That's bit of a naive outlook.

Nobody forces(in most cases) adults, or children, to work in inhumane conditions that pay sweet FA in some 3rd world hell hole - that doesn't mean, because workers are 'choosing' to work, that a company exploiting said labour is ethically justified.

Should we remove the minimum wage, get rid of regulation of working hours and let people at the bottom of society "choose" to work 16 hours a day for £1 an hour. Would anybody accept a company employing such people is ethically sound, because the workers in theory "choose" to work there?

Or maybe I go to Somalia or some other place ravaged by famine and pay starving women to be in my pornography films. Would it be fair to criticise me for that or does the fact that they're 'choosing' to do it excuse what I'm doing?

I could carry on like this but I don't want to bore you.

What I'm getting at is that Provident, and other vulture companies like them, are scum. That people aren't forced to use their services doesn't really change that.

It maybe me but I think you missed the point of his post??? I thought he was posting sarcastically!

The thing is, there's a flip side to the coin. What about those people who borrow from them and then pay back what they've borrowed on time? You know? The sensible people who work for their money and just need a stop gap to get over a financial pitfall.

The people who call foul against companies like Provident are usually the type who want something for nothing, shouldn't be entering financial commitments because they're either unwilling or incapable of keeping up with the payments or my personal favourite those who will just sign up for anything without reading the documentation and then complain when the penalties that are clearly laid out in the documentation are imposed on them.

Also, as for those who work for a pittance in 3rd world countries, I assume them as you're taking such a strong moral stance that neither you nor anyone in your family has ever bought any product produced by the coca-cola company. Or bought brand-named trainers? I also assume therefore that your strong moral centre means you boycot supermarkets like Tesco and refuse to have anything to do with fast food outlets like McDonalds.

If you do, then that kind of makes you a hypocrite for invoking the use of 3rd world labour in your self justificating argument

I will not go through all of your post as it would take too long.

Yes it is hard to be completely ethical about everything we do in respect of finances when we live in an unfair world BUT we allof choices.

IF you want to support your club and buy a shirt, fine. But why not get 3 pieces of black insulating tape and put them over the main sponsors name.

Hey presto supporting your club, not promoting a pretty scummy company and making a political principle.

What about them?



The people who call foul against companies like Provident are usually the type who don't like wealthy, scummy suits trawling the very bottom of society, preying on the vulnerable and bankrupting struggling families to further their own greed.

See, I can do that as well.







I don't own my family!!! What my family buys has nothing to do with me, what my family believes, thinks and feels and how they act on it has positively nothing to do with me. What I've bought in the past is irrelevant, also.

Is a vegetarian who ate meat growing up invalidated by that fact, when putting forward argument against meat eating on ethical grounds? Is a vegetarian whose family eats meat invalidated by that fact? Is a Socialist whose family is Capitalist a hypocrite? What about an environmentalist that owned a hummer when he was younger, is he not allowed to have ethical qualms today?

What I've bought in the past, what my family buy today, they have nothing to do with what my position is, right now.



Pretty much.



But IF I did, it would have nothing to do with the validity of my statements. Me buying Coca Cola as a teenager doesn't in anyway justify or excuse the evils of Coca Cola! Even if I drank Coca Cola today it would make me a hypocrite, yes, but it wouldn't invalidate my criticisms of Coca Cola.

I don't even follow the reasoning you're trying to use here... It's literally baffling. Did it make sense when you wrote it?

Anyway, the point I was making is that choice in itself doesn't make something just. There are a lot of bad things in the world that people voluntarily enter into. The fact people choose to use Provident tells us nothing when discussing whether they're a good or bad company.

Why? I have no real reason to disrespect the sponsors in that way. You might have a problem with their lending but they're really no worse than any other banking institution other than they are more willing to take on high risk borrowers and as they are high risk then penalties are more sever. Don't like it? Then don't borrow from them. Or if you do, make sure you've full read up all the terms and conditions, or gotten help from CAB or another financial help charity, to ensure you fully understand what you're taking on.

If you can't take simple steps to safe guard yourself in financial matters then you've not place to go taking out a financial commitment that you can't deal with.

And yet you still can't make a point without resorting to rhetoric.

Can you explain to me exactly why Provident are more scum than any other financial institution? Or for that matter any multinational corporation? They loan to people who are unable to get loans from high street banks, but there's so many charities out there that provide free financial advice and most of them will tell you that taking out an additional loan may not be the best cause of action. But again, if these "vulnerable people" you bring out are not capable of ensuring they fully understand the financial commitment they're choosing to take on them maybe they shouldn't be looking to actually take on the financial commitment.

Well, I really didn't want to get into that, to be honest with you. People have their own opinions, which is why I watched this thread for a good number of pages without entertaining a reply.

What I was replying to, and what is important, is that consent or choice does not necessarily make something just, or ethically sound. I was correcting a poster with invalid reasoning.

I don't really want to go much further. We're not going to agree on Provident because our world views are a world apart. If you want to discuss in detail issues of class warfare, capitalism and more then you're free to create a thread in the appropriate section, or to private message me.

Clutching at straws to justify having a company like this on the shirt stinks, but as wheels says, its only the dawn and out, lazy, scroungers, and what heather els you can think of to justify it, makes perfect sense , as a company like this and what Bradford have don over the last few months, makes them a perfect match

Fine, your answer to him was based on completely different situations to the ones posed.

People in the 3rd world have NO choice but to work in sweatshops because it's that or they and their family starve and that's no choice at all. Is that right? Is that moral? Not by a f***ing long way.
People in the UK DO have a choice on taking out a high interest, short term loan or getting further financial advice before taking on heavy financial commitments.
You then continued with empty rhetoric about getting rid of minimum wage and Somalian women doing porn. What does that have to do with taking out a loan?

Who's clutching at straws?

Wheels was pointing out that a lot of those who complain about Provident's penalties are those who really shouldn't be taking out loans of this type to pay for unnecessary luxuries.

And as I pointed out there are people out there who are capable of taking out one of these loans and NOT get hit with the fines and penalties because they actually have a sense of responsibility when taking out financial commitments. Yet no one brings those people up and clearly there's a lot of them otherwise why else would Provident be able to stay in business or for that matter looking to expand?