Does personal responsibility for one's situation exist in Ireland?

geeksauce · 13-11-2014 01:29PM

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

In fairness your making up scenarios that didnt happen and are using them to argue with.

Not really though, I mean you are the one saying people took out mortgages based on what the banks told them they could afford. I said this was pure nonsense and completely stupid of anyone that borrowed an amount the banks said they could afford, rather than borrowing an amount they knew themselves they could afford.

It is far easier for these people to blame the banks I suppose rather than to take responsibility for the fact they borrowed too much, just because the bank said they could afford it.

If you applied for a loan of €10,000 tomorrow and the bank turned around and offered you €100,000 would you borrow the €100,000 just because the bank said you could?

topper75 · 13-11-2014 01:30PM

Idraulici wrote: »

It's the fault of our government's socialist tendencies.

What if I said voters voted them in?

Not German voters either.

Irish voters.

Irish who weighed up a party on how much they would spend and how much they would slash taxes, like children evaluating the parents on the basis of how much of the weekly grocery shop goes on sweets.

Mad for the socialism. And nothing gets fixed until that tendency changes.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 02:10PM

You know I'm fairly optimistic about the future after this last crash. Looking around the world during the boom, not many countries changed leadership thinking their current leader was causing the good times. then the crash and lots of leaders were changed. Ireland, UK, US, Australia, France, and lots by a huge margin. As Brook 2 points out,Enda won by a huge margin as did Obama. They each blamed their own government as if they were solely responsible for the crash. When you look around and see all the others like the UK and US blame their leader it makes you wonder how much influence could Bertie or Enda possibly have?

In fairness this was a global economic crash and it is probably due to unprecedented ability to transport goods, people and information quickly. I certainly hope that the policy makers account for this in the future and we are unlikely to see such big boom bust in the near future. slow steady growth.... until the next big thing arrives and we all go a bit mad again. We're just shaved apes and were doing our best.

Revoker88 · 13-11-2014 02:21PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Our economic system is all about confidence resulting in boom-bust cycles. the bigger the boom the bigger the bust. It was ever thus so imagining that everyone would remain on ever-increasing wages is ridiculous.

I don't think you could teach that level of responsibility to the irish. The Germans have rent control which avoids the inflated prices and keeps cost of living down. Never in a million years could you get the irish to agree to that kind of policy.

Sounds like hindsight to me,all well and good saying it goes in cycles but you cant predict when the bust is coming,if it could be predicted precisely it wouldnt happen because preventative measures could be taken. I dont think anybody thought wages were going to go up forever,there was good growth in the economy and things looked good so there was no reason to think things were going to change so dramatically. You seem to remember this time differently to me. Lets not forget the scale of what was/is a global financial crisis,most of the western world was in on the party.

Germans and responsibility,i wonder how much of this loose credit in ireland was from german institutions?
But sure we took responsibility and pay/will pay them it all back.....with interest:pac:

Peist2007 · 13-11-2014 02:24PM

jank wrote: »

I have said it before and I'll say it again. We are not a serious people. Everything is a crisis and everything is someone else's fault. Like children in a playground. I thought the last crash would be the time to grow up but it seems not. Populism rules. Tbh most people have no idea how the world works.

Nail on head. People complaining about mortgages and the government and wouldnt be able to tell you what the terms of their own mortgage is nor have any clue about government policies etc. Sad but true

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 02:37PM

EoinHef wrote: »

Sounds like hindsight to me,all well and good saying it goes in cycles but you cant predict when the bust is coming,if it could be predicted precisely it wouldnt happen because preventative measures could be taken. I dont think anybody thought wages were going to go up forever,there was good growth in the economy and things looked good so there was no reason to think things were going to change so dramatically. You seem to remember this time differently to me. Lets not forget the scale of what was/is a global financial crisis,most of the western world was in on the party.

Germans and responsibility,i wonder how much of this loose credit in ireland was from german institutions?
But sure we took responsibility and pay/will pay them it all back.....with interest:pac:

It is hindsight. Hindsight of looking back through history and seeing that a bust follows a boom. If you find yourself in a boom, you know you are heading for a bust. It is impossible to predict precisely when but you know it will happen.

If you find yourself in a boom, that is the time to prepare for the bust as well as capitalising on the boom.

