I find it interesting that so many people are so pious about people borrowing mortgages this size. We're not talk about people living on benefits - we're talking about professionals earning combined incomes of 60k try who tried to get on the housing ladder before house prices became completey unaffordable.

Keeping Northern Rock buoyant is in the interest of the tax payer - keep northern roack afloat -v- watch people's lives being destroyed by negative equity and bankrupcy - forcing them to turn to the government then anyway!!!

Amy, Arundel, West Sussex

Northern Rock should have been allowed to go bust. That would have encouraged the other bankers to behave more sensibly.

Anyone who took it upon themselves to over-extend themselves by taking out these Northern Rock deals have themselves to blame for the financial difficulties they are now likely to face. They will have to learn the hard way to be more circumspect in future. No reason why the tax payer should have to bail them out.

David, Poole,

I think the people who have left the previous comments have completely missed the point of what NR are doing.
NR are leaving people who have these 100%+ mortgages, which were fully underwritten and approved, with very limited option at the end of their deal. I 100% agree with Katie Tucker from Charcol's comments on how is this meeting the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly inititive? At the very least they should be offering their existing Together mortgage clients with a remortgage option which maintains their Unsecured loan on terms akin to what were originally offered. ie. a loan at a mortgage rate over a mortgage term. I doubt that this small print was explained to many, if not any, of these customers.
It is all to easy for those who are sitting on healthy equity to look down on those who have used Northern Rocks innovative mortgage product to get onto the property ladder. It is these very people who have kept the property market bouyant until now!

Emma, Norwich, UK

In reply to Robert Bacon - shareholders come at the end of the queue after ALL the other debts have been paid. At the end of the day this bank failed due to a business plan which was bananas and implemented by management voted in by you, the shareholders. If it weren't for the government propping it up to bribe voters in labour marginals it would have gone genuinely bust months ago (as it should have). Yes that's tough on the shareholders (and the staff) but that's capitalism and I'd rather have that than more decades of beer and sandwiches at number 10. Fareplan (? right name - the xmas club) and Equitable Life were hung out to dry (the government were much more cuplable there) and so should the Northern Wreck be.

David, London,

The people who took out 125% mortgages clearly could not afford them .
It is typical of the Labour voting , bleeding heart brigade to want the Government to bail them out as well as their lender -- Rock -- since they cannot now afford to keep up the repayments .
No, they have got to learn the hard facts of life , tough as it may seemn that despite living in a labour controlled " paradise " that they either have top pay up , or lose their house . That what we have to do in the south -- why not the North

Colin Andrews, cooden, England

John McFall is totally wrong in suggesting that people who borrowed more than they could afford should be propped up.
He is forgetting that Northern Rock now belongs to the people.
What would happen if we said that we could not pay our tax because times were harder now than they were last year when we earned the money but did not put it by to pay our bills? The Northern Rock Shareholders took a gamble just like any other shareholders and should have stood the loss just like the people who took out 100% Mortgages hoping to make a profit on their property.

We've all been warned.

Helen Piper, Waterlooville, Hampshire

Shareholders have just been legally 'pick pocketed' by the Government & I see no one bemoaning them.

All anyone in the media seem to care about is that the taxpayer will make a profit from the deal, forgetting that also coincidentally shareholders are taxpayers too & the that ALL depositors must apparently lose not even a penny!

Now also the mortgagees must be given special treatment too according to some. Give me a break.

Thousands of small shareholders, who bear in mind are not rich people, have lost hundreds or thousands of pounds of their old age savings in the form of a few shares.

The government has rigged the so called independent valuation procedure & in a few years no doubt 'The Rock' will be sold off again making massive profits at shareholders expense!

If you agree that small shareholders are due some protection then do visit the No.10 website & sign my petition ending 3/3 (smallshareholdrs) or the one by James Edwards which is Anti-Nationalisation.

Robert Bacon, Friern Barnet, London

These types of mortgages are the reason there is such a credit crunch. Borrowers wanted these types of mortgages and were made VERY clear of the consequences if they wanted to move their mortgage. They will just have to pay the NR standard variable rate and forget about remortgaging. This is preferable to trying to sort out a loan for the unsecured part of their mortgage at ridiculous rates. This is what happens when you feel the need to "secure" your unsecured debt. There should be no rescue plan for NR customers - why should they be treated any differently from other borrowers. Hasn't the government done enough for NR - guaranteeing savings and now guaranteeing mortgages. WHATEVER NEXT!!

Elaine, Northampton, England

How many more votes does this government want to buy with my taxes?

Northern Rock should have gone under like every other firm who gets into financial trouble.

Now someone wants to give a get out of jail free card to all it's borrowers who want all of the upside of owning a house with none of the risk.

This government leaps from disaster to fiasco like it's a normal day at the office.

Salty, Reading,

Summary for Labour voters: These people should never have been lent money. And now they want more money - yours.

harry, Cannock, England

If the people who took out these mortgages are too stupid to consider the consequences, they deserve all they get .Simple as that !

Greg, Southampton, Hampshire

A bailout for people stupid enough to take out 125% mortgages which they could never really afford in the first place? Come on, they took the gamble because they thought house prices were a one way bet so remortgaging wouldn't be a problem. What next, refunds for those who lost on the 2.30 at Cheltenham?

Outrageous but predictable really. This Government will do anything to keep house prices as high as possible, it's the sole basis of Brown's economic 'miracle'. Expect a lot more bailouts.

dave, wolverhampton, England

John McFall is a fool,

when the market was going up and 10% + fools like these just ignored the economic stupidity of borrowing 100+ in the hope of catching the rapidily disappearing tail of House Prices growth is great for the country, lack of supply under pin prices etc.

Ignore all the prudent savers and use tax payers money to bail out fools... if this happens i want my tax back, it would help increase my savings even more.

Mark, london,

Now,

Let me understand properly.

At school one was taught that one should save up at least 10% of the price of a property as a deposit. The reason was threefold. Firstly that there would then be equity in the property as a buffer against the likes of falls as in 1989-1995/6. Secondly that this would prevent house price inflation getting out of control because there was the necessity of a 'stake' prior to purchase. Thirdly because the risk was spread between mortgagor and mortgagee the mortgage was lower.

So I look forward to my taxes going to bail out speculative gambling. I am like the UK a charity for the feckless. Poor old Britain (I won't put the Great before it after Mrs. T was deposed).

Austin Tassletine, South West, UK

People who took out these 100%+ mortgages knew exactly what they were doing (or they should have done). It is a high risk strategy to assume that you will have attractive refinancing opportunities at the end of any fixed rate term. If house prices had kept going up they would have made substantial returns. Now they must accept that they gambled, and lost. No-one else should have to underwrite their risk-taking.

Stephen Clark, Boston, USA