Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
Yes you are, and I'm sick of dogooders and the holier-than-thou brigades deciding what is morally acceptable.
Provident make money providing a service millions apparently want. If they didn't then loan sharks would be the alternative. Suggesting they're "unethical" is outrageous. Get off your high horse and get your head around the fact that we have a society where millions are so stretched financially that they have to resort to loans, while our MPs, government, bankers and all the usual suspects mercilessly continue to trouser their millions while risibly claiming we're all having to pay for "austerity". That's what's "unethical". You're aiming at the wrong target.
The quotes are because I couldn't really grasp the word I needed. The fact that banks created massive private sector debt that effortlessly became OUR public sector debt whilst getting off scott free really p1sses me off. And the fact one of the multi-millionaire, over-privileged shysters claims to be the hero of the common man whilst using his tongue to clean Trump's ring is breath-taking but I digress...
Anyway un 'ethical' is nearest I could put my finger on for a bunch of cnuts that created hardship and debt for others, but take advantage of a colossal mess caused by their own industry's insatiable greed (whether directly of by implication of being another financial institution) through lining their already bulging pockets by charging unnecessarily high interest on loans desperately needed by the very people they sh4t on in the first place.
All in all, I stick by the fact I'd prefer a more 'ethical' main sponsor and that tars all banks with the same brush for me.