Yeah the Germans invested and speculated like most people but they also made a effort to stop the thing going mad. They made plans for the future. We all knew a bust was coming. The Germans used rent control to prevent the type of crazy bidding wars and borrowing which happened here so when the bust did arrive we were left with enormous mortgages and they were not.

The concept of saving during the boom went out the window in Ireland. That is as a result of pretending the good times would continue...

Son Of A Vidic · 13-11-2014 02:46PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I do wonder who frog marched the mortgage holders in to a bank to take out a loan they could not afford

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical & responsible bank lending.

Magico Gonzalez · 13-11-2014 02:52PM

Shared blame really, in terms of the housing and credit boom and subsequent crash we were victims of personal greed, inept local legislation, inept european legislation, and populism in the form of a govt who handed out tax breaks and turned a blind eye to ensure they would stay in power. We lacked an effective opposition to point it out.

Legislators, CEOs and individuals buying apartments in Bulgaria are all individuals. Unfortunately our under developed legal system prohibits us from jailing some of the culpable and forces us to target those with small personal debts.

Tommyrifle · 13-11-2014 03:00PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical bank lending.

People are selfish, of course people will try to get their bonuses. If a bank over lends then it will suffer the consequences or at least should suffer the consequences if not for socialist government policies. It is your own responsibility to pay back a loan that you take out. If your lent money to a friend and they couldn't pay you back would you accept the excuse that it was your fault for lending them the money?

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 03:12PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical & responsible bank lending.

Its like saying that a child can ask for sweets and it's up to the parent to say yes or no. It's pretending the people have absolutely no responsibility it is the opposite to taking responsibility.

Something like rent control would have made a big impact. Less people would have gotten massively wealthy in the good times and less people would have lost their homes more recently BUT the people of Ireland would never have voted for a party who would introduce rent control.

Your argument is that it was the banker's responsibility to say NO. Bu tit is our responsibility say no to bad policy and to vote for good policy. In the boom we voted for whoever promised the most without regards for the future. Your argument goes further than you stated. We the electorate got the government we wanted.

Quin_Dub · 13-11-2014 03:16PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical & responsible bank lending.

Of course the banks were at fault - Like you say , focused on their bonus etc..

BUT - So are the people that accepted their bull**** at face value and took on massive mortgages with repayments @ 50%+ of take home pay...

Bottom line , lots of blame on both sides.

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 03:20PM

Tommyrifle wrote: »

People are selfish, of course people will try to get their bonuses. If a bank over lends then it will suffer the consequences or at least should suffer the consequences if not for socialist government policies. It is your own responsibility to pay back a loan that you take out. If your lent money to a friend and they couldn't pay you back would you accept the excuse that it was your fault for lending them the money?

First post and that's you off to an embarrassing start with that reply. Comparing mates lending money, to that an irresponsible financial institution is completely ridiculous.

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 03:24PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

BUT - So are the people that accepted their bull**** at face value and took on massive mortgages with repayments @ 50%+ of take home pay...

Bottom line , lots of blame on both sides.

Sorry the Bottom line is the banks signed off on it. Most people bought one home, it's also the most stressful time of their lives. A lot of people put their faith & trust in the banks hands to guide them through it all. The banks clearly failed in their duty of care to their customers.

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2014 03:25PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical & responsible bank lending.

Do you walk into a car dealer with say €10k to buy a Ford Focus and the dealer convinces you to spend €40k on a Beamer? Makes about much sense to me.

People here do have a serious issues with personal responsibility - it goes though personal and working life as well. 'Not my responsibility' I've heard that so many times. Everything here is everyone else's problem and a lot of people walk around in a self centered myopic bubble.

I was chatting around a coffee table with a few work colleagues about mortgage default a while back - out of a half dozen or so of us, the general consensus was that it was someone else's peoblem if they lost their Job and couldn't pay. I recounted a story where I was on the dole, which I saw coming miles away, and curtailed our life style based on one salary - negotiated with the bank on our mortgage (which I paid while out of work). Was met with incredulity - banks problem, The general feeling was that if it comes to it 'post the keys in the letter box and emmigrate', an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Jawgap · 13-11-2014 03:27PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical & responsible bank lending.

I think the point is neither the borrowers or lenders are wholly to blame or wholly innocent.

There was a failure of regulation (but let's face it, we voted in the politicos who appointed these regulators) - and that enabled greed to run riot. Yes, the banks enabled people to borrow beyond their means - but only those people who allowed themselves to be seduced........who left rational thought at the door, and did things like borrowing from the credit union to generate a deposit, or selectively presenting salary information from good months.

