PayDay loans and libraries

There seems to be something of a coming trend for libraries to block access to PayDay loan company websites. Birmingham Council is laughably claiming 'moral' reasons. Manchester is doing the same thing. As is Northamptonshire and various others. These all do seem to be at the behest of the local political masters, rather than (thank God) the Library staff themselves. Sorry - maybe I missed this particular lesson, but when was it deemed acceptable for Councils to decide how people should manage their finances by imposing library censorship. And yes, make no bones about it, it's censorship, plain and simple.

When was providing LESS information regarded as a better thing that providing more? I don't particularly like these organisations, but there are lots of things that I don't like, but that doesn't mean that I should have the right to stop the rest of you looking at something. Sure, I get that they charge ridiculous amounts of interest, but it's perfectly clear on (for example) Wonga's website that if I want to borrow £100 for a week, it's going to cost me £12.89 in interest and charges. It's about as clear as it can get. I can then choose to accept that rate or not. Now, how much is it going to cost me if I want to borrow £100 against my credit card for a similar period of time. I have absolutely no idea, and credit card companies are not exactly falling over themselves to tell me either. What about pawn shops? They decide what they'll offer, and what their charges are, but I don't actually see their websites being banned from library terminals.

Wouldn't it make more sense that instead of banning, blocking, filtering and censoring, we actually did the right thing - to provide access to websites and allowed adults to do what - you know - adults can do, which is *make up their own minds*. By all means, and I'd certainly encourage this - provide a page of content on the library website about ways of getting credit, links to lots of different resources, such as credit unions, banks, other financial institutions, websites that help people manage their money and so on. Because I'm sitting and looking at these articles, and these smug self satisfied politicians, who are in some way 'protecting us' from ourselves. If someone is going to want to borrow money, they're going to do that one way or another, and quite frankly I'd rather that they felt safe and secure enough to do some research in a library to find different deals and options than end up down a back alley somewhere borrowing money from some thug. A library needs to be somewhere that anyone can go, safe in the knowledge that they can use it to research and find what they need. Not somewhere that's making a moral judgement on them, not run by a Council that 'knows best' and not somewhere that seems to imply that censorship, rather than education, is the acceptable way to go.

I get that if you're an employee of one of these Councils there's not much that you can do, because quite frankly, if they're prepared to block, ban and limit access to information, they're not going to take too kindly to their employees thinking for themselves, or God help us - actually criticising the smug, self centred patronising councillors who claim to be working on behalf of the community, but instead are using their positions to impose their own will and bullying attitudes on the rest of us. If you're in that situation, you have my entire sympathy.

I don't like PayDay loan companies. I hate that they have to exist, and I hate the fact that they make money from poor, desperate and vulnerable people. But the solution isn't to limit their access and freedom to information and options, it's to provide them with help. The more we censor - for whatever reason, and however laudable it may initially seem, the more it becomes a sensible way of working, and the more we all, as a society get used to it. And that's a worse crime than charging people thirteen quid to borrow a hundred.

Comments

[James]

I study LIS because I believe in fair access. This is not acceptable. Librarians are not arbiters, but enablers.

[Dale Evans]

It's nice to see that at least some people see the hypocrisy in asking libraries to censor content on "moral" grounds.

[Emily]

Well said Phil, you've summed up perfectly how I feel about this. Censorship is unacceptable and however 'icky' these companies may seem, censorship, blocking the sites and councils acting as moral arbitrators aren't the answer.

I thought this blog was an interesting perspective on Wonga, pointing out some of the plus points it has over 'traditional' banks/lenders: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23078746 (again pointing out the transparency of its - admittedly eye-watering - charges)

So, will councils also have to start censoring "mainstream" banks' websites on moral grounds?? After all, banks aren't exactly above reproach when it comes to morality...

[Ffion]

This is a fantastic post, and I agree! Especially on the availability of clear advice, information, and options for money management, which people can then use to decide for themselves. I'm pretty sure most libraries have plenty of resources/materials available on this, it would just be a matter of highlighting them.

[Jeff Skinner]

You would do your case more justice if you avoided pejorative remarks about local politicians - “local political masters;” “smug, self centred patronising councillors” - and were able to see that this is a more complicated issue than you acknowledge. For example:

• The Advertising Standards Agency has already banned one misleading Wonga advert
• Some universities have banned campus advertising by Pay Day Loan companies because of its effect on students’ education
• Debt advice charities have called for all such advertising to carry “health warnings”
• This is an unregulated market with no cap or upper limit on the interest rates that can be charged and there is copious evidence – see the work of Stella Creasy – of the effect this has on people who use such services
• It may also be a simplification of the issue to say that “people can make up their own minds.” Is it reasonable to say that people using such services are acting “freely” or that they are making informed decisions?
• Is it then really so unreasonable for local authorities - which will have to pick up the pieces when their residents get into debt – to decide that denying publicly-funded access to such sites is a responsible thing to do?

[Caroline]

I agree with Jeff Skinner. This is a very complicated issue. You say that you understand how much interest you will be charged, but the fact is that many people are not aware of how the debt can get out of hand. Some do not understand the interest rates and many are vulnerable people. I think it is important to educate people to the risks of applying to these companies and to promote alternatives such as credit unions and banks as you do suggest too.

[Phil Bradley]

Mr Skinner - you appear not to understand that blog posts are generally opinion pieces - mine certainly are, and as such I can use whatever language I choose. To the substance of your comment:
It doesn't matter that adverts have been banned. The company, and what it does, are still completely legal.
Universities are not the same as libraries.
The government should decide to regulate the markets; it's not the role of a library to do this for them.
You may choose to assume that people are not capable of making their own decisions; I prefer to believe that people actually can, if they're given full information, not less.
Yes, it's completely unreasonable for a local council to decide what people can or cannot see, when it's completely legal.

[Phil Bradley]

Caroline - thanks for your comment. If people don't understand how the debt can get out of hand, a good place to go is a library to get educated. However, if a library is providing biased or limited information, why should it be trusted to provide solid education?

[Jeff Skinner]

Dear Mr.Bradley,

Of course you are entitled to use any language you choose but I think most people would accept that we are more likely to have our opinions taken seriously if we avoid generalisations and pejorative or ad hominem remarks about those with whom we disagree.
The point I was trying to make is that rather than criticise politicians for being politicians it might pay us to think about why, as democratically elected representatives with a responsibility for spending public money, they have chosen to block access in this way. For example, perhaps it is because they consider that businesses have a responsibility not to mislead consumers and, as I mentioned in my post, some of these companies have been heavily criticised for the misleading nature of their advertising. An analogy would be with a medical product that is advertised on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate scientific information. Secondly, it can be argued that one measure of a good society is that it protects the vulnerable from harm. You’ll be familiar with the argument from Mill that we are free to do what we want as long as it doesn’t harm other people. So what we have here is a common-or –garden clash of competing values: between “free speech” on the one hand and the duty to avoid harm, say, on the other. You seem confident that you are right and perhaps you are. To me, it’s not self-evident – hence my contribution to the discussion. Finally, you may want consider that people differ in their capacity “to make up their own minds”, as you put it. A homeless man may have chosen to sleep under a bridge but we would not necessarily consider his choice to be a free one.

[Tom Roper]

To return to the issue of principle, I was in my public library today and tried to access the Racing Post site; it was blocked. I know public libraries, in bygone days, used to black out the racing pages, but I thought we'd advanced a little since then.
I've written about it at http://www.roper.org.uk/tr/2013/09/blacking-out-the-racing-results.html and have made a complaint. When I have a reponse I shall post it.

[Jeff Skinner]

I think that's a bit harsh - I'm suggesting there may be competing principles here. It might be reasonable to block one site and not the other.

[John Kirriemuir]

Hi Phil (and Tom)

Am in the new (central) Library of Birmingham, on their wifi. Testing, and these are blocked:

- Pirate Bay and other torrenting services e.g. kat.ph
- racingpost.com
- oddschecker.com
- playboy.com
- spearmintrhino.com
- ladbrokes.com

Each block gives a list of categories. kink.com (a hardcore BDSM website that is seriously NSFW) gives the block list: "Pornography, Nudity, Sexuality, Adult Themes, Tasteless" which is a bit subjective.

Oh, they've also blocked thesun.co.uk with the list "News/Media, Nudity, Lingerie/Bikini". Lingerie is a blockable category?! That's going to be a problem for fashion and design students using the wifi here.

Perhaps strangely,

- wonga.com
- paydayuk.co.uk

...work. Maybe not got round to blocking them yet? Also, to the delight of young Tom, www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/ works fine.

Other oddities. www.dogginginbirmingham.co.uk is accessible, but www.dogging.co.uk is blocked. Whether this is inconsistent, or if the library only permits "local dogging for local people", don't know.

Your blog, Tom's, mine, publiclibrariesnews.com are all okay, as is Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, CILIP, ALA, MetaFilter and cricinfo.com

(n.b. I'm happily engaged so some of the websites above were only accessed for research purposes. Yes, seriously.)