As I said, believe in people in freedom, or be against them and believe you should have the right to think for them.

One out of 1.8m. If that's all, they're one of the fairest organisations, whether private or state, ever in the world.

As I said, believe in people in freedom, or be against them and believe you should have the right to think for them.

One out of 1.8m. If that's all, they're one of the fairest organisations, whether private or state, ever in the world.

Have you actually watched the show?

I have. It's partisan in the extreme. It has an agenda which is "Payday lenders are bad and Provident are the worst of the bunch and target vulnerable people" and edits it's footage to support it's stance. There's a bit at the start where Peter Crook (possibly the worst name for someone taking up a career in finance

) who's the CEO of Provident appears on one of Provident's own promo videos. But the only footage used is him saying "We visit 1 in 20 homes in the UK every week" while an ominous bass beat plays in the background.

There's also some discontinuity with certain "facts" they put forward, especially round the high street payday loan companies. For one, they can't seem to agree on how long loan applications take. At one point it's 20 minutes then upon visiting the next one it's "and again we were in there for about an hour".

They then have their undercover reporter visiting customers with agents. One old lady, who the film desperately wants us to believe is incapable of looking after herself, has her personal hygiene commented on by the undercover reporter. I'm sorry, but I didn't realise that a lack of personal hygiene means you're incapable of dealing with financial commitments. In fact the old lady seems more on the ball about her loans than the agent was as she corrects the agent on both the total of the money she's given her and how much is being used against which loan.

All in all, it made Provident look less and less like some evil bogeyman, forcing people to take out more and more loans that some would have you believe. Very Michael Moore.

Have you actually watched the show?

I have. It's partisan in the extreme. It has an agenda which is "Payday lenders are bad and Provident are the worst of the bunch and target vulnerable people" and edits it's footage to support it's stance. There's a bit at the start where Peter Crook (possibly the worst name for someone taking up a career in finance

) who's the CEO of Provident appears on one of Provident's own promo videos. But the only footage used is him saying "We visit 1 in 20 homes in the UK every week" while an ominous bass beat plays in the background.

There's also some discontinuity with certain "facts" they put forward, especially round the high street payday loan companies. For one, they can't seem to agree on how long loan applications take. At one point it's 20 minutes then upon visiting the next one it's "and again we were in there for about an hour".

They then have their undercover reporter visiting customers with agents. One old lady, who the film desperately wants us to believe is incapable of looking after herself, has her personal hygiene commented on by the undercover reporter. I'm sorry, but I didn't realise that a lack of personal hygiene means you're incapable of dealing with financial commitments. In fact the old lady seems more on the ball about her loans than the agent was as she corrects the agent on both the total of the money she's given her and how much is being used against which loan.

All in all, it made Provident look less and less like some evil bogeyman, forcing people to take out more and more loans that some would have you believe. Very Michael Moore.

And there we have it.

Like who? The "state"?

That, ultimately, would seem to be the fiundamental difference between the likes of you and the likes of me. You would seem to want "the state" to make a lot more of the decisions for people. I would not.

But, as I have said before, there is no such thing as these amorphous concepts siuch as "the state" or "capitalism" (or "socialism " or Communism" for that matter) if by which we mean something that can drive people's behaviour (Mao made the same mistake), or indeed "society", as the woman so despised by the left once said and was (deliberately) misrepresented and misconstrued by the metropolitan elite left (I wonder why?). These are all impersonal concepts. It is PEOPLE who represent all these things, and PEOPLE who do both good things and bad things in their names. And you would clearly seem to want one - invariably elite - group of people making the decisions for others. Same as we saw under the badly-failed "communist" system where, when you looked through the window, between the pigs and the men you could no longer tell the difference.

If not, just who DID you want to make the decisions for her? And what OTHER decsions would you have them make? And by what right would they make those decisions? And how would you justify the removal of an individual's right to free will? Where would it stop? Where would you draw the line? Maybe rather than be obliged to watch the party congress propaganda, as even the BBC reports is currently the case in China, people would be obliged to go watch their local RL team? Which some might think another splendid idea since it solved what they perceived as a major issue in "society" - until maybe you discovered that you were a Shudds fan living in the area assigned to Bradford and still had to attend...

