Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MrPosh

Warning: Potential Bradford Good News Story

223 posts in this topic

Given beer sponsorship isn't illegal like tobacco, why aren't RL clubs sponsored by them any more?

Also, Omega, you don't know what your talking about in relation to Short Term Loan Companies either. Seriously you haven't got a clue.

Look I know there are worse loan sharks than Provident, I know there are downright gangsters involved with some organisations and beleive me I knw the type of tactics and activities they resort to. Maybe they're the very worst of the loan shark industry but just because they don't resort to the same tactics doesn't mean that Provident don't aren't loan sharks as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did I brush tax avoidance under the carpet?

I was asked for an opinion, more than once, so I gave one but not before explaining that Probiz aren't that well known to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax avoidance is legal and the rich pay Probiz for this service as they can afford it. Tax evasion is another matter entirely.

I think the point being made is that the interest charged by the Provident is usuary and only the desperate avail themselves of it and they cannot afford the interest payments.

that's why I said tax avoidance and not tax evasion-don't patronise me

The business that Provident do is legal also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, should have made it clearer, I meant no one in Gov't seems to want to help.

the office of fair trading is a government organisation

this is a government sponsored campaign initiative

https://www.gov.uk/report-loan-shark

'loan sharking' is illegal. The government make laws, the government made the law making loan sharking illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did I brush tax avoidance under the carpet?

I was asked for an opinion, more than once, so I gave one but not before explaining that Probiz aren't that well known to me.

you are commendable in your zeal in finding information about Provident, a little similar zeal about probiz now that you have been npointed in the right direction should be fruitful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly Provident are not loan sharks. Loan sharks are illegal.

Provident lend money to a high risk sector of the market, and the higher costs associated with collecting the repayments are reflected in the terms.

Objecting to Provident doing this on moral grounds is a bit rich if you are not objecting to other forms of lending such as mortgages etc. It's no different in principle, its just an arbitrary argument over what level of charges are 'acceptable' and what level of charges are 'immoral'.

If I don't pay my mortgage, I can lose my house. Despite my ridiculously low interest rate of 0.29%, the consequences of me not paying my mortgage are extremely severe and surely the consequences of me not paying my mortgage are as bad, if not worse, than not paying Provident's door step collectors their weekly payments.

In short, I do not see a correlation between the APR of a loan and 'morality'. Not repaying loans, whether high or low APR can be seriously bad for your future.

As a Bradford fan, I'm delighted we've got the sponsorship, and relieved. I hope being a Bradford fan is not clouding my moral judgement...but I'd also happily accept Probiz as a sponsor. I've no issue with minimising the tax payable, either personally or for a company to do so. If there are tax loopholes, then the loopholes need shutting. If they are not shut you cannot expect society to voluntarily pay tax that is not legally due to be paid. That's not how society works.

And if you don't like the laws of the land...its tough, we live in a democracy and you can use your vote accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what are your thoughts on clubs being sponsored by Probiz? For some reason the guardians of thre sports's morals don't seem to have much to say about it.

In fairness, there was a long debate about Probiz a couple of years ago, with many opposing views regarding the morality of tax avoidance.

In terms of the Bradford sponsorship, it's a case of beggars can't be choosers. I find the whole payday / short term loan industry rather murky from a moral perspective, but its a legal service that is regulated accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just tried to find the discussions about probiz and it appears they were deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by ckn, November 12, 2012 - No reason given

Seems I'm not on my own or even in a minority when condemning this company.

A selection of Tweets from the general public about them and their activities

#bbcpanorama shame the programme didn't take the opportunity to consider viable, safer options - credit unions, jam jar accounts etc.

Karl Thomas

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

“@beatricelucy: Doorstep lending is a model without any social responsibility @CitizensAdvice tell #bbcpanorama”

steve crozier

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

#bbcpanorama disgusting. These people are disgusting

Cat

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Imagine doing a job that involved intimidating vulnerable members of society. Doorstep loan companies are glorified loan sharks #bbcpanorama

Tommy

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Now more exploitation on #bbcpanorama. Not the way to treat humans. Things in this country need to change!

