|
Don't wear that shirt!
The Muslim Council of Britain is attempting to stop Newcastle United from using its new shirt. Under the banner of Sharia law, the MCB states (in respect of Sharia law):
"The idea is to protect the vulnerable and the needy from exploitation by the rich and powerful." I fully support the MCB in this. The UK has nothing whatsoever in place to put such ethics in place. We don't have the Unfair Contract Terms Act, The Distance Selling Act (or whatever it's called), the Citizens Advice Bureaux and various other legal and practical measures to protect ill-informed and vulnerable consumers and employees from exploitation by companies and the Government. We definitely need the MCB to come and make us clean up our act. I'm also extremely pleased to see that the MCB is drawing on the shining examples shown in so many countries of all the real and effective measures in place to ensure that the vulnerable and needy are protected from exploitation. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/n...070006117.html |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Wonga is a horrible horrible company!
I think they already sponsor Blackpool as well :s |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Manchester_QS
(Post 10323384)
Wonga is a horrible horrible company!
I think they already sponsor Blackpool as well :s |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Bahtatboy
(Post 10323376)
The Muslim Council of Britain is attempting to stop Newcastle United from using its new shirt. Under the banner of Sharia law, the MCB states (in respect of Sharia law):
"The idea is to protect the vulnerable and the needy from exploitation by the rich and powerful." I fully support the MCB in this. The UK has nothing whatsoever in place to put such ethics in place. We don't have the Unfair Contract Terms Act, The Distance Selling Act (or whatever it's called), the Citizens Advice Bureaux and various other legal and practical measures to protect ill-informed and vulnerable consumers and employees from exploitation by companies and the Government. We definitely need the MCB to come and make us clean up our act. I'm also extremely pleased to see that the MCB is drawing on the shining examples shown in so many countries of all the real and effective measures in place to ensure that the vulnerable and needy are protected from exploitation. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/n...070006117.html That said, the MCB is right on this. Wonga and its ilk are nothing more than loansharks with high street branches and websites. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Bahtatboy
(Post 10323388)
But the MCB can go **** itself.
Looking at the Wonga case - I see nothing wrong with it. If Betting companies are allowed to advertise and in fact the whole league is sponsored by a bank caught fixing the rates then why should we exclude Wonga? Crooks the lot of them. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Scamp
(Post 10323406)
Amen.
Looking at the Wonga case - I see nothing wrong with it. If Betting companies are allowed to advertise and in fact the whole league is sponsored by a bank caught fixing the rates then why should we exclude Wonga? Crooks the lot of them. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by OleJanx
(Post 10323439)
I think Wonga's problem lies with the 2350% APR...
|
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by OleJanx
(Post 10323439)
I think Wonga's problem lies with the 2350% APR...
Only a fool would take a payday loan. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Did they speak out when Man City (I think) were sponsored by Chang beer?
|
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Scamp
(Post 10323500)
But that's clearly stated.
Only a fool would take a payday loan. I'd say that means there's plenty of idiots out there. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Meow
(Post 10323503)
Did they speak out when Man City (I think) were sponsored by Chang beer?
What about when those dirty skate bastards were sponsored by Ty Beanie Babies? Paedo's heaven. Cuddly toys and football....make it easier for them. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by auzdafluff
(Post 10323505)
Wonga had a net income of £45.8m on revenues of £185m in 2011.
I'd say that means there's plenty of idiots out there. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by auzdafluff
(Post 10323505)
Wonga had a net income of £45.8m on revenues of £185m in 2011.
I'd say that means there's plenty of idiots out there. Where there is a need, there is a business. Wonga etc wouldn't operate if it was illegal. The UK is too heavily regulated. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Scamp
(Post 10323583)
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Alan Sugar.... none of those people made a fortune by being nice.
Where there is a need, there is a business. Wonga etc wouldn't operate if it was illegal. The UK is too heavily regulated. 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. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Bahtatboy
(Post 10323603)
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. It is not necessary to be a bastard and take advantage of others to be successful. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Meow
(Post 10323612)
:goodpost:
It is not necessary to be a bastard and take advantage of others to be successful. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Bahtatboy
(Post 10323603)
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.
