This makes depressing viewing. I saw this piece on the news this morning and was spitting blood – again. Despite the misleading reporting of interest rates – these are short-term loans and therefore APR is meaningless – they also interviewed a man who defaulted and claimed he ran up a debt of thousands. There is more to his story than meets the eye and he was not challenged on it, which was typical BBC piss-poor reporting. They wouldn’t know the meaning of balance if the scales of justice plunged through the ceiling of their studio.
I have no intention of ever taking out such a loan – and would always advise against them for some of the reasons stated in the report – they are costly and can set up a spiral of debt unless very carefully managed. However, that is not what gripes me.
Plymouth council is removing all advertising from these companies on its billboards. Okay, their gaff, their rules. I have no complaint about that. It is their reasoning for it – and likewise the Internet blocks in the libraries that really annoys me. They are doing it to “protect” the people of Plymouth. In this, they exceed their remit. The council is a service provider, not a nanny. They are paid by us to empty our bins, light up the streets and so on. They are not paid to keep us from temptation, no matter how damaging succumbing might be for an individual. They are not our protectors and they elevate themselves beyond their station when they set themselves up to be such. Especially when they indulge in misinformation and band-wagon jumping to do so. If the payday lenders are driven out of town and the people of Plymouth can no longer access their services, they may just decide to go the loan shark who won’t bother over-much with niceties such as CCJs and Bailiffs… Never mind the broken knee-caps, at least you didn’t go to Wonga, eh? How caring and sharing of Plymouth council to seek to drive people from legitimate businesses into the waiting arms of illegal thugs. Still, their consciences are clear. The self-righteous arrogance and hypocrisy could power the country for a decade.
Payday loan providers are operating a legal business. It is not the place of Plymouth council – or any council for that matter – to impose itself upon the interaction between a legitimate business and its customers beyond that which the law allows – such as sale of goods and services being fit for purpose, for example. Otherwise, it is none of their business. Arseholes, the lot of them.
XX Plymouth council is removing all advertising from these companies on its billboards. Okay, their gaff, their rules. I have no complaint about that. It is their reasoning for it – and likewise the Internet blocks in the libraries that really annoys me. They are doing it to “protect” the people of Plymouth. XX
Quite. The people of Plymouths Gaff
NOT the Councils gaff.
XX In this, they exceed their remit. The council is a service provider, not a nanny. They are paid by us to empty our bins, light up the streets and so on. They are not paid to keep us from temptation, no matter how damaging succumbing might be for an individual. XX
So where does “their gaff, their rules” fit in with billboards, in this case?
As I understand it, it is council owned billboards that are affected. If I am wrong, that is a whole new dimension of wrong here.
I think you miss FT’s point, the “council’s billboards” are no more “their’s” than the libraries etc. The council is merely the steward of the property held in common for the people of Plymouth, which, I suggest, was your original point.
Actually, yeah, I do take the point. However, councils can and do set rules for council property – even if they are only the stewards of it. I have no problem with that basic principle. Those rules can and do include standards of behaviour, for example. In France, a similar argument applies to no overt religious symbols on state property. So their gaff, their rules does apply. Someone has to make a set of rules for council property. It’s when those rules are abused for political purposes that I have the problem.
To take FT’s logic to its logical conclusion, there would have to be a vote by the relevant electorate on every rule and bye-law associated with council property. That would be silly.
So my point stands as does, up to a point, FT’s
I totally agree with your stance on the “protecting the people of Plymouth” bollocks. If I was a “person of Plymouth”, I’d tell them to stick their ‘protection’ where the sun don’t shine. I’m quite capable of protecting myself, thank you very much.
If they’re so worried about these legalised loan sharks (who, to be honest, are not a million miles away from the mainstream banks and credit card companies), then the financial services watchdog should lobby for a cap on lenders’ demands. How practical that would be, I have no idea, not being a finance wizz.
However, the bottom line is, as always, caveat emptor. It is not within the remit of the council to restrict free choice by way of censoring media.
