MPH Posted 21 December 2009 Posted 21 December 2009 That would be me.Please don't try and lecture me on poverty, been there, done that, couldn't afford the tee shirt. It was a way of life for me as a kid, mainly caused my by dad's spendthrift ways. When we got married and bought our house we sat on deck chairs, watching the wife's old portable TV eating beans on toast every night. We didn't go to quickquid or any other lender. We saved up and bought things as we could afford them. The social services pay the rent/rates of the truly poor, they give them a (poor admittedly)income to live on. There is no need to go to these rip off lenders if you live within your means. actually i will if thats ok. the stupidity is all yours. spendthrift ways? goodness is that all ya got to bring to the table? you saved up? you fool you had money to save up in the first place.
Zingari Posted 21 December 2009 Posted 21 December 2009 The nanny state is just not nanny enough , that's a good 'un
Guest Bilo Posted 21 December 2009 Posted 21 December 2009 The nanny state is just not nanny enough , that's a good 'un Nanny state = Protecting people from themselves. Pointless and authoritarian. Banning people like Quick Quid = Protecting vulnerable people from those who would exploit them. Necessary in a liberal democracy. On a personal note, I'd love to ask one of the pricks behind a firm like this if they'd be happy to see a loved one take out one of their loans. Pretty sure I know what the honest answer would be.
Zingari Posted 21 December 2009 Posted 21 December 2009 Nanny state = Protecting people from themselves. Pointless and authoritarian.Banning people like Quick Quid = Protecting vulnerable people from those who would exploit them. Necessary in a liberal democracy. On a personal note, I'd love to ask one of the pricks behind a firm like this if they'd be happy to see a loved one take out one of their loans. Pretty sure I know what the honest answer would be. looks a grey area for legislation to me but i do agree with the sentiment
Daggers Posted 21 December 2009 Author Posted 21 December 2009 Fuck it - let's abolish all consumer legislation. You were a twat to buy a washing machine which stopped working? You employed a bogus trader to tarmac your drive? You were a cunt and credit card booked a holiday with a tour firm which collapsed? Tough shit because "it doesn't effect me". Contracted food poisoning from an establishment which failed to meet basic hygiene standards? Fuck you - we're rolling back the "Nanny State". Why stop there? Let's close the NHS, remove the vote and get shot of the waste that is public policing and trial by jury. Really, the rank ignorance exhibited by those who like to think they are so clever is risible.
Finnegan Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 Why stop there?Let's close the NHS, remove the vote and get shot of the waste that is public policing and trial by jury. WELCOME TO WEBBO WORLD! ©
ozleicester Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 Felicity Kendall is sweetly pretty and i want to protect her.
Head Honcho Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 Tbh. Anyone who is thick enough to borrow money off these w@nkers probably wouldn't be capable of hanging onto their money anyway. Desperate would be more apt don't you think?
Head Honcho Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 Desperate would be more apt don't you think? It's company's like this that put the US into financial freefall and still they're allowed to lend money to people who will struggle to pay it back and to many who will be unable to pay it back.
Webbo Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 WELCOME TO WEBBO WORLD! © and you were so nice to me only a few posts earlier.
Webbo Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 the stupidity is all yours. spendthrift ways? goodness is that all ya got to bring to the table? you saved up? you fool you had money to save up in the first place. I don't want to get into a Monty Python sketch trying to out poverty you but believe me I've seen enough of it to know it's often self inflicted. If any one thinks that banning these legalised loan sharks will turn these desperate people into solvent self reliant people they're kidding themselves on.
MC Prussian Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 I don't want to get into a Monty Python sketch trying to out poverty you but believe me I've seen enough of it to know it's often self inflicted.If any one thinks that banning these legalised loan sharks will turn these desperate people into solvent self reliant people they're kidding themselves on. But it would be a start. Breaking the vicious circle, and all. Next step: Communication with the masses aka educational advertising.