Darryl Hannah Baker

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Exploiting vulnerable people, provident and all the other companies should be ashamed, but it would seem money distorts morals #bbcpanorama

Paul Castle

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

The debate on #bbcpanorama about targeting vulnerable people is a moot point, these doorstep lending practices are wrong on any account!

Storehouse

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Doorstep lending is a model without any social responsibility @CitizensAdvice tell #bbcpanorama

Beatrice Karol Burks

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

This #bbcpanorama is making me so upset. what heartless, evil, vile people could do this to vulnerable people

✿katie germanotta

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Love the crucifix she hangs in the van... very christian of her #bbcpanorama

Seamon

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

bloody hell! #bbcpanorama

Wendy Burnham

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

#BBCpanorama If you haven't got the money to spend it, DON'T!! Detest these crappy businesses!! Hearts of stone

David Darbyshire

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Roll over loans - big sell on point for doorstep lenders #bbcpanorama

Charlotte Harrison

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

#bbcpanorama. Doorstep lenders. Pensioner on low income owes £4,500 & still is offered more loans. It's common. Provident. Named & shamed.

Money Saviour C.I.C.

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

How can people make a living out of pressurising vulnerable people into taking loans they can't afford? #BBCPanorama

adeeeeelayyyy

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Watching #bbcpanorama and thinking that #provident are legalized thieves #disgusted

Annmarie

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Read next page

Share this post


Link to post

I think when you start reposting random ranters on twitter to support your argument, it's time to step away from the keyboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when you start reposting random ranters on twitter to support your argument, it's time to step away from the keyboard.

You can think what you want fella!

I'll support and have supported my stance on this in a variety of ways!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by all means keep doing that, but my point is that if you come on here saying "loads of people on twitter agree", you should be aware that people will call that out as a poor argument whatever side of the debate you fall on "fella".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you take that one element in isolation, if you want to make a proper assessment of the argument then view it in its entirety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty certain you can find people supporting any number of views on twitter; absolutely anything.

Urine weak argument. In fact, not even that strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty certain you can find people supporting any number of views on twitter; absolutely anything.

Urine weak argument. In fact, not even that strong.

See my answer above!

Are you seriously arguing that this companies activities are 100% palatable to you, that their industry is moral and you find their association with Rugby League in no way objectionable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my answer above!

Are you seriously arguing that this companies activities are 100% palatable to you, that their industry is moral and you find their association with Rugby League in no way objectionable?

Go on then, tell me what the Bulls should have done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you take that one element in isolation, if you want to make a proper assessment of the argument then view it in its entirety.

Which begs the question, why did you even need to post it? It doesn't really strengthen your argument to be honest, in fact quite the opposite as it implies you don't have the faith that what you have written alone is enough, and is only validated by similar thoughts of other equally anonymous (to me at least) people on the internet.

I don't really want to get into a debate about the morality of the sponsor, I believe there is no swaying of your mind in particular, but it irks me when people copy a load of specially selected opinion from the public as if that alone is in someway compelling or could sway opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which begs the question, why did you even need to post it? It doesn't really strengthen your argument to be honest, in fact quite the opposite as it implies you don't have the faith that what you have written alone is enough, and is only validated by similar thoughts of other equally anonymous (to me at least) people on the internet.

I don't really want to get into a debate about the morality of the sponsor, I believe there is no swaying of your mind in particular, but it irks me when people copy a load of specially selected opinion from the public as if that alone is in someway compelling or could sway opinion.

In my business we collect and display all evidence in support of our argument!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously arguing that this companies activities are 100% palatable to you, that their industry is moral and you find their association with Rugby League in no way objectionable?

I'd have to say I do find them very objectionable to a point.

Be honest (as I believe you are), would you advocate Wakefield turn down something like this?

I don't think Mr. Glover (Like Mr. Khan) has riches such that he could afford to do so??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my business we collect and display all evidence in support of our argument!

But it wasn't...ah forget it. I'll just be on twitter searching for people talking about banging their head against a brick wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Urine weak argument. In fact, not even that strong.

Interesting, because the tactic of isolating one element in an attempt to discredit the whole argument is also seen as "urine weak" and often betrays the lack of any credible counter evidence.

The fact remains that a lot of people object to these types of companies and this industry, that they chose to express their disgust by via Twitter doesn't invalidate their opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my answer above!