It is impossible to make an informed decision when one is not suitably and reliably informed. Democracy cannot work if the electorate fails to perform its own duties of keeping itself educated and accurately informed.
The UK now has so many laws that not even its own law enforcement agencies are up to speed with all of them. “Ignorance of the law” is now very much a valid – if not yet legally accepted – excuse thanks to the incessant flood of legal diarrhoea shat out by the political classes over the past generation or so. To every lawyer, every problem can be solved by a new law. To every accountant, every problem can be solved by yet another convoluted financial trick.
Given that this state of affairs has been going on for so long now, and appears unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, I have no quarrel with the principle of a local or regional electorate electing a bunch of nannying busybodies into power over and over again: Either this is what they genuinely want, or they’re too wilfully ignorant to be worth caring about. Let them bleat. The internet has existed for a generation now; it’s easier than ever before to educate oneself entirely without resorting to public institutions. The electorate has no excuses.
Plymouth council’s decisions are entirely the responsibility of the people who elected those councillors. At the national level, Cameron and Clegg are running the country because the UK’s electorate put them in charge.
Stop shouting at the symptoms and start doing something about the cause of so many of the UK’s problems: its people. Screaming in their faces isn’t going to help.
No, the electorate did not put these people in charge – a minority of the electorate did due to the absurd electoral system that favours large parties over smaller groups and independents.
I am not screaming in anyone’s face. I am writing essays about the problem. What, precisely do you want me to do about the causes Don Quixote style?
If you are suggesting standing for election, forget it. I refuse to become a part of the corrupt and venal system that has led us here in the first place. Also, as I am currently working six days a week, I have neither the time nor the inclination. So I do what I can – write about it here. I am, at least doing something, which is better than doing nothing.
“No, the electorate did not put these people in charge – a minority of the electorate did due to the absurd electoral system that favours large parties over smaller groups and independents.”
Then the problem is the *system*, not the councillors’ behaviour. The latter is a symptom of the former.
“If you are suggesting standing for election, forget it. I refuse to become a part of the corrupt and venal system that has led us here in the first place.”
How else do you suggest fixing this broken system then? A national revolution? They tried that in 2011 and all you got was a burned-down furniture shop in Croydon and some higher insurance premiums. The British have never been any good at revolutions and civil unrest. On the one occasion they did manage to depose their king, they ended up regretting it so much they put another Charlie right back on the throne again not long afterwards.
If you’re expecting another revolution to magically happen—and for one that actually manages to do what it says on the tin—you’re in for a very long wait.
“Also, as I am currently working six days a week, I have neither the time nor the inclination.”
Do you really believe that *all* MPs come exclusively from wealthy families and never had to do a day’s work in their lives? That not a single one of them was holding down a day-job while running for election? Yes, it’s hard work, but any principle worth a damn should be worth going that extra mile for.
Failing that, could you not find someone who agrees with your own principles and convince them to run for election instead? You could then offer them your support, including managing their online presence.
That’d be more of a “something” than preaching to the converted.
Working six days a week means this is about all the time I get – a snatched moment or two. Realistically, the seventh is spent doing paperwork, raising invoices and preparing for the following week. So politics is a non starter – besides, been there, done that, didn’t have any effect. So, yes, I will continue to raise matters here if I want to. My gaff and all that.
No No No it’s all too much here we go again with little nazis making decisions for the many by the few.
When will these politicos realise we vote for them NOT to be dictators of our moral fortitude but to run the bloody councils. ie make sure our bins get emptied and the streetlights come on!
It is NOT their place to decide who can and can’t have access to ruddy payday loans nor even if we should use these perfectly legitimate companies
Another example of how the “authorities” , are so ready to overstep their remit in order to “Protect” the poor stupid idiot masses because none of us are apparently capable of doing anything or making any decisions for ourselves, without guidance from the wiser more educated local councilors.
OUR COUNCIL TAX PAYS THEIR BLOODY WAGES. the thin end of the wedge seems to be slipping away to no wedge at all and a closed door on our own abilities to think and function for ourselves without guidance from those who think they know better and seek to have us all under the iron fist of “state protection”.
