The £8000 difference between EZ's scheme and the run-of-the mill type rating is easily accounted for by the line training of 20 to 30 sectors - which no third-party type rating will offer. In fact, realistically, this element of the training is probably worth a good deal more than that.
However, I agree that the requirement for multi-crew experience will disqualify the vast majority of hours-building wannabes. I can only assume that EZ are targetting an identified group of people - perhaps ex-SAS F27/F50 pilots? Something like that, I suspect.
As for paid-for type ratings versus bonds, I think some of you are comparing apples and pears here. While you might not like the emergence of EZ's scheme, the fact is that you are repaid the loan that gets you the training. In other words, they do pay for your rating - they just use an unusual way of doing it (which probably has some tax advantage). As the rating is actually paid for by them, they are entitled to bond you.
However, the reduced payscale for previously-experienced pilots is a new departure from the norm, and a worrying development. I have no problem with reduced payscales for ab-initio trainees; that's normal within all organisations, whether aviation or not. I would have had little problem with this scheme if it was aimed at wannabes with a few hours under their belts, but no commercial experience. But to penalise commercially-experienced pilots, and by a considerable amount, is not right.
As I understand it, the direct entry scheme continues for those with relevant jet experience, who will be bonded but won't lose out on pay.