I disagree, I am entitled to my opinion and whether I am a mod or not does not change my opinion!
He has run up a debt with no intention of paying it off...that's theft m80. As is giving an insurance company false details to raise a claim.
unenforceable credit agreements
- Thread starter emarald
- Start date
- Status
I disagree, I am entitled to my opinion and whether I am a mod or not does not change my opinion!
He has run up a debt with no intention of paying it off...that's theft m80. As is giving an insurance company false details to raise a claim.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,247
- Reaction score
- 228
Yep i agree with a lot of your points mate and the art of saving is completely gone for sure.
If i borrow something i pay it back, simples.
If you ignore your personal opinion of the op and some of his comments and focus on the facts, its hard not to think, well done.
We all come on here and post on a hack site and download various things and get various info on how to flash modems and boxes for free use of a service that you should be paying for.
My point is theft is theft, whatever way you cut it.
It just annoys me when people seem to think that one type of theft is ok but another is frowned upon.
JackTheLad2
Inactive User
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 171
- Reaction score
- 11
Couldn't agree with you more there m8.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,247
- Reaction score
- 228
You are entitled to your opinion, no argument there mate.
I think people might be pissed at the way he has done it and by some of his comments but theft is still theft.
People flash boxes and consoles which is also theft so are we all in the same gutter then?
I don't want to get involved in a big argument mate. it's just my opinion.
Donnie Darko
Inactive User
Anyone contemplating this is in essence commiting financial suicide and must be foolish to think your details wont be passed onto other financial companies.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 1999
- Messages
- 32,153
- Reaction score
- 9,222
When I was 18 the bank let me have a credit card.... I was a Kid with money, bought record decks and could not repay the amount on my £400 a month wages lol.
In the end it went to court and I had to pay back £3000 yes £3000 but I only used £1200...
Banks are there to rob you!!!!
If they never signed there papers right and the OP won back 11,000.... great.
My feeling is the banks would soon take 11,000 of someone in interest and made up fee's so why the fook should people worry about the banks.
Still got the £3000 decks to this day lol
Mickie
In the end it went to court and I had to pay back £3000 yes £3000 but I only used £1200...
Banks are there to rob you!!!!
If they never signed there papers right and the OP won back 11,000.... great.
My feeling is the banks would soon take 11,000 of someone in interest and made up fee's so why the fook should people worry about the banks.
Still got the £3000 decks to this day lol
Mickie
emarald
Inactive User
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,944
- Reaction score
- 592
I have a simple question, why should any increase in the cost of borrowing go to the banking sector bottom line, rather than paying off the debt owed? Why is it in the economic interest of the country for the money to go to the banking system rather than reducing the level of personal debt?
I want to challenge the Bank of England over the use of interest rates to control inflation, there is no justification in law, economically or morally to simply make borrowing more expensive to control inflation. Therefore the BoE is acting illegally by allowing the banking system to simply take our hard earned money cash to fund the bottom line
£100,000 @ 3.5% APR = £3500 a year in interest July 10 2003( this an example)
£100,000 @ 5.25% APR = £5250 a year in interest Jan 2007
So far over the 4 years there has been an inflation busting 50% rise in the cost of borrowing under the guise of controlling inflation. If the interest rate goes to 5.75% as many economists expect this means an inflation busting 65% raise in the cost of borrowing. This would mean for every £100,000 owed approx £5750 will be taken in interest with none of this money going to the debt owed. The banking system is raking in an extra £1750 a year of our money for doing nothing.
Surely if interest rates control inflation a 50% rise over 4 years would have controlled the problem, unless of course they don’t!
Interest rates are only fuelling banking sector profits
Interest rates don’t control inflation
Increased repayments should go to reducing personal debt levels not banks profits
Personal lending limits should be set
Maximum mortgage multiples should be set
Interest rates don’t combat raising oil prices, energy prices etc...