The problem here is that there are whole swathes of the population who haven’t a bloody clue how to do anything for themselves.
Can’t get a job that pays enough without subsidies, even if they’re capable of a days work… some of them lured into massive debt by the extended education for all con before they’ve even done a single days work.
Can’t afford a roof over their heads without subsidies and never will.
Can’t avoid getting pissed or stoned regularly leading to more of the above.
Lured by the bloody propaganda box in the corner into believing that celebrity lifestyle is theirs by right.
Can’t raise their own children that they couldn’t afford to have in the first place but lacked the intelligence to know how to prevent, plus they’re entitled to have children regardless that the state must raise in order for the next generation of feckless to be trained in the ways.
I don’t like the nanny state any more than you do, but they the state took away peoples responsibility to provide for themselves and their families years ago, now they have to further involve themselves in order to promote the ‘freedom’ (ironic) of the individual to shoot themselves in the foot every day and plead victimhood.
The average payday loaner is i expect virtually incapable of using common sense to live within their means, i do have a certain sympathy with those who try to protect these people from themselves, though its a constant losing battle and a growing problem.
What else do you do with ever increasing hordes of the half witted, left to their own devices they’d starve within weeks.
Very true Judd but do you not think it’s time we took it back and turned it around rather than galloping head long into Orwellism and oblivion?
I for one do not want my autonomy ripped from my grasp and jumped up and down on, nor do I wish to have my freedom of speech taken from me, they will have to rip my tongue from my head before I stop using my voice to exercise my choices, and they will need to cut off my hands to stop me writing how I feel.
This country is responsible for some of the greatest minds, some of the biggest free thinkers and the greatest artisans I for one will not go down without a fight.
I have brought my children up the same way, struggling on my husbands minimum wage jobs to support MY CHILDREN , MY RESPONSIBILITY, yes they went without yes they did not have what all the other children had, but as I have said here in the past it did them no harm.
One is 26 and in the army a lance Corporal class one medic for 8 years with two tours of Afghan and one is 21 this November and a successful bar manager, my youngest is in his 2nd year of a college training to be a Zookeeper.
They understand the value of freedom and the right to choose there must be others out there like them.
As I have said many times successive governments are responsible for the dumbing down of our society and the inherent stupidity of these people. It’s time to stop and make people responsible if they starve let them starve. That will fix the problem and lets face it more jobs for those with a modecum of intellegence, as it seems to me these days to have a job you have to be a brainless idiot who can NOT do the job you are paid to do and can’t think or function without instructions. Especially in local councils and any government related office most of them don’t even speak bloody English.
Perhaps it’s time to let them.
“What else do you do with ever increasing hordes of the half witted, left to their own devices they’d starve within weeks.”
Perhaps it’s time to let them.
That’s the thing. The bourgeois market economy which libertarians idolize needs political and economic stability in which to function. A state in which the “half witted” are permitted to starve or are reduced to complete penury is an unstable society, with unstable politics, which is anathema to doing business. This is something that conservatively minded folk never seem to be able to grasp. Social security and the welfare state operate in such a way to preserve your precious capitalist market society. Without them it would consume itself.
“Social security and the welfare state operate in such a way to preserve your precious capitalist market society.”
You can feel the sneering hatred oozing out of this bullshit.
A market is just people voluntarily trading. That’s all. And people have been voluntarily trading with each other long before any social security or welfare.
And where do you think your precious government (a group of people violently imposing their authority on everyone else) gets the money for welfare? They sure as fuck don’t put their hands in their own pockets.
And what happens when you subsidize something, such as the poor? You certainly don’t get less of it.
“You can feel the sneering hatred oozing out of this bullshit”
What a drama queen you are Andy. Only a thin-skinned little Libertory would see “hatred” in that statement of the bleeding obvious.
“A market is just people voluntarily trading. That’s all. And people have been voluntarily trading with each other long before any social security or welfare”
The libertarian myth of voluntaryism. Capitalism cannot function without a strong centralized state, which protects the value of the currency, provides for law and order and maintains an infrastructure of civil law so that businesses can conduct business. Even pre-capitalist societies based on trading require these things to function.
