Carol Vorderman on the petition.

Boggles1234

Hi folks,

I'm not sure if this has been posted anywhere (can't find it) but Carol Vorderman was interviewed by Clive Anderson on Radio 2 last Sunday lunchtime.


He asked her about the loan advert an the petition on this site, She appeared to come out with a standard line about how the companies aren't illegal etc etc but then attacked the petition on the grounds that it was organized by a man who makes money through promoting financial products so is no different to she is.

You can listen again here - Clicky Sorry but I can't remember how far into the show it was that she was interviewed - Possibly about an hour in.

morg_monster

is she really, honestly, that dumb as to think that what she does is in anyway comparable to what Martin does? my opinion of her has never been that high but now its even lower if possible. i wish she would just go away.

Rafter

Boggles,

It all boils down to trust.

It is true that this site is funded by the commissions that are paid by click throughs, but we trust Martin not to recommend products purely because they pay the most or any commission. More fool the companies who pay Martin commission knowing full well that if site users follow his advice to the letter, the companies will never make any money!

The fact is that the loans that Carol Vorderman promotes are perhaps suitable for 3-4% of customers. However the rest would potentially be better off remortgaging or are sleepwalking into more debt and potentially losing their home. They are certainly being conned into paying ridiculous amounts for payment protection insurance, legally.

Personally, I'd prefer Carol didn't promote them. But to be fair, she isn't responsible for the conduct of the company she represents which, totally legally, sells highly profitable products to customers who, with better financial education, would realise they would be better off doing something else.

The blame really lies with the government for not regulating these loans and their insurance sooner and with not providing enough financial education so customers realise they are being ripped off.

Perhaps all advertising needs to carry a government health warning but where would you stop?

Warning. This loan is probably more expensive than other types of finance and you should not call the number unless you are too lazy or stupid to get advice before handing over part of your house or transfering your credit card debt for your last holiday or new clothes to a loan you won't pay off for 20 years.

Warning. This 3 for 2 offer from Boots/Tesco/Woolworths (Delete as applicable) is funded by charging a higher price for one item so you feel like you are getting a good deal?

Warning. This kitchen/sofa/dress is on sale after being on sale at a much higher rip-off price in one or two stores before Christmas so you think like you are getting a good deal.

The fact is that companies making the most profit or margin can afford to advertise the most which means you should probably be sceptical about what is promoted to you. Until all customers realise this the ads and rip-offs will continue but at least you won't have to pay to watch Coronation Street or the Bill on ITV and Carol Vorderman makes a nice little earner on top of her Countdown Salary.

R.

cazziebo

Rafter wrote: »

Boggles,

It all boils down to trust.


Personally, I'd prefer Carol didn't promote them. But to be fair, she isn't responsible for the conduct of the company she represents which, totally legally, sells highly profitable products to customers who, with better financial education, would realise they would be better off doing something else.



R.

Sorry - because I hate to disagree with anyone - but I REALLY disagree with you here. It IS Carol who is selling the products! She is exploiting her reputation as an intelligent woman, good with numbers, down to earth, etc etc to give these products more credibility than they deserve. If it wasn't any good, that nice Carol Vorderman wouldn't be advertising it. What she is doing is immoral and she [STRIKE]should[/STRIKE] does know better. She is making money out of the people who are not financially savvy. It's despicable.

And to say Martin is in the same game is just p*** poor. She knows he isn't and that's just a weak defence to raise suspicion. Pathetic.

Okay -rant over. Sorry Rafter but my ire was raised!

Xenos

I heard the interview and I think that she said Martin had accepted comission for the SAME products, i.e. consoldiation loans. She wasn't talking about the click-throughs on the website, she was specifically referring to loans.

If he has, that's a big deal in my opinion. He's criticised her endlessly for something he himself (allegedly) made money out of. Even if it was in the past and he's since repented, he should have made that clear before he started the petition.

anewman

cazziebo wrote: »

What she is doing is immoral and she [STRIKE]should[/STRIKE] does know better. She is making money out of the people who are not financially savvy. It's despicable.

Well she did get a third at University, so maybe she is a bit thick. But it's either that or immoral or both.

I wonder if she'd do an advert for a porno chat line.

Also, wouldn't a group set up by people who saw the advert and bought the product stating in no unclear terms that Carol Vorderperson profited from their misery, hold more weight with Carol than a petition from this site. But it seems Carol's belief is that ignorance is bliss.

Edinburghlass_2

Xenos wrote: »

I heard the interview and I think that she said Martin had accepted comission for the SAME products, i.e. consoldiation loans. She wasn't talking about the click-throughs on the website, she was specifically referring to loans.

If he has, that's a big deal in my opinion. He's criticised her endlessly for something he himself (allegedly) made money out of. Even if it was in the past and he's since repented, he should have made that clear before he started the petition.

pipkin71 wrote: »

Have just listened to Clive Anderson's show.

The bit this thread is concerned in can be heard at approx 1h.33m into his show.

Clive Anderson asks about her loan advert, and her response is

"Yes, there was a petition on a website where, um .... run by a bloke who actually, erm, sometimes receives sales commissions from financial institutions.

So, there we go"

She then goes on to say first plus is owned by barclays, and she has been advertising their products for ten years.

Xenos wrote: »

Carol Vorderman was on Radio 2 on Sunday, on Clive Anderson's show. He asked her about Martin's petition to get her to stop advertising consolidation loans, although he didn't mention Martin by name.

This is the interesting bit, SHE commented wryly that yes a petetion had been started by 'someone' (she didn't use his name either) who had accepted commision for selling these loans himself in the past.

Is it true?! If so, Martin, you hypocrite! :eek: If not, that's a pretty big slander (although maybe not technically, since his name wasn't actually said).

.
You really do need to be sure of your facts instead of just "thinking" before you go spouting off about Martin being a hypocrite :rolleyes:

As should CV.

candygirl

She's an arrogant bint who'll advertise anything.She is even on Farm Foods ads now.Ah well I suppose it will go towards her eye liner fund:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Wig

Xenos wrote: »

I heard the interview and I think that she said Martin had accepted comission for the SAME products, i.e. consoldiation loans. She wasn't talking about the click-throughs on the website, she was specifically referring to loans.

If he has, that's a big deal in my opinion. He's criticised her endlessly for something he himself (allegedly) made money out of. Even if it was in the past and he's since repented, he should have made that clear before he started the petition.

Xenos,

The title of the BBC online radio service is called Listen Again I suggest you do exactly that, Listen Again, and then you can apologise for being wrong.

You'll find a link in the OP of this thread.

smiths84

What made me laugh was that earlier in the interview Vorderman had starting banging on about how awful it was that young people had to get into debt to go to University. Clive Anderson (can't believe he was once a lawyer) completey failed to jump in at that point with the question about her own advocacy of loans. He just did a little limp probing at the end and apparently didn't know enough about the way Martin's site is funded to come back at her. Shame.

anewman

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: