Tesco Mobile Price Increase

d123

NineDeuce wrote: »

Perhaps research the meaning of 'erroneous statements'. Iphones > £750 = correct statement.

Nope, it’s an incorrect statement and therefore erroneous (you do know what erroneous means don’t you?), not all iPhones cost more than £750, you are wrong, plain and simple. Also, there are other brands that aren’t iPhones that cost more than that as well.

NineDeuce wrote: »

Nowhere in my post whatsoever did I claim that Iphone was the only phone costing over £750. Perhaps to satisfy you I should have spent about half an hour preparing for posting here researching every single phone available, so I could list every (for example) 50 phones, so that you cant tell me there are more.

Yes, you did. Twice...

If you had meant phones in general you’d have said “phones”. You thought you were being clever when you were actually being stupid.

NineDeuce wrote: »

You seem like the only one making this fatuous argument about my Iphones comment. Have a lie down.

Nope, that’s you, but keep digging.

PS, there’s no such thing as an “IPhone”, are you trying to refer to the iPhone?

System

boatman wrote: »

By calling someone a muppet for spending a £1000+ really isn't the end of the world, If they have the money or not I still think its not a wise decision, at the end of the day its my opinion.
Ok, perhaps i should have used sheeple, as fanboy seems more offensive

The real issue is people getting in to debt, the mobile industry happy to see it continue, with slack regulation they are having a field day, but you seem more concerned about the word 'muppet'.

No I object to people who label or judge others for what they do with their money.

Duh of course it’s not the end of world but I will call people out who point at others and think less of them because they do not follow their narrow minded ignorant view.

boatman

john22 wrote: »

No I object to people who label or judge others for what they do with their money.

Duh of course it’s not the end of world but I will call people out who point at others and think less of them because they do not follow their narrow minded ignorant view.

I feel the narrow minded ignorant view is to allow the current abuse by mobile companies to continue under the premise of free will.

System

boatman wrote: »

I feel the narrow minded ignorant view is to allow the current abuse by mobile companies to continue under the premise of free will.

look if people need protecting from mobile phone companies then consumer organisations, ofcom and MP's can discuss and investigate and make changes where they see fit.

I don't know what the answer is as I am not part of those 3 bodies or got into any difficulty with mobile payments since I first had a phone back in 2001. For me to come out and name call people in a demeaning way for the free choices that they're allow to make within the current legal framework is to be ignorant and narrow minded.

I think its a great that your concerned about how mobile phone companies could create part of the debt problem and maybe you can join one of these consumer bodies and be part of of bringing change to that part of the industry. But I'm sorry your not helping your argument or cause when you single out people and label them in demeaning ways just because they buy something that you don't think is needed.

Somehow I can't see Martian Lewis coming on TV to argue for better regulation of mobile phone contracts and calling people who buy expensive phones muppets, fanboy or sheeple or whatever demeaning word that I've seen you type.

mobilejunkie

boatman wrote: »

I feel the narrow minded ignorant view is to allow the current abuse by mobile companies to continue under the premise of free will.

I don't support the gullible, but whenever do-gooders try to protect them it makes things a lot worse for them AND everyone else. I can immediately think of examples in banking and credit cards but attempting to reign in stupidity at the expense of both the stupid and the street wise is not something to be encouraged. Not all people buying iphones are muppets whilst some people obtaining cheaper phones on expensive contracts may be. No-one is forced to be a muppet or can be protected from being one - just as people choosing anything with their eyes wide open must be allowed to do so. It is their money, their choice and their own inclination to be a muppet or not.

boatman

I see no harm in calling someone a muppet, hopefully it cause some to think twice. I'm not alone in thinking the cost of mobiles has got somewhat silly in the past few years.
For people to go out and spend big money on a car you need big money, whereas phones are seen as something anyone can buy. Some are marketed as premium products and are seen as a must have. Part of the problem is that lots have them, this encourages more to follow, why not, their friends have them, why shouldn't they? Its not like a posh TV tucked away in a house, phones are in your face 24-7, acting as a constant advert for the product, drawing people in like a magnet.
Lots can easily afford them, well done the marketing department, job done, sadly there are those who really shouldn't buy.

I would certainly agree that heavy handed regulation causes issues, but it certainly look like more should be done. £50 a month for one phone shouldn't cause a problem, but when there are several in the family it soon adds up and has clearly, given the report by Citizen's advice, had an impact.

System

boatman wrote: »

I see no harm in calling someone a muppet, hopefully it cause some to think twice. I'm not alone in thinking the cost of mobiles has got somewhat silly in the past few years.
For people to go out and spend big money on a car you need big money, whereas phones are seen as something anyone can buy. Some are marketed as premium products and are seen as a must have. Part of the problem is that lots have them, this encourages more to follow, why not, their friends have them, why shouldn't they? Its not like a posh TV tucked away in a house, phones are in your face 24-7, acting as a constant advert for the product, drawing people in like a magnet.
Lots can easily afford them, well done the marketing department, job done, sadly there are those who really shouldn't buy.

I would certainly agree that heavy handed regulation causes issues, but it certainly look like more should be done. £50 a month for one phone shouldn't cause a problem, but when there are several in the family it soon adds up and has clearly, given the report by Citizen's advice, had an impact.

So we have a subset of people out of all the people who have mobile phone contracts who get into debt. Within that number we have another subset of people who get into debt because part of the mobile phone contract is paying off a flagship expensive phone.

Your solution is to label everyone who buys expensive phones a muppet or whatever demeaning name you wanna call them in the hope that the person who would get into debt with a expensive phone stops and thinks and doesn’t do it.

Please don’t give up your day job to become a expert on money and debt issues. What you could do though is work at citizen advice and when these people come through the door looking for advice when in debt you can call them a muppet. Be prepared though that a small subset of those people might punch you in the face.

mobilejunkie

People have to take responsibility for their own actions. It is sad that we seem to have gone in the opposite direction for decades but that doesn't make the direction right. When regulators dabble (often in things they actually don't understand) they usually make things worse for most - often including those they are claiming to help.

You can't prevent weak people from succumbing to peer pressure whereas those who are sensible and responsible should not be thwarted by the heavy hand of regulation. How and why should you restrict the cost or number of contracts in a household? The nanny state should be made redundant and just ensure there is education, fair competition and penalties for abuse.

boatman

Can I suggest reading the report:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/policy/policy-research-topics/consumer-policy-research/consumer-policy-research/falling-behind/

Its like talking to the NRA or Forest, free will rules supreme, but only if you have a vested interest, regardless of the outcome..

As I said, I still think spending £1k on a phone is a daft thing to do, regardless of your income, in the same way I think spending £200k on a new Ferrari is daft(at least buy one that will appreciate).

I presume you are keen to make drugs legal under the same free will?

System

boatman wrote: »

Can I suggest reading the report:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/policy/policy-research-topics/consumer-policy-research/consumer-policy-research/falling-behind/

Its like talking to the NRA or Forest, free will rules supreme, but only if you have a vested interest, regardless of the outcome..

As I said, I still think spending £1k on a phone is a daft thing to do, regardless of your income, in the same way I think spending £200k on a new Ferrari is daft(at least buy one that will appreciate).

I presume you are keen to make drugs legal under the same free will?

I love how you like to take things to the extreme to justify your argument

everyone is daft for buying things you wouldn't spend your money on therefore they are lesser people than you and no doubt the world would be a better place if they followed your way of life (autocratic)

Mobilejunkie talks about educating, fair competition and penalties for abuse which will require some sort of involvement of regulatory bodies. But nope you can't see that so you take it to a completely new level by dropping in the NRA, forrest and legalising all drugs and about free will.

I have more respect for mobilejunkie because at least they are prepared to take a more objective view of the issues and make a more level headed argument. However I feel with you its not about being objective but more about making yourself the centre of what is right.