to think that Littlewoods advert should be banned?

[CherylWillBounceBack]

Shameful for all the reasons below:

a) Ruins Christmas by exposing the truth about Santa's existence.
b) Encourages debt fuelled consumerism (easy payments)
c) could pressurise people out of guilt to spend more than they can afford
d) Attempts to make presents which are ridiculously look like the norm
e) Suggests that we should pass our hard earned up a generation by putting laptops on the knees of grandparents. Rich old people can buy their own electronic tat if they so choose.
f) annoying tune that gets stuck in the head.

I bloody hate that ad.

Here's what Littlewoods could do if there was an ounce of 'goodwill' lurking in their corporate soul -- identify those who could use a laptop for educational purposes and donate them by the thousands.

Just looked up Litttlewoods to see what they do for charity. They do good things for charity

www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/archive/616816/Fundraising-News-Littlewoods-charity-foundation-donates--xA3125m-Alder-Hey/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH

So? They do a good thing for charity so that gives them carte blanche to run around telling children that Father Christmas ain't real?

Well, I just bought a Big Issue in town. I might go and kick a puppy to re-dress the balance.

When I was younger, I remember being a bit shocked that a fellow employee used to rent a TV from Radio Rentals rather than buying it outright, which would have been cheaper over the long run. They told me that they did it because they were so strapped for cash that they wanted a known fixed weekly payment that would guarantee replacement of the TV if it ever broke down. They didn't have the money to buy it outright.

Yes, Radio Rentals charged more for that service, but they allowed families starpped for cash to have access to goods that richer people could afford without a worry.

That person is now a wealthy company director and I think Radio Rentals' business has long since gone. But comapnies which enable poorer people to access goods on credit are not intrinsically bad.

People like Cmaeron and Osborne and Cherie Blair can buy these things outright, but there are many people who can't. I don't think they should be deprived of the possibility.

I don't think they should be denied the possibility either. But nor do I think they should be exploited by shitehawks.

I know where you're coming from claig.

I remember I couldn't afford a Ford Escort or even a four-track recorder, so it's only right that I let the top drop on a droptop Porsche these days. But the difference is I learnt the hard way that easy payments or not, denying myself until I could pay for it outright was absolutely the most satisfying way to get something. Plus I wasn't paying interest towards some parasites bonus - which I think we both concur is the last thing anyone should do.

There's a difference between denying possibility and marketing using parental guilt at Christmas during a real period of financial difficulty for many.

There are excesses and we need regulation, not a Labour type of 'light touch regulation' of the bankers.

Before Thatcher helped the introduction of easier credit, the poor were often kept in their place by the rich, unable to afford homes and goods and denied credit.

People say Ipads etc. are tat. That's OK for rich people to say. But how do we know that a young poor child may not be able to educate themselves better with one and even write an Ipad app and earn millions as some 13 year olds in the United States have.

Telling the poor to wait till teh trickle down economics lets them afford it, is like telling them to wait for Godot.

People have to be careful about what they buy and spend, but without companies offering credit, many people would be denied these things.

Sorry, but marking up unaffordable items in the run up to Christmas and passing your HP scheme off as interest free buying is not charity or even goodwill.

Neither is encouraging people to buy things using a credit card with an incredible APR. It is fleecing the not very solvent to subsidise the banks and the lifestyle of the directors of Littlewoods. It is a scurrilous business practice.

What mathanxiety said.

Trickle down economics was introduced by Ronald Reagan. What it involved was an appetite for stuff that was unaffordable and trickle down credit debt.

The availability of credit actually only serves to keep prices unrealistic when it all boils down.

I will not address the silly point that an iPad is somehow essential for educational purposes.

Yes, I agree that exorbitant APR rates etc. should be regulated. But I doubt they will be. We've seen 'light touch regulation' and banker bonuses. But I think that teh regulators and politicians are to blame, more so than businesses.

'I will not address the silly point that an iPad is somehow essential for educational purposes'

Thank God you have spared us the addressal.

When people are denied legitimate credit (which should be regulated), they often turn to loan sharks and live in fear as they are terrorised by thugs demanding astronomical interests. As dementma said earlier on, people do use credit and they need it.

We have a government telling people not to use credit and that they won't borrow, but not all people are as rich as them, and get expenses like them. Some people need credit and borrowing.

There are people with great ideas being denied credit right now by our banks. People who might be able to set up businesses to help the community. We have a credit crunch, imposed by teh rich and teh banks, which denies poorer people accesss to funds which can be invested to improve their lives.

Not all of these presents are tat. A present of a keyboard, a guitar, a laptop, a games console, an Ipad may change young people's lives, broaden their horizons, spur their creativity.

It's that need word again, isn't it?

People may need to go into debt for essentials. Does anyone really need to go into debt for an X-Box or a digital camera?

Someone said earlier they were thinking of buying their DD a digital camera, because she likes photography.

A small thing like that may change her life. How do you know that she couldn't end up the next David Bailey?

Don't let the rich Etonians fool you that only bread and water are the essentials for the masses.

'I will not address the silly point that an iPad is somehow essential for educational purposes.

Goodness wouldn't it be tempting to type a three hour spiel about how Ipads run Apps that allow children and adults with Sn to access communication aids (whoever thinks state provides it is daft) and lots of other educational chances.

But fortunately I cannot be arsed so will leave it at that.

Fortunately family fund will almost certainly buy the boys one in June if my job search has not paid off by then, could do with the PECs stuff.

The credit line to the banks was unlimited, paid for by the people. Credit for teh banks was good, in fact they told us it was vital.

But they want to stop credit to the ordinary people, tell them to tighten their belt. How tight do they want it? Do they want to choke their growth?

'There are people with great ideas being denied credit right now by our banks. People who might be able to set up businesses to help the community. We have a credit crunch, imposed by teh rich and teh banks, which denies poorer people accesss to funds which can be invested to improve their lives.'

Yet at the same time, banks are capitalising on the 'need' of the not very well off to use credit cards, whose APRs are often far in excess of the interest charged on the average small business loan or even a mortgage. It is the banks that are making the money from credit card interest/personal debt.

The threat of personal bankruptcy and its repercussions keep most people making payments just as they would pay a loan shark. Having your credit rating ruined is every bit as much of a threat as having your ankles broken or your daughters raped by loan shark goons.

A box of blocks or a set of markers can also spur creativity.

Yes Peachy you are exactly right. Peachy has said before that she wanted to set up a business to help ASD children and teh community. But she can't get funding, they won't give out the credit. But for teh bankers, the credit never ends.

Their "credit crunch" has the effect of crunching ordinary people. Some people think that may be one of its purposes.

Credit is good enough for them, but not for you.

Peachy, most people do not have SN children who could benefit from having an iPad. Most children can survive perfectly well without one. Your exception proves the rule.

Banks are not stopping credit to ordinary people -- credit card credit that is, with higher interest rates than other forms of credit.

FFS

I am a mid-range earner, so is DH. If I can't afford it, it doesn't get bought. That is all.

Why are people so intent on having what their finances dictate that they can't?

'Yet at the same time, banks are capitalising on the 'need' of the not very well off to use credit cards, whose APRs are often far in excess of the interest charged on the average small business loan or even a mortgage. It is the banks that are making the money from credit card interest/personal debt.'

Yes we know there are ripoffs and the politicians should look into those. But banks are restricting credit, the limits are being slashed. They are freezing up teh credit, they are turning off teh tap.