Premium Bonds Article Discussion Area

rb10

SleeplessinScandinavia wrote: »

On a slightly different tack, the website http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-1637084/Premium-Bonds-winning-numbers.html publishes details of Premium Bond prize winners and where they live.

Does anybody know where do they get this information from?

They just copy it straight from NS&I ...

http://www.nsandi.com/savings-premium-bonds-high-value-winners

Ifts

rb10 wrote: »

They just copy it straight from NS&I ...

http://www.nsandi.com/savings-premium-bonds-high-value-winners

Really?

I ask because there have been occasions when thisismoney.co.uk are displaying the current months high value prize winners before the information gets updated on the NS&i site (still showing the previous months high value prize winners).

I ain't denying that NS&i have the information first (after all its them that administers the prize draw) or saying TIM.co.uk hacks into ERNIE! But I don't think its a simple case of them copying it from the NS&i website.

Maybe its the reason that SleeplessinScandinavia got played the 'three wise monkeys' trick when they tried to obtain the information from NS&i.

SleeplessinScandinavia

Thanks for the link, rb10. It explains some of the things I originally asked nsandi.com about.

Can't understand why they didn't refer me to their link to start with...:mad:

Michael_Corleone

SleeplessinScandinavia wrote: »

On a slightly different tack, the website http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-1637084/Premium-Bonds-winning-numbers.html publishes details of Premium Bond prize winners and where they live.

Does anybody know where do they get this information from? (about the location of the winners) I asked nsandi.com but they played the 'three wise monkeys' trick and said I would need to contact the 'thisismoney' website.

I contacted 'thisismoney' who referred me back to nsandi.com! I live abroad and (if God forbid I ever win a prize!) would rather be listed as 'Overseas' rather than an exact country name.

Just a thought

Well, if you do win, don't tell anyone on here or they will know you are in Sweden.

thelawnet

Lottery tickets going to £2/ticket.

Playing one draw weekly would now cost £104/year.

Where's Martin's article urging people to give it up?

Perhaps they could be encouraged switch the £100 into Premium Bonds, as a safer, capital-not-at-risk form of gambling?

innovate

thelawnet wrote: »

Lottery tickets going to £2/ticket.

Playing one draw weekly would now cost £104/year.

Where's Martin's article urging people to give it up?

Perhaps they could be encouraged switch the £100 into Premium Bonds, as a safer, capital-not-at-risk form of gambling?

:eek::eek::eek:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/premium-bonds

thelawnet

innovate wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/premium-bonds

see my previous posts in this thread.

atush

I think everyone should give it up, and boycott it until Camelot loses the franchise.

It should be run by the govt. And on a non profit basis.

innovate

atush wrote: »

And on a non profit basis.

When the Lottery was first thought of, the Virgin/IBM consortium tabled a bid on a non-profit basis. The CEOs of both those companies were - publically - extremely bullish about their chances - basically said the business was theirs because the "not-for-profit" proposition was the deal-clencher.

Well, as we know, they lost to Camelot. I don't know the reasons, but clearly, the not-for-profit element didn't count for much.

It is, of course, impossible to say for certain whether the public would have got better value from the not-for-profit bid than they got from Camelot. On balance, there is probably little between a not-for-profit deal, and a normal for-profit one. They'd just be accounting for things in a different way, and would probably have vastly different costs. A for-profit outfit would constantly squeeze their costs, whilst a not-for-profit one could just sit there fat and happy with run-away costs.

Paul_Herring

atush wrote: »

It should be run by the govt. And on a non profit basis.

The Government already provide charities with scads of money via a (very) non-profitable (and, incidentally, compulsory) scheme.

It's called taxation.