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.




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?

Why is it the companies fault, if a customer takes out a loan, knowing full well the APR, and the penalties involved, knowing full well they cannot repay it? Yes they do take advantage of people's desperation for Money, but, at the end of the day, it's your own responsibility to manage your money better.

I have a family, a mortgage, and work scarcely above minimum wage. It's a struggle, sometimes, but I would never take this loans out due to the rates involved. To blame Provident for offering a service because there is a demand for that service is utterly stupid.

Well done the Bulls, great deal this.

They sell to anybody , they do not give a dam if they can afford it or not, they know the majority of people will not be able to pay back on time, thats why they are making a fortune of the vulnerable, not the minority who can pay back on time. How long was it that we declined sponsorship from a betting company, because it did not suit RLs image
if the company are so helpful watch BBC3 on wed, 10pb

It's okay to say that in hindsight, but I don't think that's true, myself. People aren't taking out these loans for the fun of their health, they're not doing it for 50 inch televisions (although I'm not saying that doesn't happen to a small degree(. Mainly people take out these loans for the same reason a person opts to work in a sweatshop, because it's that or they lose their house, can't feed their family, can't manage for the time being.

For the most part, people who take out these loans are doing it for their survival. It is wishful thinking and it is stupid on their part, that's understood, but the reason people turn to such companies is to get by. Not too unlike people who work in sweatshops because that's their only means of eating and living for the time being.

I don't think anybody disputes that it's stupid to use companies like Provident, what the rest of us are saying is that while yes there is responsibility for those who take the loans, that doesn't excuse the company for preying on the vulnerable like a kettle of vultures. You seem to think it's some sort of dichotomy whereby you either support the company or you support reckless borrowing, the reality is that you can be against both.

The minimum wage and Somalian porn argument was made to demonstrate that people consenting/choosing doesn't mean the people/companies preying on them are right in what they're doing.

I thought my argument, while being highly debatable, was pretty clear. Obviously not.

And make sure you read the rebuttal from Provident on their website, rather than resort to listening to only one side of the argument.

Also, they don't "sell to anybody". You have to prove you're able to afford the repayments. However, the way some people prove their capability of being able to pay are questionable in themselves.

But it's not either or, and that's the point. Just because people recklessly borrow money, and need to be responsible for their own actions, doesn't mean that a company that preys on said people is excused for what they do.

I will watch the program, all the facts are supposedly filmed by some one working there, then we can decide for ourselves

What do you mean "prey"

I'm pretty sure the person has to go to Provident and ask for the loan. Provident will then say yes we will give you the money but state CLEARLY if you do not pay it back you will be charge 4000%.

If that person signs anyway and can't afford the payment, as harsh as it is, that is their own fault. These vulnerable people have many other options to go to than a payday loan company.

Do you have a problem with Barclays pumping millions into the Premier league when they made people pay for a service without them knowing. Pretty sure that counts as theft or fraud. Do you refuse watch SKY sports which is owned by the same man at the centre of the phone hacking scandal. Do you also refuse to watch the BBC that is currently at accused of allowing many children to be abused?