“And where do you think your precious government (a group of people violently imposing their authority on everyone else) gets the money for welfare? ”
Where do you think it gets the money to provide courts so that businesses can sue those who fail to pay them? Where do you think it gets the money to pay for police and prisons? From taxation, where do you think? If you voluntarily stay in this country then you volunteer to abide by its laws on taxation.
“And what happens when you subsidize something, such as the poor? You certainly don’t get less of it”
Considering that the majority of those claiming benefits are in low-paid work, if work paid at least a living wage then the costs of benefits would be far less.
“Only a thin-skinned little Libertory would see “hatred” in that statement of the bleeding obvious.”
Libertory – hilarious. Didn’t you say you’re a mathematician? Surely you can handle more than two political views?
Or have you been so brainwashed that everyone who’s not a good little lefty is automatically a Tory?
Again, the hatred so typical of those on the left shines through.
“From taxation, where do you think? ”
Exactly.
Markets create the money, then government steals it.
Markets don’t rely on government, government relies on markets.
All the elements necessary for a smoothly functioning market can, and have, been provided by markets themselves.
More and more businesses are taking disputes to private arbitrators because government courts are too expensive, the process takes too long, and they usually lack the knowledge needed for fair judgements.
Companies like Ebay, Paypal, and various credit card companies offer their own security in case of fraud for similar reasons.
There are entire industries policed by reputation. And there’s companies popping up to offer reputation ratings for all sorts of industry (I believe one for plumbers/builders/etc has even advertised on TV). Because the state provided regulation, certification, prosecution, etc. is an expensive failure.
“If you voluntarily stay in this country then you volunteer to abide by its laws on taxation.”
You didn’t like it when I used social contract theory to justify the draft (obviously I was only playing devil’s advocate).
Fair enough I suppose as it is just circular logic (pre-supposing what you’re trying to determine).
But that means it’s not a valid argument for anything, including justifying theft.
“Markets create the money, then government steals it.”
Markets can only operate because of the existence of the state. If there were no state you would be reduced to face-to-face bartering. As soon as you move beyond that then you need a currency (=government) and as soon as you start offering credit you need a government to provide the means to recover your money should your creditor default.
“Markets don’t rely on government, government relies on markets.”
Without government, good luck on recovering your money should one of your creditors default. Ever thought about that?
“More and more businesses are taking disputes to private arbitrators because government courts are too expensive, the process takes too long, and they usually lack the knowledge needed for fair judgements.”
And if the government’s courts did not exist, what incentive would there be for the defaulting creditor to submit to “arbitration”? He would just tell you to F*** Off and there is nothing the business could do about it.
“You didn’t like it when I used social contract theory to justify the draft”
There is a big difference between paying a proportion of your wages for the upkeep of society and being expected to give your life . And I am not opposed to the draft is all circumstances. If a country faces annihilation as this one did in 1940 I can see a argument for conscription in those limited circumstances
“But that means it’s not a valid argument for anything, including justifying theft. ”
That wasn’t my argument for taxation. My argument for taxation is that to preserve the rights of everyone there needs to be laws and regulations and these can be provided only by a government funded by taxation. Sure you can have an argument on how “big” that government should be but in the end, how big it should be must be determined by the will of the people, by democratic means.
“currency (=government)”
Currencies only work as they should when governments are not involved in them. The average life of a government currency is less than fifty years (27 according to one source) because they will abuse it. Even the exception, the UK pound has lost over 90% of its value as the government can’t stop themselves from printing as much as they think they can get away with.
“Without government, good luck on recovering your money should one of your creditors default. Ever thought about that?”
No, no one’s ever considered the moral hazard and fundamental shift in banking the likes of guaranteed deposits have brought about. No one. You’re a genius.
“He would just tell you to F*** Off and there is nothing the business could do about it.”