Interest rates don’t combat inflation caused by tax raises
If you start digging deeper you find that it’s the banking sector helping to fuel inflation by recklessly lending money. The current system does not penalise the banks for reckless lending, if they lend out too much money and cause inflation they are rewarded with higher interest rates which we pay for! It’s the consumer paying for poor banking decisions over lending. The only way banks can increase profits is by lending more money, this is a vicious circle and it’s the consumer who pays the price with inflation and higher borrowing costs.
Inflation isn’t helped by the pressures of the stock market, energy prices, tax raises etc… yet our governor of the Bank of England remains silent, just blames the consumer and makes them pay.
You are all being fooled, well now it's pay back time, fill your boots you may not get another chance.
I want to challenge the Bank of England over the use of interest rates to control inflation, there is no justification in law, economically or morally to simply make borrowing more expensive to control inflation. Therefore the BoE is acting illegally by allowing the banking system to simply take our hard earned money cash to fund the bottom line
£100,000 @ 3.5% APR = £3500 a year in interest July 10 2003( this an example)
£100,000 @ 5.25% APR = £5250 a year in interest Jan 2007
So far over the 4 years there has been an inflation busting 50% rise in the cost of borrowing under the guise of controlling inflation. If the interest rate goes to 5.75% as many economists expect this means an inflation busting 65% raise in the cost of borrowing. This would mean for every £100,000 owed approx £5750 will be taken in interest with none of this money going to the debt owed. The banking system is raking in an extra £1750 a year of our money for doing nothing.
Surely if interest rates control inflation a 50% rise over 4 years would have controlled the problem, unless of course they don’t!
Interest rates are only fuelling banking sector profits
Interest rates don’t control inflation
Increased repayments should go to reducing personal debt levels not banks profits
Personal lending limits should be set
Maximum mortgage multiples should be set
Interest rates don’t combat raising oil prices, energy prices etc...
Interest rates don’t combat inflation caused by tax raises
If you start digging deeper you find that it’s the banking sector helping to fuel inflation by recklessly lending money. The current system does not penalise the banks for reckless lending, if they lend out too much money and cause inflation they are rewarded with higher interest rates which we pay for! It’s the consumer paying for poor banking decisions over lending. The only way banks can increase profits is by lending more money, this is a vicious circle and it’s the consumer who pays the price with inflation and higher borrowing costs.
Inflation isn’t helped by the pressures of the stock market, energy prices, tax raises etc… yet our governor of the Bank of England remains silent, just blames the consumer and makes them pay.
You are all being fooled, well now it's pay back time, fill your boots you may not get another chance.
Last edited:
witchy
Banned for good!
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 18,282
- Reaction score
- 334
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this thread reeks of double standards.
People who are members of a hacking site, jumping on their high horses looking down their noses at emerald just because he got one up on the banks using 100% legal methods - what's the problem?
I think the real issue here is emerald, he could be considered a controversial member in some peoples minds. I wonder if it were Mickie D who had made this thread, would Mickie have received as many negative comments?
Unlikely I say.
Good on you Emerald, all I can say is I wish it were me.
People who are members of a hacking site, jumping on their high horses looking down their noses at emerald just because he got one up on the banks using 100% legal methods - what's the problem?
I think the real issue here is emerald, he could be considered a controversial member in some peoples minds. I wonder if it were Mickie D who had made this thread, would Mickie have received as many negative comments?
Unlikely I say.
Good on you Emerald, all I can say is I wish it were me.
emarald
Inactive User
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,944
- Reaction score
- 592
The story begins with our monetary system, known as the 'Fractional Reserve' system. As you probably know, banks bookkeeping revolve around 'assets' (loans) and 'liabilities' (deposits). Under the fractional system, when a deposit is made (say you just sold your car for £10,000 and you go to the bank to deposit it in your account), the bank has to keep a certain percentage (generally this is ten percent) as a 'reserve' - this covers the number of depositors who withdraw their funds within a specific time period (generally, not all depositors will do this at the same time - when it occurs, it is called a 'run' on the bank - the banks reserves cannot cover the depositors demands; anyone remember Northern Rock?)
Therefore, of the £10,000 made as a deposit, £1000 is kept in 'reserve', with the remaining £9000 becoming 'excess reserve' and used as the basis for new loans. Now, stay with me, the very important point is coming, and is best illustrated with an excerpt from Modern Money Mechanics:
------------
If business is active, the banks with excess reserves will have opportunities to loan the £9000. Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts.
Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by £9000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system.
------------
You should digest this, re-read it and let it sink in. The implications of the above paragraph are astounding. If the new loans for £9000 don't come from the money they receive as deposits (and, of course, they can't come from the reserve), where does the money come from? Are you ready for this? NOWHERE!!! The money is created out of thin air! When you sign a loan agreement, the bank accepts this as a promissory note - this is your promise to pay back to the bank (with interest). You agree to pay back this money, in return having someone type in a few digits on a computer and - voila - new money is created. Even better, when the operator does this, of course, it becomes a new deposit - from which ten percent is held in 'reserve' and the 'excess reserve' can feed even more loans! Even more money created from nothing. Bear this all in mind now, as I turn the focus onto contract law.
Let's start by defining a contract:
Contract - A contract is an agreement between two parties by which both are bound by law and which can therefore be enforced in a court. Contracts are distinguished from 'agreements', which are not binding, and from 'promises', which are enforceable but unilateral.
A contract involves one of the parties making an 'offer'. There are generally two ways in which an 'offer' is made. A 'straightforward offer' - when you sell your car, for example, you might say "Do you want to buy my car for £10,000?" You are making a direct offer. The second option for an offer is known as 'invitation to treat' - if your car is being sold at auction, for example, the car (lot) is the 'invitation to treat', and the bids on the car are the 'offers'.
The contract is made when there is 'acceptance' of an 'offer'. The person you asked directly may respond 'Yes'; the auctioneers hammer concludes a successful bid. Both the 'offer' and 'acceptance' have to be communicated' - this is the foundation for a written contract.
For a contract to be legally valid, both parties must give 'consideration'. This is a very important point, so please stay with it. Consideration is 'quid pro quo' - something in return for something else. One party agrees to do something and the other party agrees to 'something else'. As we have already found out, in the context of a loan agreement, your 'consideration' is the promissory note - your promise to pay the bank with interest. Consideration from the bank is the creditation of your account with the agreed sum.
Now for the bombshell - the rules of 'consideration' say that 'Consideration need not be adequate' - it is not for the law to say whether a contract was a fair one, if one party wants to sell his comb, as a ridiculous example, for £10,000 and the other party agrees to buy it - well, that's their business! Most importantly, however, 'Consideration must be sufficient' - this has a precise legal meaning in that:
a) Consideration is sufficient if it is real.
b) Consideration is sufficient if it is tangible.
c) Consideration is sufficient if it has discernible value.
And so, after quite a long ramble, we can return to our friends at the local bank, and their reasons for not contacting me to discuss these issues. When you go to the bank and apply for a mortgage, you 'accept' their 'offer' of a mortgage, then you sign the papers that seal the contract. You give 'consideration' in the form of the promise to pay back the sum, with interest, and the bank credits your account for the agreed sum. The credit to your account of this sum is the 'consideration' given by the bank in the contract, but the money is created out of nothing, as we saw from our look at the fractional reserve system. Since the rules of consideration specifically state that 'consideration is sufficient if it is real', as soon as you sign the contract at the bank, the bank has breached the contract by 'insufficient consideration'. The money, which never existed in the first place, is 'not real'!
What does this all mean, then? well if you do not have a mortgage, you cannot test this hypothesis, but from my research one thing is very clear - it would appear that every mortgage provided by a bank is illegal due to breach of the 'rules of consideration'. I don't want to influence anyone here, I'm just presenting the facts, but I'm sure you will understand the implications of what I've talked about. All loans are pretty much the same, whether it be a mortgage, a loan or a credit card. All of the contracts for these systems must be illegal, because the money is created from nowhere - it didn't exist, and therefore fails the 'rules of consideration'.
