Don't wear that shirt!
Oct 10th 2012, 1:46 pm
#16
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Windscale....
Posts: 5,712
Oct 10th 2012, 1:46 pm
#17
Account Closed
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Bill et al: Correct, but there's a big difference between "not nice" and an APR of 2,000%.
Regulation: No. We have a long history of laissez faire attitudes to business in the UK, but there are various measures in place to make sure that the vulnerable don't get exploited. Ads have to be honest, legal, decent and truthful. Goods and services have to be as described--if they're not, there are various recourses available, most of them well balanced. Goods generally have to be fit for purpose, which is fair. Companies are generally not overly constrained in their operations by consumer protection (and very, very lightly in B2B transactions, with the major protection for small companies against the big boys).
Illegality: No, it isn't illegal, but they're operating on the fringes and I hope that more legislation will come about: the loans are aimed at the most needy, and generally they are the least well-informed--need and lack of awarness = vunerability.
Its not a perfect system, but companies who operate ethically and provide good products and services can do well, and vunerable consumers and small business have a fair level of protection.
Regulation: No. We have a long history of laissez faire attitudes to business in the UK, but there are various measures in place to make sure that the vulnerable don't get exploited. Ads have to be honest, legal, decent and truthful. Goods and services have to be as described--if they're not, there are various recourses available, most of them well balanced. Goods generally have to be fit for purpose, which is fair. Companies are generally not overly constrained in their operations by consumer protection (and very, very lightly in B2B transactions, with the major protection for small companies against the big boys).
Illegality: No, it isn't illegal, but they're operating on the fringes and I hope that more legislation will come about: the loans are aimed at the most needy, and generally they are the least well-informed--need and lack of awarness = vunerability.
Its not a perfect system, but companies who operate ethically and provide good products and services can do well, and vunerable consumers and small business have a fair level of protection.
I just think it's easy to criticise these companies. They are such a simple target to throw shit at when in reality, they are doing nothing wrong.
Oct 10th 2012, 1:55 pm
#18
Bored liberal
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Over there ----->
Posts: 13,713
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
I agree with everything you've said, it's impossible not to. It's not 'fair' but I don't see why they can't be on a football shirt, or can't advertise. Nobody is physically forced into taking a loan. Nobody is forced to not read the small print or not check the terms.
You're right, it's not...but how much damage do betting sites do, or high street bookies in comparison to being charged 20 quid to borrow 100?
I just think it's easy to criticise these companies. They are such a simple target to throw shit at when in reality, they are doing nothing wrong.
You're right, it's not...but how much damage do betting sites do, or high street bookies in comparison to being charged 20 quid to borrow 100?
I just think it's easy to criticise these companies. They are such a simple target to throw shit at when in reality, they are doing nothing wrong.
I happen to think that it is wrong to charge such high rates of interest. It may not be illegal, but it is ethically and morally wrong.
Many people are stunningly ignorant and naive when it comes to finances and it companies are unable act in a decent manner I would like to see regulation to stop this kind of usuary.
We shouldn't have to have a law to tell people not to kill others, or drive when drunk, but we do. If people cannot behave responsibly, then society, sometimes in the form of legislation, has to do something about it.
Oct 10th 2012, 2:03 pm
#19
Hit 16's
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine
Posts: 13,112
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
I agree with everything you've said, it's impossible not to. It's not 'fair' but I don't see why they can't be on a football shirt, or can't advertise. Nobody is physically forced into taking a loan. Nobody is forced to not read the small print or not check the terms.
You're right, it's not...but how much damage do betting sites do, or high street bookies in comparison to being charged 20 quid to borrow 100?
I just think it's easy to criticise these companies. They are such a simple target to throw shit at when in reality, they are doing nothing wrong.
You're right, it's not...but how much damage do betting sites do, or high street bookies in comparison to being charged 20 quid to borrow 100?
I just think it's easy to criticise these companies. They are such a simple target to throw shit at when in reality, they are doing nothing wrong.