Originally Posted by Meow
(Post 10323612)
:goodpost:
It is not necessary to be a bastard and take advantage of others to be successful. 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. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Scamp
(Post 10323620)
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. 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. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Scamp
(Post 10323620)
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. 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? |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Bahtatboy
(Post 10323638)
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? 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. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Manchester_QS
(Post 10323384)
Wonga is a horrible horrible company!
|
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? |
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.......... :unsure:
|
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by saudiflares
(Post 10323783)
My 9 year old's abudhabi harlequin rugby top is sponsored by one of these dodgy ifa companies.
Any guesses? |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Scamp
(Post 10323658)
That all being said, cigs are harmful and they are banned from being advertised
|
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
I do like the Wonga adverts on the radio though: Mini Millhouse and I sing along to them.
|
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by OleJanx
(Post 10323914)
only one....servere, guess...
|
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by The Dean
(Post 10323888)
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.......... :unsure:
|
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Millhouse
(Post 10324722)
Don't let the facts get in the way.
|
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by The Dean
(Post 10324746)
Oh sorry......
Work that one out and you are a better man than me. :rofl: |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Meow
(Post 10323629)
Many people are stunningly ignorant and naive (when it comes to finances)
I'm saying this partly just to wind you up but actually, it makes a good point...if you think that Wonga provide you a short term solution and know the facts then it is a simple business transaction. If YOU fail to understand the implications, costs and agreement that you enter into then why is it any other parties fault but yours? Whether you or I agree with charging bucket loads of interest to people who probably need the 50 quid month end is neither here nor there. They choose to do it....what I want to know is what did people do before these companies existed? |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Scamp
(Post 10324836)
They choose to do it....what I want to know is what did people do before these companies existed?
probably not that popular on your manor but a fact of life up north for many. the irony that the twats haven't worked out yet is that by sponsoring the skunks they immediately rule out ever getting business from 50% of the north east population who support Sunderland, we all boycotted Sugar Puffs when Kevin Keegan endorsed them. Sunderland must be one of the poorest cities in the UK and a prime target for wonga the timing is highly dubious too, teams never change mid season, just as folk think about Christmas in a recession in the poorest part of the country.... they need regulating, it's immoral ( even if the victims are skunks ) |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Sandboy
(Post 10325018)
Provident and Kays Catalogue
probably not that popular on your manor but a fact of life up north for many. the irony that the twats haven't worked out yet is that by sponsoring the skunks they immediately rule out ever getting business from 50% of the north east population who support Sunderland, we all boycotted Sugar Puffs when Kevin Keegan endorsed them. Sunderland must be one of the poorest cities in the UK and a prime target for wonga the timing is highly dubious too, teams never change mid season, just as folk think about Christmas in a recession in the poorest part of the country.... they need regulating, it's immoral ( even if the victims are skunks ) Interesting point about the sponsorship and rivalry. Hadn't even thought about that. Agree it's expert timing on their part. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Millhouse
(Post 10324749)
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. :rofl: |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
I don't see the problem with the Wonga advertisement, in fact I don't see a problem with advertisements for alcohol or cigarettes or escort services if it came to that.
If the product or service is legal, then why restrict the advertisement? its either ok or its not oh these uneducated people we need to save them from themselves, **** that. |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by weasel decentral
(Post 10325099)
Surely a lower APR for longer, earns more than a high APR for a shorter period? I mean in absolute cash return terms.
|
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Millhouse
(Post 10325130)
You engineers :rolleyes: you don't look at it like that from a credit perspective. The longer the loan, the more risky it is - hence the higher the rate should be.
|
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by weasel decentral
(Post 10325134)
Is the loan unsecured? The reverse is true with personal loans or mortgages. Shorter the loan higher the interest.
|
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
you must have risk both ways though? you have the risk that it won't work so you charge a higher rate to take the risk, but then you have the risk that his high repayments are the reason the project fails?
If the business plan is finely balanced, surely a lower repayment over a longer time reduces that risk. We are looking for $300m for a low cost housing project in Tunisia over 15 years, fancy taking a punt on that? |
Re: Don't wear that shirt!
Originally Posted by Scamp
(Post 10325039)
I think I know the thing you mean, Farepak style pay monthly, or Littlewoods on credit right?
Interesting point about the sponsorship and rivalry. Hadn't even thought about that. Agree it's expert timing on their part. http://www.providentpersonalcredit.com/ and never underestimate how petty football fans can be ! http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/nort...9310-23035530/ |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 7:34 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.