Right Or Wrong.
- Thread starter jambutty
- Start date
I don't think so no, you personally, or whoever buys the repossessed property, more than likely had absolutely nothing to do with them losing their home
Is it morally wrong to date a divorced person?
Is it morally wrong to have a child because the person next to you lost their baby?
You can't put your life on hold because of someone else's bad timing/luck/circumstanes
Doesn't stop you thinking about them and caring tho
Is it morally wrong to date a divorced person?
Is it morally wrong to have a child because the person next to you lost their baby?
You can't put your life on hold because of someone else's bad timing/luck/circumstanes
Doesn't stop you thinking about them and caring tho
Agree great post Accylass, tried to give you karma but got to share it first. The people who are morally wrong IMO are the lenders!!!
If it's immoral to buy a reposessed property, what should happen to it? 
I agree. It can't be considered morally wrong. It is not the buyer's fault.
If people over stretch themselves financially then they must be prepared for the consequences.....and I know that in life sometimes circumstances get out of control(perhaps through no fault of your own)....but when considering a long term commitment you should always ask yourself 'What if.....?' And perhaps insure yourself against the 'what ifs'.
It is sad when someone loses their home through reposession, but the buyer should not worry about the ethics of such a deal as they were not of their making.
It is sad when someone loses their home through reposession, but the buyer should not worry about the ethics of such a deal as they were not of their making.
I trust that you don’t mean me personally. No off course not. It’s just the way it reads.
JV interviewed a number of callers over the phone, like he does, and some said yes and many said no. The balance was in favour of the No camp.
That’s a bit unfair.
JV was just doing his job as the interviewer and finding out people’s views. He never makes his own views known but does put both sides of the argument forward.
It is unfortunate when someone has their home repossessed but it is unfair to put all the blame on the home owner.
The banks, in particular, and the building societies must shoulder some of the blame in offering mortgages to those who couldn’t really afford them. Anyone who has ever said, “you must get on the property ladder” is also to blame for pressuring young couples into doing so.
What is immoral in this whole debacle is the banks selling off the property for what they can get just as long as it covers the debt on it. Many repossessed homes are sold off by auction and many are sold off for well under market value, but the banks have got their money back so they don’t care.
The banks, in particular, and the building societies must shoulder some of the blame in offering mortgages to those who couldn’t really afford them. Anyone who has ever said, “you must get on the property ladder” is also to blame for pressuring young couples into doing so.
What is immoral in this whole debacle is the banks selling off the property for what they can get just as long as it covers the debt on it. Many repossessed homes are sold off by auction and many are sold off for well under market value, but the banks have got their money back so they don’t care.
What has Jeremy Kyle got to do with the Jeremy Vine radio show and the subject of repossessed homes?
Margaret, an interesting article from your same source , about Marie Stopes and her being an advocate for stopping the type of people in your article (Jamie, etc. ) from being allowed to breed
Royal Mail honours family planning pioneer Marie Stopes - but sparks outrage over her eugenics links | Mail Online
sorry for the wander
should probably be another thread 
The banks are to blame for repo's, especially in cases where there is what is called a further advance, and if you are ill or die, the insurance isnt upgraded to meet the payments of the advance, also, many lenders wont sell a repo in less than 12 months, this is so that, if the property sells for more than the mortgage, they can charge the whole interest because a payment hasnt been made within 12 months, THAT is morally wrong!
I agree that if there is any question of morals it lies with the bank or building society which has in the past been all too willing to lend more than people can afford to borrow and all to ready to repossess when they get into difficulties.
I remember someone once saying to me that if you need to borrow money then you can't afford to borrow money and if you need to borrow a lot of money you can afford it even less.
I remember someone once saying to me that if you need to borrow money then you can't afford to borrow money and if you need to borrow a lot of money you can afford it even less.
Thought I'd lost my marbles there then Jambutty. People obviously don't listen to Radio 2 for a proper debate.
I think I have caused this confusion.
I don't watch Jeremy Kyle and I only listen to Radio 4
I should have kept my mouth shut