Actually, I disprove of football clubs having sponsorship from betting and loan companies and the like. Because not only do we have our youth looking up to footballers who are cheats, liars and racists, but who now endorse companies whose services should only be considered by adults who have a very good understanding of the risks they take in using those services. Impressionable youth is now being brainwashed into believing that their heroes support those companies and their services, and therefore they're ok. That's bloody worrying. As for the religous angle: I agree with the sentiment, but if the CoE came along and decried the situation my response would be the same (well, similar, but watered-down a bit).
Many lives are damaged by gambling and Wonga-type loans. Many are enhanced and saved by condoms. So which one do we ban?
Oct 10th 2012, 2:19 pm
#20
Account Closed
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Sorta gone full circle there with a twist: I started the thread by decrying the attempt (albeit the MCB's) to prohibit NUFC using the shirt. But that was about the MCB, not Wonga.
Actually, I disprove of football clubs having sponsorship from betting and loan companies and the like. Because not only do we have our youth looking up to footballers who are cheats, liars and racists, but who now endorse companies whose services should only be considered by adults who have a very good understanding of the risks they take in using those services. Impressionable youth is now being brainwashed into believing that their heroes support those companies and their services, and therefore they're ok. That's bloody worrying. As for the religous angle: I agree with the sentiment, but if the CoE came along and decried the situation my response would be the same (well, similar, but watered-down a bit).
Many lives are damaged by gambling and Wonga-type loans. Many are enhanced and saved by condoms. So which one do we ban?
Actually, I disprove of football clubs having sponsorship from betting and loan companies and the like. Because not only do we have our youth looking up to footballers who are cheats, liars and racists, but who now endorse companies whose services should only be considered by adults who have a very good understanding of the risks they take in using those services. Impressionable youth is now being brainwashed into believing that their heroes support those companies and their services, and therefore they're ok. That's bloody worrying. As for the religous angle: I agree with the sentiment, but if the CoE came along and decried the situation my response would be the same (well, similar, but watered-down a bit).
Many lives are damaged by gambling and Wonga-type loans. Many are enhanced and saved by condoms. So which one do we ban?
Same can be said for kids magazines and the types of glossy girls mags that are aimed at younger generations demanding skinny, big tits, blonde and tanned. That's a whole other debate though (protecting kids).
That all being said, cigs are harmful (apparently) and they are banned from being advertised in certain ways.
Oct 10th 2012, 3:29 pm
#22
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,096
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
My 9 year old's abudhabi harlequin rugby top is sponsored by one of these dodgy ifa companies.
Any guesses?
Any guesses?
Oct 10th 2012, 4:31 pm
#23
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,553
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
The problem with the APR calculation in Wonga's case (etc) is that - ironically - the sooner you pay it off, the higher the APR actually is. This is due to the fixed minimum bit.......... 
Oct 10th 2012, 4:47 pm
#24
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Windscale....
Posts: 5,712
Oct 10th 2012, 5:57 pm
#25
Concierge
Joined: May 2006
Location: ex ex-pat, in Taunton
Posts: 27,203
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Not just certain ways, you can't advertise cigarettes in ANY way. and even the shelves with them on have to be covered unless someone is taking a pack out to sell. This applies, at the moment, just to the larger shops and supermarkets, but will apply to ALL by 2015, and there is no advertising allowed even there.
Oct 10th 2012, 6:19 pm
#26
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Disneyland, Dubai
Posts: 15,887
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
I do like the Wonga adverts on the radio though: Mini Millhouse and I sing along to them.
Oct 11th 2012, 3:08 am
#28
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Disneyland, Dubai
Posts: 15,887
Oct 11th 2012, 3:32 am
#30
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Disneyland, Dubai
Posts: 15,887
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
We use what I can only describe as a "reverse APR pricing system" for our loans... we have been known to tell the client, if you take this for an extra couple of years we will reduce the rate.
Work that one out and you are a better man than me.
Work that one out and you are a better man than me.