Should we promote Pay Day loan companies?

[macliam]

Morality is subjective to your own values
And legality is probably higher than Morals

Off topic:

Philosophy, but wrong (philosophically)

a) Morality and legality are not reflective of each other:
It is not illegal to engage in a clandestine affaire, but many people would think it immoral.
It is not immoral to drive with your seat belt undone, but it is illegal.

b) Morality reflects personal and social ethics and whilst not enforced, it forms the fabric of society.
Legality is a system imposed by the powerful to control the weak, in the guise of a system to enforce morality.
However, since Legality claims to be the enforcement of Morality, Morality must come first (or is higher)

On topic:

[1960mackem]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Topic - hazelnut in every bite

[blythburgh]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Topic - hazelnut in every bite

Middle is lovely but the dreadfully poor quality chocolate really puts me off

[kevinchess1]

A bit inconclusive, this poll. 23-15 against the motion, however the 15 represented more "shares" than the 23 I also wonder what the result would have been if I'd worded the poll along the lines of "Should we remove all Pay Day loan offers from imutual"? Essentially the same question but with a different emphasis (one is reminded of this sketch from Yes Prime Minister )

There were also some good points made about beefing up the warnings rather than removing such sites altogether, and I'd like to try this approach first rather than removing the entire category. The "bad for imutual's reputation" bit could be partly addressed by only displaying such offers to logged-in members (a feature we don't have at present but plan to introduce at some point)

[cccashbacklover]

My feeling Richard for what it is worth is whether a relatively tiny number of a cashback sites active user base should be making decisions on whether a cashback site should or should not promote a certain category of merchant advertiser and that is the reason I voted Yes.

Vast majority of cashback site users of all sites are not the slightest bit interested in its forums and there is no reason why they should be, equally of course there is nothing wrong with those who are.

[kevinchess1]

Morality is subjective to your own values
And legality is probably higher than Morals

Off topic:

Philosophy, but wrong (philosophically)

a) Morality and legality are not reflective of each other:
It is not illegal to engage in a clandestine affaire, but many people would think it immoral.
It is not immoral to drive with your seat belt undone, but it is illegal.

b) Morality reflects personal and social ethics and whilst not enforced, it forms the fabric of society.
Legality is a system imposed by the powerful to control the weak, in the guise of a system to enforce morality.
However, since Legality claims to be the enforcement of Morality, Morality must come first (or is higher)

If your a father, husband, brother like me then you have a Moral obligation to look after yourself and should wear a seatbelt(For the record I always wear my seatbelt but am against it being the law)

I''m not sure I agree that laws are imposed by the powerful on the weak
Most counties have law against murder, stealing and lying all though if your a solider your allowed to kill.
Maybe Morality should come first but I don;'t see that argument holding up in a court of law

[kevinchess1]

...the ban on external links in signatures is being ignored...

(RY: apologies to Kev, I accidentally deleted most of this reply when trying to reply with quote )

[Richard Frost]

A bit inconclusive, this poll. 23-15 against the motion, however the 15 represented more "shares" than the 23 I also wonder what the result would have been if I'd worded the poll along the lines of "Should we remove all Pay Day loan offers from imutual"? Essentially the same question but with a different emphasis (one is reminded of this sketch from Yes Prime Minister )

There were also some good points made about beefing up the warnings rather than removing such sites altogether, and I'd like to try this approach first rather than removing the entire category. The "bad for imutual's reputation" bit could be partly addressed by only displaying such offers to logged-in members (a feature we don't have at present but plan to introduce at some point)

I don't really see the point of having a vote if it is just going to be ignored once the result is known. I am not and have never been convinced that people with more shares should have more of a say than some others. It does not even necessarily mean that they have used the site more. They could have been members for a lesser length of time.

My feeling Richard for what it is worth is whether a relatively tiny number of a cashback sites active user base should be making decisions on whether a cashback site should or should not promote a certain category of merchant advertiser and that is the reason I voted Yes.

Vast majority of cashback site users of all sites are not the slightest bit interested in its forums and there is no reason why they should be, equally of course there is nothing wrong with those who are.

Very sensibly said, We have a leader, I am not sure that all decisions should be put to a vote. Especially since not everyone is interested in voting. According to the current running total we have 34544 members. (As I often say) Not all of those are genuine or real so to be generous we can halve that. That means that 38 out of a possible 17.272 people voted. Democratic? I think not..

the ban on external links in signatures is being ignored

I can assure you it's not, we may just have failed to spot some. Feel free to point them out

Richard this is not me

As I have this facility disabled. I do not care a fig what rubbish people put in their signatures. Nor do I have an opinion on it, as I do not see them..

[kevinchess1]

the ban on external links in signatures is being ignored

I can assure you it's not, we may just have failed to spot some. Feel free to point them out

Richard this is not me

[kevinchess1]

I see the votes as being for 'Guidance' anything that Shareholders feel V strongly about can be decided at the AGM
Personaly I don't feel this is an AGM issue

I don't really see the point of having a vote if it is just going to be ignored once the result is known. I am not and have never been convinced that people with more shares should have more of a say than some others. It does not even necessarily mean that they have used the site more. They could have been members for a lesser length of time.

As I posted last vote was ignored completly
Whilst not doubting your figures only a tiny % of people vote at the AGM so that's not really representative either.
Surely the Larger shareholder must have used the site more though I agree that maybe they visit less and don't need to use the forum