Spendaholics - BBC3 now.

Mc4ndy

I made the assumption that they had made the deal with the creditors already, at least in principle. I mean the presenters came back to her house and announced it as good news regarding writing off the debt. I'm sure they wouldn't do this without first making sure it's on the cards, otherwise it's all just make believe, and a bit of a slap in the face if she phoned them and they said no.

As for the BBC having extra clout.. would this really be the message lenders wanted to send out on national TV. Spend 50k - pay back half, that's fine by us. I doubt it.

It worries me now just how much interest rate loading lenders must have us all paying to cover their write offs. I mean 27k without too much effort seems too high and too easy, especially since she hadn't actually made that much effort to sort things out (selling things etc).

Does anyone else think the guy (physchologist sp?) is a bit of a joke. I mean really. You bottle things up inside. Bangs some drums. Ok, I want his job,

scootw1

Mc4ndy wrote:

I made the assumption that they had made the deal with the creditors already, at least in principle. I mean the presenters came back to her house and announced it as good news regarding writing off the debt. I'm sure they wouldn't do this without first making sure it's on the cards, otherwise it's all just make believe, and a bit of a slap in the face if she phoned them and they said no.

As for the BBC having extra clout.. would this really be the message lenders wanted to send out on national TV. Spend 50k - pay back half, that's fine by us. I doubt it.

How else could they have had £27K written off? And is the message therefore, we will wipe off £27k anyway without anyone pitching in? Either way, it did not give a good impression to anyone else building up debts and don't think it will help this girl in the long run as she may do the same thing again, maybe not on those cards she had now but on others

scootw1

Mc4ndy wrote:

I made the assumption that they had made the deal with the creditors already, at least in principle. I mean the presenters came back to her house and announced it as good news regarding writing off the debt. I'm sure they wouldn't do this without first making sure it's on the cards, otherwise it's all just make believe, and a bit of a slap in the face if she phoned them and they said no.

As for the BBC having extra clout.. would this really be the message lenders wanted to send out on national TV. Spend 50k - pay back half, that's fine by us. I doubt it.

It worries me now just how much interest rate loading lenders must have us all paying to cover their write offs. I mean 27k without too much effort seems too high and too easy, especially since she hadn't actually made that much effort to sort things out (selling things etc).

Does anyone else think the guy (physchologist sp?) is a bit of a joke. I mean really. You bottle things up inside. Bangs some drums. Ok, I want his job,

I agree with you that she didn't make an effort to sell things she had first to clear some debt.

As for the psychologist, he does make sense as I know I was depressed which led to more spending so I wish I had had someone like him to talk to before I got into too much debt.

I'd love to know, though, how many scarves he owns. He seems to have more than Dr Who

Xenomorhic

I thought her bloke was gonna cry or bang his head on the walls when that box with 3 pairs of shoes in it showed up. She seemed impossible to change for most of the show!

Mc4ndy

The most mental thing about her spending was buying stuff that didn't actually fit her if a) she liked it and b) if it was reduced.

Now I could maybe see a little logic if an item of clothing was say a size too small and she had a mission to loose a little weight, or vice versa I suppose (Not sure if people would be buying clothes that were too big with the intention of putting on weight). However, she was buying SHOES that didn't fit her. Now I'll admit as a man I don't understand the women/shoe thing, but buying ones that don't fit either.. now that's something else.

pinkpixie_2

I agree with others - I can't believe she was able to clear £27k of her debts with a settlement figure of £25k (if that was agreed). What sort of incentive does that offer to those of us who save up for things penny by penny until we can afford it? Might as well get a few credit cards, chalk up some debts and then only pay half the amount at the end! What a moneysaving bargain that would be.... Rant over...!

Mc4ndy

The food thing was funny too. Instead of ordering pizzas from the takeway she went out and bought the cheapest stuff she could find and aldi or wherever and then complained it tasted bad. Her budget for £15.60 for a week was for non-essential items anyway so why did she go to aldi and spent £5 on food out of this budget. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Aldi, I mean it's just extremes for the sake if it. She could have gone to any supermarket and bought perfectly good tasting food and made a nice meal for not much cash. Instead it's a meal of instant rice and nothing else, just so she could throw it in the bin.

Her attempt at a ham sandwich was poor too. It is possible to make ham sandwiches that look nicer than hers did. At the end of the day it's just a show, and the format is there to get viewers, it's not really a serious look into someones lifestyle and spending habits.

scootw1

Mc4ndy wrote:

The food thing was funny too. Instead of ordering pizzas from the takeway she went out and bought the cheapest stuff she could find and aldi or wherever and then complained it tasted bad. Her budget for £15.60 for a week was for non-essential items anyway so why did she go to aldi and spent £5 on food out of this budget. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Aldi, I mean it's just extremes for the sake if it. She could have gone to any supermarket and bought perfectly good tasting food and made a nice meal for not much cash. Instead it's a meal of instant rice and nothing else, just so she could throw it in the bin.

Her attempt at a ham sandwich was poor too. It is possible to make ham sandwiches that look nicer than hers did. At the end of the day it's just a show, and the format is there to get viewers, it's not really a serious look into someones lifestyle and spending habits.

Well, I would say she cooked the rice wrong as it looked murky. I very often have a packet of rice with some bread and butter and it is a very filling meal and tasty. I think she had been used to takeaways so it just needed adjustment.

I would have thought the point of the show was to examine spending habits and lifestyle in order to help the person in trouble and others to change.

Mc4ndy

scootw1 wrote:

I would have thought the point of the show was to examine spending habits and lifestyle in order to help the person in trouble and others to change.

Yes what I mean is certain things seemed to be exaggerated more than they needed to be for effect, whilst other perhaps more important points were glossed over or unanswered.

raq

repeated at 7.00pm on sunday. great watch it. bbc3