Are the Banks/government to blame for the rise in sites like GOODF

[letissier14]

You said that ....... No one "needs" to be homeless, but the fact is many people are, and more are because of freemen. It's a fact"

Have you got figures that prove this?

I gave you figures further up, the budget for homelessness, emergency housing and CAB have been slashed and are lower than spent on the Crawford farces.

If tax payers money wasn't going to the latter, it could go to the former, and more people would be off the streets.

There was a guy in Nottingham who died the other month. A good guy, born into a pit village, grew up in Thatcher's Britain, didn't want to go down the mines, so enlisted.

He served in Germany (British forces of the Rhine) and did a tour in Northern Ireland.

Came out of the forces with "issues", failed to adjust, eventually spiralled into substance abuse, alcoholism, and homelessness.

The last couple of years he suffered terribly from depression, and wanted to sort his life out.

Unfortunately, due to cuts, there's low funding to help people like him, and all sorts of waiting lists, so they didn't get to him in time, and he passed away the other month.

I knew him, he was a good man.

So you now have both the figures, and a real life victim.

This freemen crap costs, and those costs hurt people, often the poorest and most vulnerable in society, thus perpetuating the misery.

Are you saying because of Tom Crawford, this man died?

Truth is these cuts would happen with or without the TC saga

They are constantly making cuts full stop

[FatGambit]

That's not how local government funding work, if the Police save £3 by not having a cup of tea while standing outside Tom's former home, it doesn't mean that money becomes available for the homeless unit.

If you're looking for someone to blame for your friends death, then Tom/FMOTL woo isn't it, best start looking in the direction of Downing Street.

[wanglepin]

Are the Banks/government to blame for the rise in sites like GOODF

Does this include those unbalanced Freeman On The Land sites? and I believe your question is slightly loaded.

I don't believe it was a loaded question at all.

I'm not saying it is all just down to Banks/governments etc, but I don't think they help

Well now your question has slightly changed already. This why I said "slightly" loaded.
And your reply didn't answer my question.

[NG3]

Are you saying because of Tom Crawford, this man died?

I'm saying without the money wasted on the Crawford's it might be different, because that money would have been available to be spent elsewhere.

Actions have consequences.

This isn't harmless stuff.

[Pox]

It's the jokers who offer silly amounts like £1 per week that they have issues with, and rightly so in many cases (those that have a war chest,for example).

When you have half a dozen debts and you are paying £1 per week to each debt and you are on benefits, that is not a silly amount by a long shot.

I think it is if you have a war chest (for example) as I pointed out.
The point that I (maybe) failed to make is that I think it is wrong to offer a silly amount to repay debts when continuing to have a sky subscription, the latest smart phone, live on takeaways, go to the pub........
I'm not saying that all in debt don't tighten their belts accordingly but plenty do and then seek ways to avoid not paying by using some of the methods on GOODF and the like or claiming that all energy should be free or traffic fines shouldn't be paid because of freeman woo.....

[NG3]

That's not how local government funding work, if the Police save £3 by not having a cup of tea while standing outside Tom's former home, it doesn't mean that money becomes available for the homeless unit.

No, but if moneys cut from one place, and spent in another it can be contributory to damage caused by underfunding in the area cut.

[FatGambit]

That's not how local government funding work, if the Police save £3 by not having a cup of tea while standing outside Tom's former home, it doesn't mean that money becomes available for the homeless unit.

No, but if moneys cut from one place, and spent in another it can be contributory to damage caused by underfunding in the area cut.

Budgets are set months, often years in advance of the financial year they cover.

As I said, the scenario you describe is not how local government funding works, it may affect future budgeting yes, but it didn't affect this years mental health budget, which was probably set it 2013 or 2014, you want someone to blame the cuts on I get that, but in this case Tom isn't the cause.

IIRC savings made in budgets go back to central government, it's why departments spend stupid amount of money on office supplies and refurbishing toilets every March, to make sure they spend the full budget, as if they 'save' money, the saving is then chopped off their budget the next year. That 'saving' doesn't get redistributed to other departments. Similarly an overspend caused by unexpected circumstances, such a civil unrest or acts of god, would be covered by central Government, so the Policing cost of Tom's parties will likely be paid out of ean emergency funding war chest the government have for such unexpected events.

[NG3]

That's not how local government funding work, if the Police save £3 by not having a cup of tea while standing outside Tom's former homet.

Police operations, CT evasion, etc the last few years has cost approx. £17m more than your £3 cup of tea.

which was probably set it 2013 or 2014

& what was happening in Tom's world in 2014?

[FatGambit]

As I said, shortfalls or overspends in Police funding is covered by the Home Office, not the NHS.


There's a guy, he lives in London and his name is Goerge, perhaps you've heard of him, it's his fault your local NHS didn't have enough of a Mental Health services budget this year.