On the flip side the desire for bonuses and to meet sales targets hardly incentivised bank staff to probe applications in any kind of meaningful way.

Seriously, if you are borrowing at an LTV of more than 90% or an amount that exceeds 3.5 times the primary salary and 1.5 times the secondary salary.......or engaging in 'equity release'.......or borrowing to finance a BTL (especially a BTL on the other side of the continent!!!).......then you've no complaint - you gambled, you lost - hard luck and pay up.

If you, saved, borrowed sensibly and were just blindsided by a depression caused by other people's greed - fair enough. If people can prove that (it shouldn't be assumed) - there should be huge help for them. At the very least they should be able to hand the keys back and just walk away unencumbered by any debt or mortgage, or, preferably, negotiate the debt down to a manageable amount.

As for foresight - first year economics students can tell you about cycles (and unsustainable market expansion) - it was inevitable the boom would end, even if the manner and severity of the ending was completely unforeseeable. The problem is that everyone knows you should run counter-cyclical policies - but try get elected in this or any other country by having a manifesto based on that principle........especially in the middle of a boom.

Quin_Dub · 13-11-2014 03:32PM

NotASheeple wrote: »

Sorry the Bottom line is the banks signed off on it. Most people bought one home, it's also the most stressful time of their lives. A lot of people put their faith & trust in the banks hands to guide them through it all. The banks clearly failed in their duty of care to their customers.

I don't accept that - Anybody that totally abrogates the responsibility around due diligence for the largest financial transaction of their lives to the Sales rep (that's what the broker/banker is after all) gets what they deserve..

If you are signing up for 20-30 years of repayments , you'd better be damn sure you've thought long and hard about it and have not just accepted whatever happy-clappy spiel the Sales guy has pimped..

Bottom line...Caveat Emptor.

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 03:36PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I think the point is neither the borrowers or lenders are wholly to blame or wholly innocent.

There was a failure of regulation (but let's face it, we voted in the politicos who appointed these regulators) - and that enabled greed to run riot. Yes, the banks enabled people to borrow beyond their means - but only those people who allowed themselves to be seduced........who left rational thought at the door, and did things like borrowing from the credit union to generate a deposit, or selectively presenting salary information from good months.

On the flip side the desire for bonuses and to meet sales targets hardly incentivised bank staff to probe applications in any kind of meaningful way.

Seriously, if you are borrowing at an LTV of more than 90% or an amount that exceeds 3.5 times the primary salary and 1.5 times the secondary salary.......or engaging in 'equity release'.......or borrowing to finance a BTL (especially a BTL on the other side of the continent!!!).......then you've no complaint - you gambled, you lost - hard luck and pay up.

If you, saved, borrowed sensibly and were just blindsided by a depression caused by other people's greed - fair enough. If people can prove that (it shouldn't be assumed) - there should be huge help for them. At the very least they should be able to hand the keys back and just walk away unencumbered by any debt or mortgage, or, preferably, negotiate the debt down to a manageable amount.

As for foresight - first year economics students can tell you about cycles (and unsustainable market expansion) - it was inevitable the boom would end, even if the manner and severity of the ending was completely unforeseeable. The problem is that everyone knows you should run counter-cyclical policies - but try get elected in this or any other country by having a manifesto based on that principle........especially in the middle of a boom.

But the point remains the banks signed off on it and allowed it. Buying a home is the most stressful time in most people lives. Many people are bamboozled by the financial mumbo jumbo and many were lured into a false sense of security by the banks.

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2014 03:37PM

In fairness a lot of it was plain stupidity / naevity on a mass scale. When we got out mortgage approval in 2003 on our second house, we had a few frank words with the bank

1. Thanks for your approval, but we're only looking for about 50% of that
2. We don't want to put a modest car loan over the term of the mortgage - we will have it paid back in a few years. Not do we want money for a new car, or even a second one.
3. We don't want to keep the house we're selling as an 'investment'
4. About the term - can we knock it back from 30 years to 20? I don't want to be paying a mortgage off in my late 50s
5. I work in construction - things are great at the moment but when this phase comes to and end and I'm out of work, we want to be able to pay our way based on my wife's nursing salary.
6. No need for pre-approved loans for those plasma TVs, patio heaters, jacuzzis or the nice holiday you think we should have
7. We're happy with the house we are buying - yes it's modest and we'd like the one with the extra bedroom and reception rooms, but it'll stretch Us too much

People need to go into these things like growns ups - if you got sucked in, it's a case of tough luck

Magico Gonzalez · 13-11-2014 03:38PM

NotASheeple wrote: »

Sorry the Bottom line is the banks signed off on it. Most people bought one home, it's also the most stressful time of their lives. A lot of people put their faith & trust in the banks hands to guide them through it all. The banks clearly failed in their duty of care to their customers.