Therefore, of the £10,000 made as a deposit, £1000 is kept in 'reserve', with the remaining £9000 becoming 'excess reserve' and used as the basis for new loans. Now, stay with me, the very important point is coming, and is best illustrated with an excerpt from Modern Money Mechanics:
------------
If business is active, the banks with excess reserves will have opportunities to loan the £9000. Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts.
Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by £9000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system.
------------
You should digest this, re-read it and let it sink in. The implications of the above paragraph are astounding. If the new loans for £9000 don't come from the money they receive as deposits (and, of course, they can't come from the reserve), where does the money come from? Are you ready for this? NOWHERE!!! The money is created out of thin air! When you sign a loan agreement, the bank accepts this as a promissory note - this is your promise to pay back to the bank (with interest). You agree to pay back this money, in return having someone type in a few digits on a computer and - voila - new money is created. Even better, when the operator does this, of course, it becomes a new deposit - from which ten percent is held in 'reserve' and the 'excess reserve' can feed even more loans! Even more money created from nothing. Bear this all in mind now, as I turn the focus onto contract law.
Let's start by defining a contract:
Contract - A contract is an agreement between two parties by which both are bound by law and which can therefore be enforced in a court. Contracts are distinguished from 'agreements', which are not binding, and from 'promises', which are enforceable but unilateral.
A contract involves one of the parties making an 'offer'. There are generally two ways in which an 'offer' is made. A 'straightforward offer' - when you sell your car, for example, you might say "Do you want to buy my car for £10,000?" You are making a direct offer. The second option for an offer is known as 'invitation to treat' - if your car is being sold at auction, for example, the car (lot) is the 'invitation to treat', and the bids on the car are the 'offers'.
The contract is made when there is 'acceptance' of an 'offer'. The person you asked directly may respond 'Yes'; the auctioneers hammer concludes a successful bid. Both the 'offer' and 'acceptance' have to be communicated' - this is the foundation for a written contract.
For a contract to be legally valid, both parties must give 'consideration'. This is a very important point, so please stay with it. Consideration is 'quid pro quo' - something in return for something else. One party agrees to do something and the other party agrees to 'something else'. As we have already found out, in the context of a loan agreement, your 'consideration' is the promissory note - your promise to pay the bank with interest. Consideration from the bank is the creditation of your account with the agreed sum.
Now for the bombshell - the rules of 'consideration' say that 'Consideration need not be adequate' - it is not for the law to say whether a contract was a fair one, if one party wants to sell his comb, as a ridiculous example, for £10,000 and the other party agrees to buy it - well, that's their business! Most importantly, however, 'Consideration must be sufficient' - this has a precise legal meaning in that:
a) Consideration is sufficient if it is real.
b) Consideration is sufficient if it is tangible.
c) Consideration is sufficient if it has discernible value.
And so, after quite a long ramble, we can return to our friends at the local bank, and their reasons for not contacting me to discuss these issues. When you go to the bank and apply for a mortgage, you 'accept' their 'offer' of a mortgage, then you sign the papers that seal the contract. You give 'consideration' in the form of the promise to pay back the sum, with interest, and the bank credits your account for the agreed sum. The credit to your account of this sum is the 'consideration' given by the bank in the contract, but the money is created out of nothing, as we saw from our look at the fractional reserve system. Since the rules of consideration specifically state that 'consideration is sufficient if it is real', as soon as you sign the contract at the bank, the bank has breached the contract by 'insufficient consideration'. The money, which never existed in the first place, is 'not real'!
What does this all mean, then? well if you do not have a mortgage, you cannot test this hypothesis, but from my research one thing is very clear - it would appear that every mortgage provided by a bank is illegal due to breach of the 'rules of consideration'. I don't want to influence anyone here, I'm just presenting the facts, but I'm sure you will understand the implications of what I've talked about. All loans are pretty much the same, whether it be a mortgage, a loan or a credit card. All of the contracts for these systems must be illegal, because the money is created from nowhere - it didn't exist, and therefore fails the 'rules of consideration'.
