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?

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.