Money Moral Dilemma: Should Ashley get more £££?

poppy10_2

lustydog wrote: »

Lots of great points from all of you, and nearly all are valid.
However if Ashly hadn't loaned Jessica the money in the first case she wouldn't have anything at all.

By that reasoning you could argue that if a bank gives you a loan and you startup a successful business with it, then all the profits of the business should go to the bank, because if they hadn't loaned you the money in the first place you wouldn't have anything at all.

Eco_Miser

PoorPennilessMe wrote: »

I'm with you on this. I recently had a stint of signing on (out of it now thankfully), and the majority (not a word I use lightly - I had to sit and wait for ages so did tallies in my head) of people on the dole had expensive trainers, the latest phones, talked about what was on sky, etc. Made me feel a complete mug for bothering to work!

How do you know that those with the expensive stuff were not in your situation ie just finished lucrative employment?

On the original question, we don't know if Jessica is really broke, or just miscalculated slightly and has all her money stuck in notice accounts.

She probably asked to borrow 30 quid to go to the shops, rather than to go shopping for essentials so she wasn't lying.

The money's hers to do with as she likes, presumably, being family and with her at the time, Ashley would have got £100 even if Jessica had won using her own pound.


Finally, the lottery is a tax on stupidity, the more people bet on it the better I like it as reduces the demand for me to pay more tax, and they paid my salary for six years.

SuzyC_2

Jessica isn't under any obligation to give her any of the winnings so £100 is better than nothing. However, bearing in mind that the money was a loan from Ashley it would have been considerate of Jessica to have split the winnings 50/50 as she wouldn't have had anything if Ashley had not lent her the money. Let's hope that Jessica never needs a loan from Ashley again as she might rue the day. I guess the moral of the story is 'never a lender or a borrower be'.

Kat33

I think Jessica should definitely offer to give Ashley more than £100. It would be a nice gesture for her to offer Ashely half, and if Ashley is not in need of money then she could always decline the offer.

janaltus

wildthing01 wrote: »

have you heard of elision? this is where you can miss out specifically saying a particular word, (in this case 'shop') as it is implied by the immediate context.

anyway, to get back to the point in question, i don't think technically ashley is entitled to more money, but if i were jessica, i'd be so grateful for the loan, i'd def give her more than £100...

Good point! Although I thought elision was the omission of one or more sounds (such as a syllable) in a word or phrase, not an entire (written) word. Many locals here in East London are fond of using multi-syllable words but then "enhance" them with elision e.g. comp-i-cated, soph-is-icated, int-ri-cat. Frankly, I quite like hearing it occasionally.

As for 'shop' being implied by the immediate context, yes Wildfire, I hold my hands up and admit that is a valid argument for writing "newsagent's". Will Penelope ever forgive me?

Marco12452

Nah, she has already got her money back, plus a nice treat that wasn't necessary to give. It would be nice to get a bigger treat, but this shouldn't be expected.

billydo

If I were in this situation I would give my sister an extract 100/200 pounds,Ashley was good enough to help when needed. And if Jessica needed Ashley's help again I am sure Ashley would be happy to help.billydo:A

pineapple

I think it's a nice gesture on Jessica's part. I don't think she is morally bound to give anything.
Whether or not she should have spent money she needed to borrow, on a lottery card, is another issue. If she asks to borrow off Ashley again, Ashley should question how much she actually needs the money.

ukrooo

i don't think she is obligated to give her any money except the £30 that she borrowed. HOWEVER, personally, i would split the winnings in half - unless Ashley is loaded of course!

young_codger

janaltus wrote: »

Good point! Although I thought elision was the omission of one or more sounds (such as a syllable) in a word or phrase, not an entire (written) word. Many locals here in East London are fond of using multi-syllable words but then "enhance" them with elision e.g. comp-i-cated, soph-is-icated, int-ri-cat. Frankly, I quite like hearing it occasionally.

As for 'shop' being implied by the immediate context, yes Wildfire, I hold my hands up and admit that is a valid argument for writing "newsagent's". Will Penelope ever forgive me?

Blimey! Is this an online 1950's Grammar School? The one I attended taught that elision was the eliding or omission of a vowel at the end of a word when the following word begins with a vowel. Anyway, that's what th'owd masters said. More to the point, if these two went shopping together, surely the lender knew what the lendee was doing and had an opportunity to veto the gambling? And if she didn't, what's she griping about? She gets her £30 back plus a very rapid £70 interest. Just try getting that at the bank. Plus she has the joy of seeing someone she loves (?) having a bit of good luck.