Rodbouy
Banned
I just heard a company offering these services on the radio wont be long till a few more pop up.
If I can I will use every loophole possible to benefit me and my family.
That banks are riding us not because of guys like emerald but because they piss millions up against a wall in shady deals and bonuses. So feck them.
Are we going to stop ripping of cable tv?? what if vermin was going to go bust?? we hear people moaning there is not enough competition!!!
people like us who STEAL CABLE TV killed Setanta (yes other factors too i know)
If I can I will use every loophole possible to benefit me and my family.
That banks are riding us not because of guys like emerald but because they piss millions up against a wall in shady deals and bonuses. So feck them.
Are we going to stop ripping of cable tv?? what if vermin was going to go bust?? we hear people moaning there is not enough competition!!!
people like us who STEAL CABLE TV killed Setanta (yes other factors too i know)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 19, 1999
- Messages
- 32,153
- Reaction score
- 9,222
PMSL - do not use me in your war games lol.
I would say that there is a point though... many members might not have a go at me because I do not provoke trouble or cause offence, and if I posted this and it caused offence I would of removed it right away.
I am a little bit selfish in the way that I do not care about the banks even though it will probably effect me in taxes, and I can see the point of the members who do not like what emerald has done... and they do have a point emerald lol.
But emerald does not care, and the banks do give £600,000 bonuses to idiots lmao. They give these bonuses even if you are shit at your job!!!
And with a tiny undertone that sounds like a small heart beat that you can hear when someone is on the operating table and not doing well I can hear that on this post and many others and it has nothing to do with the point of the post or anything its just that you do not like each other and just want to argue.
So do what you like PMSL!
Mickie
I would say that there is a point though... many members might not have a go at me because I do not provoke trouble or cause offence, and if I posted this and it caused offence I would of removed it right away.
I am a little bit selfish in the way that I do not care about the banks even though it will probably effect me in taxes, and I can see the point of the members who do not like what emerald has done... and they do have a point emerald lol.
But emerald does not care, and the banks do give £600,000 bonuses to idiots lmao. They give these bonuses even if you are shit at your job!!!
And with a tiny undertone that sounds like a small heart beat that you can hear when someone is on the operating table and not doing well I can hear that on this post and many others and it has nothing to do with the point of the post or anything its just that you do not like each other and just want to argue.
So do what you like PMSL!
Mickie
maddogs
Inactive User
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 454
- Reaction score
- 12
Very interesting reading this thread. I can't blame OP for doing this or anybody else for that matter. Modern day culture fuelled by this labour government and started by Maggie Thatcher has meant it is everybody for themselves. Corporate companies are ripping people off left right and centre stifling competition and charging what they like for products and services. Corporate directors or fat cats have been bred and rewarded enormously, sports stars act like overpaid thugs. It has got to the stage where there is no way back.
There are no moral standards anymore because people who have them get walked all over and it boils down to a simple choice play by the rules and get shafted or look after number one and exploit every loophole to your advantage.
I can't blame anybody for going to the darkside and just because something is legal doesn't make it right. I believe the way us humans treat the planet and its creatures as disgraceful and its all down to greed. It starts at the top and its reaching the bottom.
There are no moral standards anymore because people who have them get walked all over and it boils down to a simple choice play by the rules and get shafted or look after number one and exploit every loophole to your advantage.
I can't blame anybody for going to the darkside and just because something is legal doesn't make it right. I believe the way us humans treat the planet and its creatures as disgraceful and its all down to greed. It starts at the top and its reaching the bottom.
Last edited:
thebigyin
Inactive User
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,577
- Reaction score
- 54
nothing to brag about m8 you sound like a desperate man who is hooked on something..get a life and a job like most people as it is the likes of us paying for you,,dont you get a red neck we all do for you
witchy
Banned for good!
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 18,282
- Reaction score
- 334
I don't have a credit card, apart from my car, everything I own I paid for in cash.
However, if I thought doing what emerald did would add 0.009p to each and every other credit card owner then I'd definitely do it.
Come on people, how much has he really cost you?