Zingari Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 But it would be a start. Breaking the vicious circle, and all. Next step: Communication with the masses aka educational advertising. it's quite simple "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
Houdini Logic Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 Fuck it - let's abolish all consumer legislation.You were a twat to buy a washing machine which stopped working? You employed a bogus trader to tarmac your drive? You were a cunt and credit card booked a holiday with a tour firm which collapsed? Tough shit because "it doesn't effect me". Contracted food poisoning from an establishment which failed to meet basic hygiene standards? Fuck you - we're rolling back the "Nanny State". Why stop there? Let's close the NHS, remove the vote and get shot of the waste that is public policing and trial by jury. Really, the rank ignorance exhibited by those who like to think they are so clever is risible. I think consumer legislation is a necessity and should be in place to stop any miss-selling or breach of trades description. If Quick Quid advertised at 2356% and then charged 5000% then your examples may be relevant, but people are entering into an agreement with this company knowing the rate they have to pay and that's very different. I find it amusing that people on here are calling Quick Quid users 'victims' and saying that all repayment information should be clearly displayed. Being that they display their APR and you know how much you are wanting to borrow - is it really that difficult to pick up a calculator? My problem with all of this is that I think it's very dangerous for anyone other than the potential user of a service to start drawing lines between what is acceptable and what isn't. If we think 2356% is too high then what do we accept as reasonable - 1000? 500? 50? Surely these decisions need to lie with the individual. Quick Quid is sold as a payday advance and as such a £200 advance could be paid back within 2 months at the cost of £300. Some people could argue that's acceptable (maybe you've been out of employment for a while and would like this advance as you are waiting for your first pay?). But let's say we think £100 interest is too much, is £50 okay? If you think it is then you're still condoning 1000+% It's easy to shout and moan about the disgrace of this company, but it's a very, very different game to try and draw the lines for what is acceptable and what isn't...
Daggers Posted 22 December 2009 Author Posted 22 December 2009 "You could see the counter was dirty, you didn't have to buy your sandwich there - where's your damn personal responsibility?"
Houdini Logic Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 "You could see the counter was dirty, you didn't have to buy your sandwich there - where's your damn personal responsibility?" In depth. So what rules would you set?
Daggers Posted 22 December 2009 Author Posted 22 December 2009 In depth.So what rules would you set? In depth? It is a parody of the world without concience or social responsibility, a piss-take of the morally bankrupt stance adopted by a number of people in this thread. You want my rules? Interest rates in line with High Street lending, tigher control over lending/ability to repay, abolish ability to repay loans using credit cards and an end to normalising dependance on debt by banning the advertising of loans on childrens' television. You know the risk with smoking, you may choose to smoke (if you are that dim) but we don't advertise fags to kids. We don't do it because it displayed an abject lack of moral fibre to do so. How quickly we seem to forget the ramifications of letting a profit-focussed loan market wander society lacking coherent control.
Guest Bilo Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 I'M YOUR BIGGEST FAN, I'LL FOLLOW YOU UNTIL YOU LOVE ME PAPA, PAPARAZZI
Webbo Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 I'm not taking any kind of stance, moral or otherwise, on this subject. I'm just making a few observations.If these firms were put out of business I wouldn't care a bit. A point that seems to missed here is that the Cartoon network is only available on pay TV platforms. If these people are so desperate for money maybe they should get their priorities right. Lets not kid ourselves on here. We're not talking about some widowed mother here borrowing some money to buy some smart price bread for her malnourished child.
Daggers Posted 22 December 2009 Author Posted 22 December 2009 I'm not taking any kind of stance Did you read the rest of that post?
Daggers Posted 22 December 2009 Author Posted 22 December 2009 Yes. ...and that was you 'not taking a stance, moral or otherwise'?
Webbo Posted 22 December 2009 Posted 22 December 2009 ...and that was you 'not taking a stance, moral or otherwise'? No, just making an observation.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.