Originally Posted by Meow (Post 10323612)

:goodpost:

It is not necessary to be a bastard and take advantage of others to be successful.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Manchester_QS (Post 10323384)

Wonga is a horrible horrible company!

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?

Originally Posted by Scamp (Post 10323658)

That all being said, cigs are harmful and they are banned from being advertised

Originally Posted by OleJanx (Post 10323914)

only one....servere, guess...

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:

Originally Posted by Millhouse (Post 10324722)

Don't let the facts get in the way.

Originally Posted by The Dean (Post 10324746)

Oh sorry......