He could (and it happens today, as people realise government courts are seldom worth the effort to recover smaller sums of money), but he generally wouldn’t because his reputation’s at stake. Ebay provides a perfect example. The diamond trade is another example of reputation based business. And in my business, copywriting (or any freelance occupation) reputation is hugely important, you very quickly find out which clients you don’t want to take on (and vice-versa).
“My argument for taxation is that to preserve the rights of everyone there needs to be laws and regulations and these can be provided only by a government funded by taxation.”
Theft is wrong, no matter what euphemism you try to hide it with.
We do not need government for anything. It isn’t an organization intended to help everyone else. It’s an organization that preys on everyone else. The freedom it gives people is simply to maximise what it can steal from them.
There is no justification for it on any level.
Bollocks. There is evidence of people trading freely from neolithic times with no courageous state to poke its nose in. Without the state people are remarkably adaptable in setting up their own arbitration – we would end up with something that looks remarkably like the “law between men” (common law).
Andrew’s point about reputation is well made. If I get a bad reputation, word will get about and I won’t find work. My reputation is everything. No need for the state to be involved at all. Indeed, when I took on a bad client who left me with a bad debt, there was nothing the state could do anyway. They had no money, so I had to put it down to experience. I got over it and learned from the experience. I am more careful now.
“I have no intention of ever taking out such a loan – and would always advise against them for some of the reasons stated in the report – they are costly and can set up a spiral of debt unless very carefully managed. However, that is not what gripes me.”
Well, yeah, no one would ever advise someone to take out such a loan. Unfortunately they are increasingly a fact of life for those whose income is uncertain and variable and have insufficient savings to tide them over on a short week. Someone on a zero hours contract whose hours & pay vary considerably from week to week, will find it next to impossible to budget. If they run out of money 4 days before pay day, what else do they do but get a pay day loan? Use a credit card – they won’t have one. Use savings – they will never have been paid enough to build up savings. Use their bank’s overdraft facility – they may not have a bank account and they certainly won’t have one with a relatively cheap overdraft facility. Pawn a valuable for a few days? Well that’s what the poor did in olden times and the pay day loan seems very reminiscent of that.
The way to lessen the power of the pay day loan company is to make work pay.
Yes, work should pay. If we didn’t have a culture of dependency and a myriad of complex tax credits and benefits – instead dramatically reducing the state and its burden on the less well off and just tax them less (or not at all in some cases) work would have a chance of paying.
The state should provide just enough to help people out in dire need and no more. A safety net in the event of immediate need and no more. I spent four weeks on JSA and got myself out of trouble. I detested Sainsbury’s but I did it and worked bloody hard to get myself back together. If I can do it there is no reason why the vast majority cannot.
Yeah, we have a culture of dependency alright, but it is for poorly run businesses, that expect the taxpayer to subsidize their payroll. These businesses are so poorly run that they are unable to determine how many staff they need and pass the risk onto their “employees” using zero hours contracts.
These abuses were much less common when trades unions had more power but since they were emasculated by law in the 1980s, not surprisingly such abusive practices are more common. In times past, an employer that tried to pull a stunt like “Sport Direct” would have faced strike action until its management capitulated.
However since the chance of those laws being repealed is almost zero, workers have no other option but to turn to the law to safeguard their rights. If the trades unions are not permitted to hold bad employers to account then the law must do it. In this case, an uplifting of the minimum wage to the level of a living wage would substantially reduce the benefits bill by taking large numbers of workers out of benefits, where they should never have been in the first place.
I operate on a zero hours contract. The self-employed are used to it as our work is variable. the problem is not with zero hours per se, it is with exclusivity clauses that demand people remain loyal to one client.
I am perfectly happy to work on a zero hours arrangement as I work pretty much when it suits me and with the clients that get into my diary first.
No, I do not want to see a return to the bad old days when the trades unions held power. They are not elected and they are not accountable. They have their place – free association being a basic civil liberty, but I never want to go back to the abuse of power that existed in the seventies, thank-you very much. Given their decline – even in my own industry, there isn’t the stomach for that behaviour any more anyway. Bob Crow would love to get the signallers out on strike, but they consistently refrain and good for them.