That’s why blogging is so perfect for me.

“Whenever I read tirades like this I look for an agenda, perhaps even some declared self-interest, or some underlying logic”

You don’t need to look for the agenda, as it is explicit: electronic transactions are more efficient than papers ones.

“All I see here is a rant that young people (presumably anyone under sixty) must be mentally deficient if they contemplate using cheques, and therefore anyone over sixty, especially if they don’t / won’t use a smart phone, must be too stupid to be allowed to spend money.”

You must be getting mixed up, since I said neither of those things.

“So let’s pull apart a couple of your arguments”.

2% rise in cheque fraud. Not statistically significant”.

Irrelevant to the central argument”

No it isn’t, since I consistently argue for more secure methods of payments.

“If cheque use is down 12% then the numbers of cheque frauds will be down year on year as well. So you could say cheque fraud is down too (but you wouldn’t, would you?).”

I wouldn’t say that, because it isn’t true. Cheque fraud in 2011 was £34.3m, in 2012 it was £35.1m.

“Germany uses hardly any cheques. No Shit Sherlock. Have you ever tried banking in Germany? It’s a very different experience to the UK. As is Banking in France, for that matter. So too America.”

Nowhere did I argue that they are the same. However, if you are interested, I do have the figures to hand (from the European Central Bank) that show that countries with lower cheque use have more efficient payment systems with a lower total social cost, and this is what I am really interested in. I want the payment system to be cheaper, faster and more transparent.

“Comparing retail banking systems is like comparing national education systems, or driving, or cheese.”

Germany has a better education system, we are better at driving, the French make some good cheese.

“So the government wants banks to introduce photo chequing. Big deal. If you don’t like it, don’t use it, but let those who do want to use cheques – for whatever reason – carry on doing so.”

What I said was that if people want to carry on using cheques, then they should pay for them, but that government policy should be to manage them away.

“The banks are barely fit for purpose anyway, they remain deluded, desparate to sell you services you neither want nor need, and many would say their business practices are morally corrupt (‘morally’ being an optional word, perhaps).”

Now this genuinely is irrelevant to the point.

“The only good point you make is that a single, central cheque clearing database would prevent fraud. But the banks won’t do that in a month of Sundays and no government is strong enough to mandate it. One should ask why.”

Since the consultation hasn’t begun, I have no idea whether the banks will do it or not.

“The whole topic here doesn’t pass the ‘so what test’.
So not very much Thought Leadership going on here (whatever the hell Thought Leadership is anyway, apart from 3 grand a day).”

Not quite three grand a day as the Boxing Day sale started today.

“I can’t believe I’ve wasted minutes of my life writing this.”

That’s what thought leadership does: it sets the agenda. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Cheers,
Dave.

Some simple SMS based money transfer arrangement like m-pay or other emerging economy solutions would be better than cheques, but I’m not seeing systems emerging that are compatible with my 60+ yr old customers.

I can’t believe I’ve wasted minutes of my life writing this.