Maybe we should put high fences down every road, so no-one could take a wrong decision and walk into the road without seeing there is a bus coming? That would solve a problem that kills or maims thousands every year, for sure. But tell me: why do we not hear a clamour for THAT example of protecting people from themsleves? Where is the TV special about THAT? Is it because maybe we expect people to have at least SOME responsibility for their actions? If so, could you perhaps list out those actions an individual IS held responsible for, and those that he or she is deemed unable to be trusted with responsibility for? And indicate whether that applies to everyone, or everyone except the self-appointed metropolitan elite who clearly CAN be trusted with responsibility for their actions? Or what other criteria you would use to decide who could and who could not be trusted to e.g. boil a kettle without risk of scalding, or buy a lottery ticket (why are you not screaming at the Lotto ads or the scratchcard sellers??) without due care and attention? Orwell would have the answer to that, I think?

Or would you regulate the life out of the "economy" (another of those amorphous concepts - better again to say "people"icon_wink.gif in a vain hope that the "state" can control everything indirectly? And again, what elite would make the regulations, and police them and enforce them? Orwell would have the answer to that too.

And anyway how, precisely, would you protect her from the unregulated loan sharks who would fill the void, and who most certainly would NOT be ones you would want making ANY kind of decsions? You can regulate or repress all you like, but you cannot fully repress human nature. And some of those humans (term applied loosely) are not nice people at all.

And with BBC news and current affairs currently in crisis, and standing accused both of seeking to wrongly label someone a paedo (and costing the DG his job in the process) whilst having for years seemingly covered up the fact that one of their own fraternity WAS a serial paedo, I hardly think they are in ANY position to take the moral high ground right now - even if their report WAS in any way balanced and impartial.

In all such matters, I think people feeling very strongly sometimes need to be careful what they wish for.

And there we have it.

Like who? The "state"?

That, ultimately, would seem to be the fiundamental difference between the likes of you and the likes of me. You would seem to want "the state" to make a lot more of the decisions for people. I would not.

But, as I have said before, there is no such thing as these amorphous concepts siuch as "the state" or "capitalism" (or "socialism " or Communism" for that matter) if by which we mean something that can drive people's behaviour (Mao made the same mistake), or indeed "society", as the woman so despised by the left once said and was (deliberately) misrepresented and misconstrued by the metropolitan elite left (I wonder why?). These are all impersonal concepts. It is PEOPLE who represent all these things, and PEOPLE who do both good things and bad things in their names. And you would clearly seem to want one - invariably elite - group of people making the decisions for others. Same as we saw under the badly-failed "communist" system where, when you looked through the window, between the pigs and the men you could no longer tell the difference.

If not, just who DID you want to make the decisions for her? And what OTHER decsions would you have them make? And by what right would they make those decisions? And how would you justify the removal of an individual's right to free will? Where would it stop? Where would you draw the line? Maybe rather than be obliged to watch the party congress propaganda, as even the BBC reports is currently the case in China, people would be obliged to go watch their local RL team? Which some might think another splendid idea since it solved what they perceived as a major issue in "society" - until maybe you discovered that you were a Shudds fan living in the area assigned to Bradford and still had to attend...

Maybe we should put high fences down every road, so no-one could take a wrong decision and walk into the road without seeing there is a bus coming? That would solve a problem that kills or maims thousands every year, for sure. But tell me: why do we not hear a clamour for THAT example of protecting people from themsleves? Where is the TV special about THAT? Is it because maybe we expect people to have at least SOME responsibility for their actions? If so, could you perhaps list out those actions an individual IS held responsible for, and those that he or she is deemed unable to be trusted with responsibility for? And indicate whether that applies to everyone, or everyone except the self-appointed metropolitan elite who clearly CAN be trusted with responsibility for their actions? Or what other criteria you would use to decide who could and who could not be trusted to e.g. boil a kettle without risk of scalding, or buy a lottery ticket (why are you not screaming at the Lotto ads or the scratchcard sellers??) without due care and attention? Orwell would have the answer to that, I think?

Or would you regulate the life out of the "economy" (another of those amorphous concepts - better again to say "people"icon_wink.gif in a vain hope that the "state" can control everything indirectly? And again, what elite would make the regulations, and police them and enforce them? Orwell would have the answer to that too.

And anyway how, precisely, would you protect her from the unregulated loan sharks who would fill the void, and who most certainly would NOT be ones you would want making ANY kind of decsions? You can regulate or repress all you like, but you cannot fully repress human nature. And some of those humans (term applied loosely) are not nice people at all.

And with BBC news and current affairs currently in crisis, and standing accused both of seeking to wrongly label someone a paedo (and costing the DG his job in the process) whilst having for years seemingly covered up the fact that one of their own fraternity WAS a serial paedo, I hardly think they are in ANY position to take the moral high ground right now - even if their report WAS in any way balanced and impartial.

In all such matters, I think people feeling very strongly sometimes need to be careful what they wish for.