Do not abolish cheques

The abolition of cheques, planned for a few years hence, will be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for the ordinary citizen, and should not take place.  It appears to be based on the argument that cheques are no longer used in retail purchases or major commercial and financial transactions.  That is so, but neglects the fact that cheques are still the normal method of financial exchange by private individuals with each other and with small voluntary bodies, who will, if cheques are abolished, have no sensible alternative.

Do the banks expect that every private individual or small voluntary body will have a credit or debit card reader?  What method do they expect me to adopt if I wish to transfer or receive money with my family or voluntary bodies that I belong to?  How do they expect voluntary bodies to pay or receive cash, above very small sums?

In any case, I do not see how the abolition of cheques will be legally possible.  A cheque is a written instruction by me to my bank to pay a certain sum to a certain person.  Even if cheques are abolished, I can still send such a written instruction.  Abolishing cheques will therefore not achieve its purpose.

No doubt the banks wish to save money on their cheque processing centres.  This saving will happen naturally as the number of cheques made out declines.  It does not follow that cheques have no use and will become redundant.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The abolition of cheques, planned for a few years hence, will be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for the ordinary citizen, and should not take place.  It appears to be based on the argument that cheques are no longer used in retail purchases or major commercial and financial transactions.  That is so, but neglects the fact that cheques are still the normal method of financial exchange by private individuals with each other and with small voluntary bodies, who will, if cheques are abolished, have no sensible alternative.

Do the banks expect that every private individual or small voluntary body will have a credit or debit card reader?  What method do they expect me to adopt if I wish to transfer or receive money with my family or voluntary bodies that I belong to?  How do they expect voluntary bodies to pay or receive cash, above very small sums?

In any case, I do not see how the abolition of cheques will be legally possible.  A cheque is a written instruction by me to my bank to pay a certain sum to a certain person.  Even if cheques are abolished, I can still send such a written instruction.  Abolishing cheques will therefore not achieve its purpose.

No doubt the banks wish to save money on their cheque processing centres.  This saving will happen naturally as the number of cheques made out declines.  It does not follow that cheques have no use and will become redundant.

 

 

 

Stop collecting pointless and intrusive public statistics

In the last census, and in public forms since then, I am asked to specify my "race" from a list of options.  This question is intrusive and pointless.  Many people are of mixed race, while others have an ancestor of one race, but the appearance of another.  For all these people, the question is meaningless.  Anthropologists agree that the term "race" has no precise objective meaning, so the question can only mean "What race do you think you belong to?"  Why should I identify myself with one race or another?

Because of these confusions, the terminology used is also offensive.  I have a daughter-in-law of Japanese parentage, who had to classify herself in the census as "oriental other".  I had to apologise to her for it.

The purpose of this data collection is presumably to find out if public bodies are treating different races fairly.  I see no point in this.  Racial discrimination is an offence in the mind of the discriminator, not something which can be tested objectively.  Collecting the statistics will not solve whatever problem exists (if it indeed exists).

The only valid question in the census which relates to this area is to ask whether one or other of my parents was born outside the UK.  That will give some idea of population movements.

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

In the last census, and in public forms since then, I am asked to specify my "race" from a list of options.  This question is intrusive and pointless.  Many people are of mixed race, while others have an ancestor of one race, but the appearance of another.  For all these people, the question is meaningless.  Anthropologists agree that the term "race" has no precise objective meaning, so the question can only mean "What race do you think you belong to?"  Why should I identify myself with one race or another?

Because of these confusions, the terminology used is also offensive.  I have a daughter-in-law of Japanese parentage, who had to classify herself in the census as "oriental other".  I had to apologise to her for it.

The purpose of this data collection is presumably to find out if public bodies are treating different races fairly.  I see no point in this.  Racial discrimination is an offence in the mind of the discriminator, not something which can be tested objectively.  Collecting the statistics will not solve whatever problem exists (if it indeed exists).

The only valid question in the census which relates to this area is to ask whether one or other of my parents was born outside the UK.  That will give some idea of population movements.