Belfast I just have to go to Goodfellas!! That review is likely to boost custom....briefly! And yes, some nose but that mouth is something to shout about :o)

Oblo, I'm going to have nightmares for days (or should it be nights?) after that!

oblomov - 17 Mar 2008 08:36 - 6699 of 81564


Last one - promise!

Does anyone else remember this - can't believe its on youtube. Took me back almost 50 years instantly!

">

kimoldfield - 17 Mar 2008 09:04 - 6700 of 81564

Classic Oblo, that programme was probably responsible for today's youth/crime culture!
Register now or login to post to this thread.