Using capital letters doesn't change the fact that there is a shared responsibility and burden.

Cool Mo D · 13-11-2014 03:42PM

NotASheeple wrote: »

But the point remains the banks signed off on it and allowed it. Buying a home is the most stressful time in most people lives. Many people are bamboozled by the financial mumbo jumbo and many were lured into a false sense of security by the banks.

That's a load of condescending rubbish. A mortgage is a big commitment, not a complicated concept - you are borrowing a lot of money to buy a house.

Every single mortgage transaction in this country is started by the borrower walking into a bank branch - no bank has ever forced anyone to take one out. Borrowers failing to exercise the slightest bit of cop-on is not the fault of the bank.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 03:44PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

In fairness a lot of it was plain stupidity / naevity on a mass scale. When we got out mortgage approval in 2003 on our second house, we had a few frank words with the bank

1. Thanks for your approval, but we're only looking for about 50% of that
2. We don't want to put a modest car loan over the term of the mortgage - we will have it paid back in a few years. Not do we want money for a new car, or even a second one.
3. We don't want to keep the house we're selling as an 'investment'
4. About the term - can we knock it back from 30 years to 20? I don't want to be paying a mortgage off in my late 50s
5. I work in construction - things are great at the moment but when this phase comes to and end and I'm out of work, we want to be able to pay our way based on my wife's nursing salary.
6. No need for pre-approved loans for those plasma TVs, patio heaters, jacuzzis or the nice holiday you think we should have
7. We're happy with the house we are buying - yes it's modest and we'd like the one with the extra bedroom and reception rooms, but it'll stretch Us too much

People need to go into these things like growns ups - if you got sucked in, it's a case of tough luck

But I think you're missing the point that NotASheeple is making. Once the bank said you could have it, you were no longer responsible as they took responsibility. Right NotASheeple?

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 03:44PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't accept that - Anybody that totally abrogates the responsibility around due diligence for the largest financial transaction of their lives to the Sales rep (that's what the broker/banker is after all) gets what they deserve..

If you are signing up for 20-30 years of repayments , you'd better be damn sure you've thought long and hard about it and have not just accepted whatever happy-clappy spiel the Sales guy has pimped..

Bottom line...Caveat Emptor.

Bottom line, if the Banks had of conducted proper and responsible financial assessments. They wouldn't have signed off on these loans. Too many people were giving a false sense of security by these banks. There are few times in ones life when you depend on those with greater knowledge/expertise. In hospital most people put their faith in the hands of nurses & doctors. Trusting their knowledge and expertise. Buying a home, can invoke similar vulnerability and many people were out of their depth. They put trust & faith in the judgement and guidance of banks. Banks who were negligent and criminal in their actions imo.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 03:46PM

NotASheeple wrote: »

Bottom line, if the Banks had of conducted proper and responsible financial assessments. They wouldn't have signed off on these loans. Too many people were giving a false sense of security by these banks. There are few times in ones life when you depend on those with greater knowledge/expertise. In hospital most people put their faith in the hands of nurses & doctors. Trusting their knowledge and expertise. Buying a home, can invoke similar vulnerability and many people were out of their depth. They put trust & faith in the judgement and guidance of banks. Banks who were negligent and criminal in their actions imo.

Doctors and nurses are not sales people

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 03:48PM

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Using capital letters doesn't change the fact that there is a shared responsibility and burden.

Do you understand what capital letters are? Because letters highlighted in bold aren't capital letters.

Jawgap · 13-11-2014 03:48PM

NotASheeple wrote: »

But the point remains the banks signed off on it and allowed it. Buying a home is the most stressful time in most people lives. Many people are bamboozled by the financial mumbo jumbo and many were lured into a false sense of security by the banks.

Mumbo jumbo???

(Primary salary x 3.5) + (Second salary x 1.5) = the max amount you can borrow

(Max amount you can borrow) < 90% of the value of the property

Monthly payment < 25% of combined take home pay

If that's mumbo jumbo then it must've been Bosco who was putting in the loan apps.

People were sold to and they allowed themselves to be oversold products and credit they could not afford.

I don't know about anyone else but I know when we bought our place there was much agonising over whether we could afford it - we knew the monthly payment and we knew how much our outgoings were - and we knew how much we were earning. If you can't figure out which should be lower than the other then, quiet frankly, you're retarded or reckless or a bit of both!

Tommyrifle · 13-11-2014 03:48PM

NotASheeple wrote: »

First post and that's you off to an embarrassing start with that reply. Comparing mates lending money, to that an irresponsible financial institution is completely ridiculous.

It's not really, it's your responsibility to pay back a loan.

denhaagenite · 13-11-2014 03:50PM

We looked into buying a house in and around Cork City in 2007. We were worried about the future "what ifs" so weren't really concerned with borrowing as much as we could which iirc was about €350,000. Cheapest we could find was a 2 bed kip for €200,000 so we said we'd work abroad for a year and re- evaluate the situation then. We really dodged a bullet but only because we saw what was on offer and decided it just wasn't worth it at all.

Now we've owned our house for 5 years, not concerned about negative equity because we live here and even though we could've got something cheaper or more expensive we had a choice about neighbourhood, amenities, location that we would definitely not have had in Ireland, at any point. Banks were very strict about how much we could borrow and investigated the stability of our employment. We based it solely on my husbands income as we knew mine would be tenuous, and we have insurance and adequate savings should the unexpected happen.

Friends we have in Ireland say we're lucky and we are in a lot of ways but when it comes to our money, luck has nothing to do with it. We work hard for what we have and don't have any personal debt besides our mortgage. If we can't afford something then we don't get it and that's the bottom line. They make me angry when they default on their mortgages but keep their Sky+ and then expect their parents to bail them out. 3 credit cards and a Credit Union loan were the norm back then, but not for us. We knew when we were looking at places in Cork that they just weren't good enough, we would struggle to make payments if our circumstances changed and we would end up being pretty unhappy with the area after the novelty of "being on the property ladder" wore off. We're not financial or economic experts either.

Cool Mo D · 13-11-2014 03:52PM

NotASheeple wrote: »

Bottom line, if the Banks had of conducted proper and responsible financial assessments. They wouldn't have signed off on these loans. Too many people were giving a false sense of security by these banks. There are few times in ones life when you depend on those with greater knowledge/expertise. In hospital most people put their faith in the hands of nurses & doctors. Trusting their knowledge and expertise. Buying a home, can invoke similar vulnerability and many people were out of their depth. They put trust & faith in the judgement and guidance of banks. Banks who were negligent and criminal in their actions imo.

It's not the banks job to protect their customers. It's not negligent for a bank or any business to take a customer for all they can get. People borrowed the money to buy a house they expected to go up in value, and wanted the benefit of that.

Jawgap · 13-11-2014 03:54PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

....
6. No need for pre-approved loans for those plasma TVs, patio heaters, jacuzzis or the nice holiday you think we should have
.....

I seem to remember being pestered with loans and credit for stuff like this when I'd go into the bank.

One day I said to the young fellah who was trying to sell me a loan that if I wanted a new TV or new car, I'd save for it - the look of horror and bewilderment on his face haunts me to this day

Quin_Dub · 13-11-2014 03:55PM

NotASheeple wrote: »

Bottom line, if the Banks had of conducted proper and responsible financial assessments. They wouldn't have signed off on these loans. Too many people were giving a false sense of security by these banks. There are few times in ones life when you depend on those with greater knowledge/expertise. In hospital most people put their faith in the hands of nurses & doctors. Trusting their knowledge and expertise. Buying a home, can invoke similar vulnerability and many people were out of their depth. They put trust & faith in the judgement and guidance of banks. Banks who were negligent and criminal in their actions imo.

And they were stupid to do so..

Do you feel sympathy for people that lose money to Nigerian Princes?

Probably not , you probably think they were more than a little silly to be taken in by such an obvious scam..

The fact that the Nigerian Prince is a scam artist and committing a crime doesn't make the person taken in by it any less of a twat.

Whether the banks were negligent or criminal or guilty of sharp practice or anything else , doesn't get us past the simple fact that people made stupid decisions and they need to live with the consequences of those decisions.

Does personal responsibility for one's situation exist in Ireland?

Comments