[NG3]

As I said, shortfalls or overspends in Police funding is covered by the Home Office, not the NHS.


There's a guy, he lives in London and his name is Goerge, perhaps you've heard of him, it's his fault your local NHS didn't have enough of a Mental Health services budget this year.

We're not talking NHS

[FatGambit]

You said mental health services didn't have the budget to help him (unless I misunderstood what you wrote), it's NHS who fund those services, not council tax payers.

[Joinder]

Are the Banks/government to blame for the rise in sites like GOODF?

No.

But I would say the behaviour of Freemen, and the damage done to our economy by the tactics of sites like GOODF do have an impact on others that perpetuates the problem.

I don't agree that Freemen damage the economy as in my experience they only end damaging themselves in the long run and anyone stupid enough to follow their advice.

Being an ex MOD on goodf I can honestly say that the majority of people that I helped on there, were there to get help with their debt problems and very few of them would ever consider themselves fmotl or were even in interested in the concept of it. If you actually look on goodf even now, you will find it is only a handful who are promoting the fmotl ways.

The question I'm asking is why so many people are finding their way to goodf and similar sites, and the answer to that in my experience, is the genuine lack of help out there.

Both CAB & National Debt Line are seriously under funded in terms of finance, training, support and good advice. To contact a solicitor is beyond the finances of most people in debt.

Banks, bailiffs, councils and debt collectors don't follow the guidelines set out to help people and are very unhelpful in general.

Then you have the utilities companies that offer schemes to those in dire financial positions but don't actually inform them of such.

A very insightful post, thanks for sharing with us.
Of course financial institutions were helped out in their hour of need, its a shame that individuals don't get a sliver of the the help banks received.
Not only that, jobs and services that make a real difference to peoples lives are being cut as a direct result.
I can see how folk become desperate and will turn to anything for help.
Welfare for people, not for Banks is a slogan I hoped I would never see in my lifetime.

[NG3]

Of course financial institutions were helped out in their hour of need.

How much of that need was caused by intentionally bad debtors, like Tom?

Don't mistake me, when a bank acts illegally then I'm all for punishing it, so I'm not trying to paint banks, or other institutions as angelic bastions of virtue that can do no wrong, but neither should we ignore the contributory elements of people like freemen.

As I just pointed out on the other thread Tom's cost the tax payer over 100 times the value of the debt he refused to pay.

Imagine if all the 60 million+ people in this country did the same?

This stuff has major consequences on all our pockets.

It might not be as soft a target as the banks, it might not come bundled with easy to swallow conspiracy theories, but it's every bit as damaging to every man, woman and child in this country.

[FatGambit]

It could, and has, been argued that the banks created the problem themselves by loaning money to people who really they shouldn't have done. Back in the 90's my bank mangageer tried to get me to take out a 100% mortgage on an industrial unit, it was completely idiotic for me to do it, and I didn't, but the pressure placed on me by the bank was unbelievable, not too dissimilar to the 'own your own home, leave something for your kids' mortgage sales pitch around the same time.

[Hyrion]

the genuine lack of help out there

I don't think there's necessarily a lack of help. That a person may be looking in the wrong locations for that help is likely a much stronger cause.

My immediate family that I grew up with = no help, in fact the greater percentage are actually a direct threat/harm on my well being. Not surprisingly, I choose to have nothing to do with them.

My extended family = lots of help available. This is just one example where someone could be looking for help in the wrong place.

concentrated on educating myself on the consumer credit act, data protection act, etc

That identifies another sound source for help: Web sites covering those entities that do provide help to those struggling, the Government websites that cover various Acts of Legislation, Regulatory bodies such as the CRTC in Canada. I've personally had to contact the Banking Ombudsman on just 1 of the several banks I've dealt with over the years. As sad as it is, sometimes that's required. But if you don't know you can speak to such an oversight body then it becomes much harder to get the particular individual you're dealing with in the Bank to cooperate. Another example of not knowing where to look.

Only 1 of the debt collectors accepted my offer, whilst the rest hounded me for larger payments which were simply beyond my means.

Sadly, some debt collectors - I think there's a good likelihood for "as a general group" - are not nice people, primarily I think due to what their jobs require of them:

• get the money no matter what the circumstances, assume everyone on the list is on there because they don't want to pay

Once you're dealing with a debt collector, it's even more important to be very aware of all your lawful rights/protections.

Are there bad people in the Banking industry? Yup! Just like there are bad people in any area of life including small family units. It's a reality that we get to live with because we are nowhere near as civilized as we'd like to think we are. However, as a general rule: just because some people are bad doesn't mean the group in general is bad.

Is the Government to blame for sites like Goodf? Nope! While it might not seem like the Government is helping, they are doing so in the ways that Society has set up to allow them to. Such as by creating that consumer credit act you used to help protect yourself in time of need.

