Dave Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Still don't quite get how advertising their perfectly legal business is preying on the vulnerable. I'd be interested in seeing some stats on where the majority of the money they lend goes but I would imagine that's not freely available. Their service, the amounts they lend and the high charges they levy literally couldn't be any easier to understand; what are they concealing or misleading people with? If the adverts are inappropriate then the ASA should be doing something about it btw. Otherwise, people clearly believe the charges are acceptable or they wouldn't be agreeing to them. Or are we saying that people are so fucking dense that they need protecting from their own thought processes and decisions? Wonga and the like are obviously charging as much as people are willing to pay. Ultimately what's the difference between doing what they're doing and Apple charging £529 for a phone that costs them £129 to make? Or Nike charging £100 for a pair of trainers that costs them £5 to make? Where do we draw the line between a business making a fair profit and being immoral? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-10-09/newcastles-muslim-warned-against-wearing-wonga-sponsored-shirts/ But the gambling, alcohol and African exploitation whitewash deals are perfectly OK ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-10-09/newcastles-muslim-warned-against-wearing-wonga-sponsored-shirts/ "The Islamic system is based on a non-interest-based system of transaction," he added. Not just Wonga then, is it? Northern Rock is an infringement of Sharia Law. Interest at a bank is also 'money not earned'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 you can get islamic banks that don't have interest, but yes northern rock should have been banned by same logic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuneaton Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Still don't quite get how advertising their perfectly legal business is 'preying on the vulnerable'. I'd be interested in seeing some stats on where the majority of the money they lend goes but I would imagine that's not freely available. Their service, the amounts they lend and the high charges they levy literally couldn't be any easier to understand; what are they concealing or misleading people with? If the adverts are inappropriate then the ASA should be doing something about it btw. Otherwise, people clearly believe the charges are acceptable or they wouldn't be agreeing to them. Or are we saying that people are so f***ing dense that they need protecting from their own thought processes and decisions? Wonga and the like are obviously charging as much as people are willing to pay. Ultimately what's the difference between doing what they're doing and Apple charging £529 for a phone that costs them £129 to make? Or Nike charging £100 for a pair of trainers that costs them £5 to make? Where do we draw the line between a business making a fair profit and being immoral? precisely Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 you can get islamic banks that don't have interest, but yes northern rock should have been banned by same logic. Aye, the Islamic Bank of Britain on Edgware Road for example. Its own legislation and everything IIRC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Wonga is growing on me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Still don't quite get how advertising their perfectly legal business is 'preying on the vulnerable'. I'd be interested in seeing some stats on where the majority of the money they lend goes but I would imagine that's not freely available. Their service, the amounts they lend and the high charges they levy literally couldn't be any easier to understand; what are they concealing or misleading people with? If the adverts are inappropriate then the ASA should be doing something about it btw. Otherwise, people clearly believe the charges are acceptable or they wouldn't be agreeing to them. Or are we saying that people are so fucking dense that they need protecting from their own thought processes and decisions? Wonga and the like are obviously charging as much as people are willing to pay. Ultimately what's the difference between doing what they're doing and Apple charging £529 for a phone that costs them £129 to make? Or Nike charging £100 for a pair of trainers that costs them £5 to make? Where do we draw the line between a business making a fair profit and being immoral? Possibly the most intelligent post I've ever seen on here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Wonga is growing on me. think you can get a cream for that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Still don't quite get how advertising their perfectly legal business is 'preying on the vulnerable'. I'd be interested in seeing some stats on where the majority of the money they lend goes but I would imagine that's not freely available. Their service, the amounts they lend and the high charges they levy literally couldn't be any easier to understand; what are they concealing or misleading people with? If the adverts are inappropriate then the ASA should be doing something about it btw. Otherwise, people clearly believe the charges are acceptable or they wouldn't be agreeing to them. Or are we saying that people are so f***ing dense that they need protecting from their own thought processes and decisions? Wonga and the like are obviously charging as much as people are willing to pay. Ultimately what's the difference between doing what they're doing and Apple charging £529 for a phone that costs them £129 to make? Or Nike charging £100 for a pair of trainers that costs them £5 to make? Where do we draw the line between a business making a fair profit and being immoral? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuneaton Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 good job we dont have sharia law in this country then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Still don't quite get how advertising their perfectly legal business is 'preying on the vulnerable'. I'd be interested in seeing some stats on where the majority of the money they lend goes but I would imagine that's not freely available. Their service, the amounts they lend and the high charges they levy literally couldn't be any easier to understand; what are they concealing or misleading people with? If the adverts are inappropriate then the ASA should be doing something about it btw. Otherwise, people clearly believe the charges are acceptable or they wouldn't be agreeing to them. Or are we saying that people are so f***ing dense that they need protecting from their own thought processes and decisions? Wonga and the like are obviously charging as much as people are willing to pay. Ultimately what's the difference between doing what they're doing and Apple charging £529 for a phone that costs them £129 to make? Or Nike charging £100 for a pair of trainers that costs them £5 to make? Where do we draw the line between a business making a fair profit and being immoral? precisely Cannot argue with that. We loved being sponsored by Newcastle Brown Ale and alcohol has ruined lives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 It's no more a rip off as say, a £7 taxi journey when you could get the bus or metro to the same place for £3. It's totally different. You can borrow without having the means to repay the loan, I'm not sure you can get a taxi and offer to pay later only to find you haven't got the means to pay for the ride. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 you can get islamic banks that don't have interest, but yes northern rock should have been banned by same logic. Technically shouldnt they have difficulty playing in the "Barclays Premier League" continuing on with that logic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Don't really care about any of this, like. Was happy when I read that St James was being reinstated, but that's about it. Could have been a whole lot worse. Plus, I think the blue logo will look canny on the strip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 To be fair this whole sponsoring thing has all got a bit out of hand. Does anyone use barclays because they spunk all your money paying for the premier league? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuneaton Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 It's no more a rip off as say, a £7 taxi journey when you could get the bus or metro to the same place for £3. It's totally different. You can borrow without having the means to repay the loan, I'm not sure you can get a taxi and offer to pay later only to find you haven't got the means to pay for the ride. i have done many a taxi run over the years anyway. its easy you get 4 of you in a taxi, ask the driver to stop near an alley and say one out here. then leg it up the alley together Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Don't really care about any of this, like. Was happy when I read that St James was being reinstated, but that's about it. Could have been a whole lot worse. Plus, I think the blue logo will look canny on the strip. This is me. Having read some of the bile directed at Wonga though, can't help but note how arbitrarily they've picked them as an 'evil' company in a society which so frequently lauds the enterprise and ingenuity of similarly 'evil' companies, sometimes even getting taxpayers to cough up for their systemic fuck-ups. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Initially I was pissed off, but really I don't get this praying on the vulnerable stance some people have. It's not as if you HAVE to go borrow money from them, if they weren't around, it could end up so much worse if they didn't have the means to get any cash to tide them over. That and I was easily swayed by getting rid of that temporary sports direct name, i'm one of those easily bought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 It's no more a rip off as say, a £7 taxi journey when you could get the bus or metro to the same place for £3. It's totally different. You can borrow without having the means to repay the loan, I'm not sure you can get a taxi and offer to pay later only to find you haven't got the means to pay for the ride. You can wait, be patient, and maybe have an extra 10-15 minute walk paying a couple of quid, or you could be in a hurry and can't wait, and decide you're quite happy to pay £6-7 to get to your door. How's that totally different? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Still don't quite get how advertising their perfectly legal business is preying on the vulnerable. I'd be interested in seeing some stats on where the majority of the money they lend goes but I would imagine that's not freely available. Their service, the amounts they lend and the high charges they levy literally couldn't be any easier to understand; what are they concealing or misleading people with? If the adverts are inappropriate then the ASA should be doing something about it btw. Otherwise, people clearly believe the charges are acceptable or they wouldn't be agreeing to them. Or are we saying that people are so f***ing dense that they need protecting from their own thought processes and decisions? Wonga and the like are obviously charging as much as people are willing to pay. Ultimately what's the difference between doing what they're doing and Apple charging £529 for a phone that costs them £129 to make? Or Nike charging £100 for a pair of trainers that costs them £5 to make? Where do we draw the line between a business making a fair profit and being immoral? Nailed it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Still don't quite get how advertising their perfectly legal business is preying on the vulnerable. I'd be interested in seeing some stats on where the majority of the money they lend goes but I would imagine that's not freely available. Their service, the amounts they lend and the high charges they levy literally couldn't be any easier to understand; what are they concealing or misleading people with? If the adverts are inappropriate then the ASA should be doing something about it btw. Otherwise, people clearly believe the charges are acceptable or they wouldn't be agreeing to them. Or are we saying that people are so f***ing dense that they need protecting from their own thought processes and decisions? Wonga and the like are obviously charging as much as people are willing to pay. Ultimately what's the difference between doing what they're doing and Apple charging £529 for a phone that costs them £129 to make? Or Nike charging £100 for a pair of trainers that costs them £5 to make? Where do we draw the line between a business making a fair profit and being immoral? Finally, some fucking sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Still don't quite get how advertising their perfectly legal business is preying on the vulnerable. I'd be interested in seeing some stats on where the majority of the money they lend goes but I would imagine that's not freely available. Their service, the amounts they lend and the high charges they levy literally couldn't be any easier to understand; what are they concealing or misleading people with? If the adverts are inappropriate then the ASA should be doing something about it btw. Otherwise, people clearly believe the charges are acceptable or they wouldn't be agreeing to them. Or are we saying that people are so fucking dense that they need protecting from their own thought processes and decisions? Wonga and the like are obviously charging as much as people are willing to pay. Ultimately what's the difference between doing what they're doing and Apple charging £529 for a phone that costs them £129 to make? Or Nike charging £100 for a pair of trainers that costs them £5 to make? Where do we draw the line between a business making a fair profit and being immoral? Good post. Regardless of the ethical debate how in the name of all that is holy is this a good 'brand' to get into bed with? It's wrong on so many levels as a partner brand and one that might in the long term alienate other brands from getting onboard. Many companies get trickle down or by association financial benefits from being associated with strong brands or 'sexy brands'**...It attracts other business. I can't see other brands thinking 'yeah let's get involved with Newcastle cause they're sponsored by a borderline loan shark business. In the medium term this just doesn't really make any business sense to me. The money of 6/7m a year whatever it is will make not a shred of difference to our ability to compete against the top 4 anyway. Why get involved? Simply can't fathom it. ** Apple and Nike are sexy brands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross magoo Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Moneyformongols.com Still, i guess principles are a luxury these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Still don't quite get how advertising their perfectly legal business is preying on the vulnerable. I'd be interested in seeing some stats on where the majority of the money they lend goes but I would imagine that's not freely available. Their service, the amounts they lend and the high charges they levy literally couldn't be any easier to understand; what are they concealing or misleading people with? If the adverts are inappropriate then the ASA should be doing something about it btw. Otherwise, people clearly believe the charges are acceptable or they wouldn't be agreeing to them. Or are we saying that people are so f***ing dense that they need protecting from their own thought processes and decisions? Wonga and the like are obviously charging as much as people are willing to pay. Ultimately what's the difference between doing what they're doing and Apple charging £529 for a phone that costs them £129 to make? Or Nike charging £100 for a pair of trainers that costs them £5 to make? Where do we draw the line between a business making a fair profit and being immoral? They have done in the past, the problem is that by the time the ASA react it's too late for many. As for them charging as much as people are willing to pay, desperate people do desperate things, and I know not every customer is dong it because they've no food to eat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts