tonyh29 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 What impact will that have on saving accounts Interest rates – which outnumber loans by seven to one ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Is that savers outnumbering those with loans by seven to one, savings accounts outnumbering loans by seven to one or the total savings amount being seven times as much as the total loan amount? Is that all private debt/loans or just household debt/loans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Interest rates on mortgages about to rise. Good to see condemnation from their friends in Downing Street ........ oh there wasn't any A similar amount to that made by Blair and Brown when lenders were handing out 120% mortgages like sweets to those with no hope of repaying and on properties that would never reach that valuation. Without considering the fact there were watching watching the city basically do whatever the hell they wanted. From the party or state control and hands on regulation, pretty negligent I'm sure you'll agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Interest rates on mortgages about to rise. Good to see condemnation from their friends in Downing Street ........ oh there wasn't any A similar amount to that made by Blair and Brown when lenders were handing out 120% mortgages like sweets to those with no hope of repaying and on properties that would never reach that valuation. Without considering the fact there were watching watching the city basically do whatever the hell they wanted. From the party or state control and hands on regulation, pretty negligent I'm sure you'll agree. But they are not in power anymore so you're not allowed to mention it. That rule is only waived when blaming Thatcher, in which case the 80's can be considered as yesterday for the purpose of comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 It would appear more sensible to discuss things which may have contributed to conditions that can make that kind of thing more likely to happen; specific things which may have been catalysts; errors in actions to counter events; whether some people may have been angry; whether some may have been opportunist thieves; whether some may have gone along for the craic; whether some may have been determined arsonists or nasty violent thugs and on and on. Why? What matters is that whatever their motivation (none of which could be considered virtuous) the rioters assaulted and robbed people, destroyed businesses and destroyed property in the pursuit of personal gain. Hand wringing discussions centred on why the poor dears did what they did avoids confronting the glaring truth: all of them decided to break the law, take what wasn't theirs and cause massive damage to the lives of innocent people in the process. They are scum, plain and simple. Well for a start, the number who caused "massive damage to the lives of innocent people" is pretty tiny. Disagree. Setting aside the physical assaults and street robberies that took place in cities across the country, a large number of small businesses were damaged and looted. I'd argue that caused massive economic damage and distress to those who suffered from the actions of rioters. I don't accept any rebutals that may be forthcoming along the lines of "oh well, most were probably insured..." One wonders how many struggling small businesses went down in the interim period between damage and payout due to loss of earnings? One feature of the riots is that the sentencing seemed to punish all involved as thought they were accomplices of the worst cases. Man burns down store in Croydon, real risk of death; man picking up bottle of water off the street in Brixton is imprisoned. Wholly disproportionate, unfair, and pretty undermining of confidence in the legal system. Whether burning a building, robbing a pedestrian, smashing a shop or collecting the resulting spilled loot, anyone who took part did so for a reason. I have no problem at all with draconian punishments being dished out to anyone since proven to have participated in one the above crimes. Second, most rioters did not assault and rob people, as you will know if you have followed this at any more than the most superficial level. And most rioters were not sent to prison. I had the misfortune of being in London the night the Croydon store was burned down. What I saw was a gang of looters coming down the Bayswater Road by Queensway Tube, smashing shops, looting, and assaulting at least half a dozen people. That was in one small area so I suggest that although most rioters didn't assault people, that doesn't mean that an awful lot of innocent people weren't assaulted and/or robbed. Third, if we are going to be going after people who take what isn't theirs and cause "massive damage to the lives of innocent people", then the City of London would be a good place to start, and I don't mean the Occupy people. I agree wholeheartedly. In 2007/08 many banks should have been wound down and their senior (recently knighted) management put on trial. As I recall we were proposing such actions at the time and have done so consistently since then. Sadly Gordon chose to transfer their debts to the taxpayer as an early Christmas present and 'tut' loudly, while attempting to deflect away from his own culpability for the disaster. Obviously what was done then cannot simply be undone now and they did, in effect, get away with it, and with the full blessing of Westminster - hot on the heels of their own dodgy financial dealings. Is that fair? No. Does it justify the riots? No. Were the rioters motivated by a burning sense of injustice? No, it was the desire for new trainers, a flat screen TV and whatever else they could steal from someone else, innit. Fourth, Snowy's post usefully mentions crowd behaviour and how people get caught up in it, which I am sure anyone on this forum will need little instruction in. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. "Everyone else was doing it" is not, imo, a valid excuse when you get caught. Characterising it as "handwringing", as though trying to understand why the riots happened is equivalent to pathetic vacillating indecision or terminal faith in the good motives of the most obvious crook is laughably obtuse, and I can only surmise you don't really mean it. It was a general observation that some people, yourself included, seem to want absolution for people who went out as violent mobs, robbed, vandalised other peoples property, stole, assaulted and generally scared the piss out of innocent and law abiding citizens who were minding their own business. I don't accept that they abdicated responsibility for their own actions by getting 'caught up in the moment of it all' and prison for those found guilty is both a suitable punishment and a clear message that such behaviour will not be tolerated. The absence of such punishment is a road to anarchy. Had they gone and burned down Parliament in a fit of rage at the urine being extracted by our rulers I'd have a very different take on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Interest rates on mortgages about to rise. Good to see condemnation from their friends in Downing Street ........ oh there wasn't any A similar amount to that made by Blair and Brown when lenders were handing out 120% mortgages like sweets to those with no hope of repaying and on properties that would never reach that valuation. Without considering the fact there were watching watching the city basically do whatever the hell they wanted. From the party or state control and hands on regulation, pretty negligent I'm sure you'll agree. But they are not in power anymore so you're not allowed to mention it. That rule is only waived when blaming Thatcher, in which case the 80's can be considered as yesterday for the purpose of comparison. never a truer word spoken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Fourth, Snowy's post usefully mentions crowd behaviour and how people get caught up in it, which I am sure anyone on this forum will need little instruction in. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. "Everyone else was doing it" is not, imo, a valid excuse when you get caught. It most certainly isn't a valid excuse. It may, however, be a real reason (amongst many things) for the behaviour of some. Putting forward reasons for why people may do things, for why situations may arise, for why conditions may be ripe for certain behaviours to take hold is not excusing them and looking for those reasons should not be confused with and misrepresented as looking for excuses. Edit: 'is' for 'are'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Fourth, Snowy's post usefully mentions crowd behaviour and how people get caught up in it, which I am sure anyone on this forum will need little instruction in. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. "Everyone else was doing it" is not, imo, a valid excuse when you get caught. It most certainly isn't a valid excuse. It may, however, be a real reason (amongst many things) for the behaviour of some. Putting forward reasons for why people may do things, for why situations may arise, for why conditions may be ripe for certain behaviours to take hold are not excusing them and looking for those reasons should not be confused with and misrepresented as looking for excuses. Well done that man, you've encapsulated a thought no politician or opinionated face on tv or radio is capable of, the fine difference between giving the reason and offering an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Does any one know the predicted growth levels for this 1/4...? Basically will we be heading back into recession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Fourth, Snowy's post usefully mentions crowd behaviour and how people get caught up in it, which I am sure anyone on this forum will need little instruction in. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. "Everyone else was doing it" is not, imo, a valid excuse when you get caught. It most certainly isn't a valid excuse. It may, however, be a real reason (amongst many things) for the behaviour of some. Putting forward reasons for why people may do things, for why situations may arise, for why conditions may be ripe for certain behaviours to take hold is not excusing them and looking for those reasons should not be confused with and misrepresented as looking for excuses. Edit: 'is' for 'are'. Fair enough, point taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Is that savers outnumbering those with loans by seven to one, savings accounts outnumbering loans by seven to one or the total savings amount being seven times as much as the total loan amount? Is that all private debt/loans or just household debt/loans? I saw the article briefly on " flipboard" so can't be 100% sure but my understanding is your first one savers outnumbering those with loans by seven to one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Interesting to see today an improving Iceland putting on trial their PM Geir Haarde over his accountability for their financial/banking collapse in 2008. Iceland as I said a while ago have completely bucked the trend as regards the rest of the world and refused to assist those responsible for their economies collapse and instead assisted their own citizens by taking over the banks and writing down millions of loans to business and private individuals. As for the UK like US who are pledged to assist the bankers first our very own majority tax payer owned - Nat West, the One Account, Halifax & RBS claim that they have no choice but to put up mortgage interest rates because of higher interbank lending rates & regulator's insisting that they increase capital reserves. No mention of increasing profits means better pay deals & bonuses I see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 claim that they have no choice but to put up mortgage interest rates maybe had Iceland paid back the £4bn they defaulted on to UK banks then they wouldn't have had to :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Iceland as I said a while ago have completely bucked the trend as regards the rest of the world and refused to assist those responsible for their economies collapse and instead assisted their own citizens by taking over the banks and writing down millions of loans to business and private individuals Most of the KSF directors and managers withdrew their own personal funds out of the bank, which by some strange stroke of luck was all in the week before it went bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 savers outnumbering those with loans by seven to one I did a bit of looking around and there seems to be a little disagreement about the source so it appears to be one of those 'factoid' things. One suggestion that I saw was that it came from some Building Society stats that showed they had seven savings accounts for every mortgage one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Iceland as I said a while ago have completely bucked the trend as regards the rest of the world and refused to assist those responsible for their economies collapse and instead assisted their own citizens by taking over the banks and writing down millions of loans to business and private individuals Most of the KSF directors and managers withdrew their own personal funds out of the bank, which by some strange stroke of luck was all in the week before it went bust. Odd that they only seem to prosecuting the PM, then. Surely that behaviour would be illegal pretty much anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Iceland as I said a while ago have completely bucked the trend as regards the rest of the world and refused to assist those responsible for their economies collapse and instead assisted their own citizens by taking over the banks and writing down millions of loans to business and private individuals Most of the KSF directors and managers withdrew their own personal funds out of the bank, which by some strange stroke of luck was all in the week before it went bust. Odd that they only seem to prosecuting the PM, then. Surely that behaviour would be illegal pretty much anywhere? Like I said, I'm sure it was all purely coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Moving back to England in 3 months and hope to get a marketing job. Well educated up to masters level with moderate experience, what are my chances? How bacd are things in the good ole UK at the moment. I hope things are improving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 JLR are hiring heavily in all area's, I'd try there first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I am not famailiar with them. I may have to do some more research. Only want to be in London or Birmingham, up north just doesnt interest me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts