Continuing with the drug addiction analogy: no-one forces you to buy crack. If you make a conscious choice to buy the crack then you go in with your eyes wide open knowing you could end up getting hooked. By no means is this meant to exonerate the pusher, but then the addict shouldn’t play victim either, abdicating responsibility for his/her actions.

Perhaps they are so desperate for funds that they don’t take time to look at the fine print, more commonly known as terms and conditions. Then they trot out the, “I didn’t realise, I didn’t understand” argument as if that somehow removes any of their responsibility to look after their own welfare.

Which brings about a whole other debate about the welfare state and its abuses.

However, for the working Joe that is trying to work for a living rather than sponge off the taxpayer, there needs to be a systemic approach to provide the means and incentive for Joe to remain in gainful employment, avoid debt, and support himself and his family. This would involve the banks working in conjunction with state bodies like the DWP to ensure the support is in place to allow Joe to avoid getting into the kind of debt you describe. Education on how to handle finances would be a start.

However, the point about taking responsibility still stands because if Joe wants the wii and wants the Sky+HD and wants to go down to watch his premiership football team and fancies a skinful of lagers after the game then he’s going to find that without some discipline and self control all the goodwill, education, financial advice and micro-credit institutions won’t make a lick of difference. He’ll be in debt again.

To change the analogy: You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. You can’t stop it drowning itself either.