Could the Government help more? Yup! But it's also hard to say how they can without running into resistance from the very Public they are trying to help. Additionally, like all entities, they are ultimately acting on decisions by human beings, beings who will make mistakes. The more complex something is, the more people (who are imperfect and will make mistakes) need to be involved, each giving their own input, for the person at the top of the ladder to ultimately make a decision on. Some may be providing their input in what they deem best for others while others may be providing their input with their own interests in mind. This is the nature of humanity.

While the Government and Banks contributed to the problem of people taking on more debt then they could afford, those very people also contributed. I looked around at the on-line "how much mortgage can you afford" calculators of a half dozen local banks. Using all the exact same input criteria the amount I "qualified" for ranged from 260k through 530k. Knowing my own comfort levels with regards debt, I won't go any higher then 300k.

However, I can easily understand there are people out there who do not know their own debt comfort levels. So if the Bank says they could afford a 530k home.... why the heck wouldn't they go for it? It is a much nicer home after all. So yea... those that decided to trust the Banks calculations and go with the higher debt load because they'd get a nicer home out of it without considering the impact it would potentially have on their financial health = also contributed to the problem.

In short: in my humble opinion there's enough contributing factors from all players involved in borrowing that the blame is shared all around.

[letissier14]

I think it is if you have a war chest (for example) as I pointed out.
The point that I (maybe) failed to make is that I think it is wrong to offer a silly amount to repay debts when continuing to have a sky subscription, the latest smart phone, live on takeaways, go to the pub........
I'm not saying that all in debt don't tighten their belts accordingly but plenty do and then seek ways to avoid not paying by using some of the methods on GOODF and the like or claiming that all energy should be free or traffic fines shouldn't be paid because of freeman woo.....

I totally agree, there are many people in debt who still continue to splash money around, which is wrong. Like you say they can barely afford to eat, yet have all the latest gadgets.

The 3 letters on goodf do have some standing on the fact they require the creditor to prove that the debt exists or that they are legally allowed to collect it. If it can't be proved, you can refuse to pay the debt and this is covered under the consumer credit act.

In my experience most people offer to pay but after being constantly hounded by the creditor they feel like they have nothing to lose and simple refuse to pay.

As for the free energy and not paying traffic fines, that is just another dodge by them not to pay.
.

[letissier14]

Well now your question has slightly changed already. This why I said "slightly" loaded.
And your reply didn't answer my question.

The question hasn't changed at all.

To answer your question. GOODF does offer an unbalanced view (though some of us tried to keep it realistic) but mypoint was more saying if the Banks/governments etc were more helpful, less people would even comes across sites like goodf in the first place.

[Hyrion]

I don't think people understand the misery and depression that can often result from being in debt, which is then compounded with the constant threats of legal action and lack of help from creditors.

I do. Sadly, instead of getting the kind of financial instruction from my parents they should have provided I ended up learning the life lesson of where my financial comfort zone is through the hard route: personal experience in making mistakes. But... how many are taking personal responsibility for their choice even if they still blame the Banks?

For example: Prior to loosing your job at the time, was your debt load at a level where you were pretty much spending everything you made on debt and weren't able to put money aside for a rainy day? After your experience, have you kept your debt levels down enough that you could still build a financial nest egg in the event you end up out of work again?

You don't have to answer those questions, but if you aren't building that financial "emergency fund" for a rainy day (or year) then I'd suggest you haven't quite yet learned from the previous mistake. If that's the case, isn't it your responsibility to be putting something aside each pay check for the future? If you're not doing that, taking care of your responsibility for your future financial well being, then can you really put all the blame on the Government/Banks/Other Creditors if you run into trouble again?

[Joinder]

Of course financial institutions were helped out in their hour of need.

How much of that need was caused by intentionally bad debtors, like Tom?

Don't mistake me, when a bank acts illegally then I'm all for punishing it, so I'm not trying to paint banks, or other institutions as angelic bastions of virtue that can do no wrong, but neither should we ignore the contributory elements of people like freemen.

As I just pointed out on the other thread Tom's cost the tax payer over 100 times the value of the debt he refused to pay.

Imagine if all the 60 million+ people in this country did the same?

This stuff has major consequences on all our pockets.

It might not be as soft a target as the banks, it might not come bundled with easy to swallow conspiracy theories, but it's every bit as damaging to every man, woman and child in this country.

The crisis that necessitated the bail out wasn't caused by bad debtors.
Forbes did an excellent analysis of the crash, everything from deregulation to gambling on derivatives is blamed, but not bad debtors.

[Hyrion]

You want to stop poverty, you need to work from the top downwards

Not surprisingly: again, I disagree.

Personal financial responsibility starts with the individual. All personal responsibilities start with the individual. There's a powerful over-riding force guiding each and every human being: Free Will.

No one can force another human being to be financially responsible. We have to make that choice for ourselves and if we choose not to be financially responsible, we have no right to place the blame on someone else when we're financially stressed.