**** all or even less?
Why should it cost anyone anything, it's the banks that should lose not the common man, but you all seem to be overlooking that point.
However, if I thought doing what emerald did would add 0.009p to each and every other credit card owner then I'd definitely do it.
Come on people, how much has he really cost you?
**** all or even less?
Why should it cost anyone anything, it's the banks that should lose not the common man, but you all seem to be overlooking that point.
thebigyin
Inactive User
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,577
- Reaction score
- 54
dont you think this topic should be in the joke room
Rodbouy
Banned
have your opinion mate, no need for a personnel dig is there
Do you pay for your cable tv? do you pay for downloaded games films etc ? do what most ppl do and pay for them
Last edited:
Lanstrom
Inactive User
and just out of interest ... what was this £11k+ actually spent on anyway ?
I cant think of anything that I actually need that would warrant having to have it right now on a credit card ?
I cant think of anything that I actually need that would warrant having to have it right now on a credit card ?
mozr
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,175
- Reaction score
- 205
I think there is a touch of moral equivalency occurring in this thread. There is an idea that as this site is used by people who dabble in copyright theft, nobody can make any moral decisions.
Is using a technicality to get out of a debt as bad as defrauding a TV company?
If I killed an old woman, and confessed on here and you all criticized me, would I be able to defend my position by saying 'well you break the law too'?
To be honest, although not 'in the spirit' of the rules (much like our beloved MPs), emarald has been successful in a court of law. If not moral, he has certainly been legal, and I am sure we have all been at the wrong end of the 'small print' stick when some company justifies its unfairness by quoting paragraph 34 of page 417 of a contract.
And I don't even like emarald.
Is using a technicality to get out of a debt as bad as defrauding a TV company?
If I killed an old woman, and confessed on here and you all criticized me, would I be able to defend my position by saying 'well you break the law too'?
To be honest, although not 'in the spirit' of the rules (much like our beloved MPs), emarald has been successful in a court of law. If not moral, he has certainly been legal, and I am sure we have all been at the wrong end of the 'small print' stick when some company justifies its unfairness by quoting paragraph 34 of page 417 of a contract.
And I don't even like emarald.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,247
- Reaction score
- 228
Now my head is totally scrambled.lol.
Been reading up on the posts and i still can't get my head round some of the answers.!
So are we honestly saying that its ok to steal cable and flash modems and x boxes and various other things as it wont affect us directly but by exploiting a legal loophole to wipe our credit card debt is a no no .!
Sounds to me like one kind of theft is ok and justified but the other is not.
How does that work please?????????
I haven't seen one answer yet that puts this point to rest.
I'm not saying what the guy done was right but i know i have certain things in my house that have been flashed or modified so i know if i jump on the bandwagon then i would be a hypocrite.
Been reading up on the posts and i still can't get my head round some of the answers.!
So are we honestly saying that its ok to steal cable and flash modems and x boxes and various other things as it wont affect us directly but by exploiting a legal loophole to wipe our credit card debt is a no no .!
Sounds to me like one kind of theft is ok and justified but the other is not.
How does that work please?????????
I haven't seen one answer yet that puts this point to rest.
I'm not saying what the guy done was right but i know i have certain things in my house that have been flashed or modified so i know if i jump on the bandwagon then i would be a hypocrite.
An even cleverer banker would take your settlement offer
I didn't originally raise the fraud question, but will answer as I've see it.
As I understand it fraud is very loosely defined as theft by deception. In this case the 'fraud' would occur if you charged items to the card with no intention of clearing the debt by using the same action you took against Lloyds (although reading between the lines it appears to at least be partly Lloyds fault that it got that far?).
You've stated this action is only possible on cards issued before the date you've stated and is not your intention but a by product of the wording of the (unenforcable) credit agreement you signed. So proving the intent of fraud would be difficult at best if you have made previous payments.
You do need to be careful though, whilst you've said this doesn't go on your credit history you may find yourself blacklisted internally for Lloyds for the extension of credit, and a future refusal would effect your credit rating.
- Status