Are you seriously arguing that this companies activities are 100% palatable to you, that their industry is moral and you find their association with Rugby League in no way objectionable?

What industry is moral? How do you judge that?

I think I'm right in saying that devout Muslims cannot borrow money at any rate of interest. Which would make even the lowest of mortgage rates 'immoral'. Would it be right to therefore avoid any association with any kind of bank or mortgage lender merely because someone else judges them as 'immoral'?

Once you have established the principle that its OK to borrow money and pay it back with interest, the rest is just a subjective opinion. A bit of a pointless argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by ckn, November 12, 2012 - No reason given

Seems I'm not on my own or even in a minority when condemning this company.

A selection of Tweets from the general public about them and their activities

#bbcpanorama shame the programme didn't take the opportunity to consider viable, safer options - credit unions, jam jar accounts etc.

Karl Thomas

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

“@beatricelucy: Doorstep lending is a model without any social responsibility @CitizensAdvice tell #bbcpanorama”

steve crozier

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

#bbcpanorama disgusting. These people are disgusting

Cat

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Imagine doing a job that involved intimidating vulnerable members of society. Doorstep loan companies are glorified loan sharks #bbcpanorama

Tommy

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Now more exploitation on #bbcpanorama. Not the way to treat humans. Things in this country need to change!

Darryl Hannah Baker

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Exploiting vulnerable people, provident and all the other companies should be ashamed, but it would seem money distorts morals #bbcpanorama

Paul Castle

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

The debate on #bbcpanorama about targeting vulnerable people is a moot point, these doorstep lending practices are wrong on any account!

Storehouse

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Doorstep lending is a model without any social responsibility @CitizensAdvice tell #bbcpanorama

Beatrice Karol Burks

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

This #bbcpanorama is making me so upset. what heartless, evil, vile people could do this to vulnerable people

✿katie germanotta

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Love the crucifix she hangs in the van... very christian of her #bbcpanorama

Seamon

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

bloody hell! #bbcpanorama

Wendy Burnham

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

#BBCpanorama If you haven't got the money to spend it, DON'T!! Detest these crappy businesses!! Hearts of stone

David Darbyshire

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Roll over loans - big sell on point for doorstep lenders #bbcpanorama

Charlotte Harrison

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

#bbcpanorama. Doorstep lenders. Pensioner on low income owes £4,500 & still is offered more loans. It's common. Provident. Named & shamed.

Money Saviour C.I.C.

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

How can people make a living out of pressurising vulnerable people into taking loans they can't afford? #BBCPanorama

adeeeeelayyyy

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Watching #bbcpanorama and thinking that #provident are legalized thieves #disgusted

Annmarie

a month ago

ReplyRetweetFavorite

Read next page

any stuff in the media about tax avoidance? I think you'll find there is rather a lot.

Share this post


Link to post

Against my experience of these things, I've unlocked this thread. I will be carefully monitoring it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What industry is moral? How do you judge that?

I think I'm right in saying that devout Muslims cannot borrow money at any rate of interest. Which would make even the lowest of mortgage rates 'immoral'. Would it be right to therefore avoid any association with any kind of bank or mortgage lender merely because someone else judges them as 'immoral'?

Once you have established the principle that its OK to borrow money and pay it back with interest, the rest is just a subjective opinion. A bit of a pointless argument.

I agree with that post entirely. I don't really see the point of the argument. AFAIK "Usuary" is against the Muslim faith, but that term is associated with "excessive rates" of interest, so by varying definitions some people may not see any interest charged as being fair, and look at money lending as being an act of kindness, others may allow for some element of interest to repay the favour at least. My own view is that money lending should be limited to being a not for profit bueiness but hey...........

A pointless argument I would not like to see escalate and dissapoint CKN.

I'd like Mr. Omega who i find extremely interesting in his posts on RL to just answer my question above.

"Would you advocate Wakefield turn down something like this? given Mr. Glover (Like Mr. Khan) does not have such riches that he could afford to do so without damaging Bulls prospects??"

If he says YES good luck to him for a strong moral stance, If he says no then good luck to him for taking a pragmatic view.

Either way elongating the "usuary" argument will go nowhere.......

I think we have all the views, and all very laudable they are and well made too, perhaps we should "agree to disagree"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017