Comments:UK legislation expands debt collectors' powers

How exactly is this fair in a country whose citizens don't even have the full powers to act in self defence? And it hardly helps the already very serious problem of bailiffs STEALING people's possessions because they are unlucky enough to have a shared dwelling with a debtor. This is a breach of some of the most basic rights and it is unacceptable.Shane.Bell (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's issuing a license to be a thug. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

well thats it evryone is bust now and will have nothing left.

This is ABSOLUTELY fuc*ed up. The people of the UK should resist this psuedo-fascist measure if they dont want to lose all their freedom. How can a contract be more valuable than keeping people safe and warm?


 * "As far as you ramble,
 * as long as you roam,
 * you'll never see an outlaw
 * drive a family from their home."
 * -Woodie Guthrie

Ahhhh...
Do you all smell it? "Democracy" smells nice doesn't it?

Could this happen in the US?
Although, I do not work in the field of debt collection, as a lawyer (and otherwise) I've not heard of this practice in the US. Perhaps it has something to do with the rights the Court has interepreted the Second Amendment as providing us. The article could certainly use a lay summary of the specific purpose contemplated by the act. Are we talking about entry into the home in search of items subject to repossession? or anything of value for the purpose of reducing an unsecured monetary debt? Would the right be available without judgment? It sounds dramatic, but is the contemplated process to be permitted something more tame and palatable?

—Jim Turner (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

THRE PARLAYMANTARINAS HAVE GONE CRAZY AND BALLISTIC IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.H
WHAT HAS GONE WRONG WITH THE UK PARLIAMENRSS ENACTING CRAZY INHUMAN LAWS FOR THE PEOPL OF THRE WORLD COMMUNITY AND HUMANITY.