Cheques move a step closer to extinction

never-in-doubt

jambosans wrote: »

I wasn't talking about cheques. Read the sentence in context.
Never did. I said the thread was "dead", Inactive got all upset, so I removed the comments after explaining myself.

I did read it in context! Don't try the 'English grammar' trick with us! Doesn't wash!! I was explicitly referring to, and answering your comment 'I will converse with you on the matter no longer' which I made bold in the quote to point this out to you - see here! #92

I never said you did say the thread was dead mate? LOL, you've totally lost me on that one! Maybe you were reading my post but answering another

vet8 wrote: »

I have noticed that the kennels where I leave my dogs when I am away has stopped taking debit or credit cards (due to the charges I think) and you have to pay by cash or cheque. There is no other option.

Exactly - my Vets just done this as well. They said that due to costs they had to scrap card payments - ultimately they have placed a sign up saying cheques accepted with a card. If no card then they will take a cheque from regular customers upto a maximum value of £75.

I think its a great idea.....

Navvie

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Bert Lance 1931 - present.
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 1977. (USA)

Any attempt to improve on a system that already works is pointless and may even be detrimental.

never-in-doubt

Navvie wrote: »

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Bert Lance 1931 - present.
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 1977. (USA)

Any attempt to improve on a system that already works is pointless and may even be detrimental.

Taken from: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/6/messages/651.html

Extant

Navvie wrote: »

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Bert Lance 1931 - present.
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 1977. (USA)

Any attempt to improve on a system that already works is pointless and may even be detrimental.

We're not talking about improving a system, more about removing it.

No point in improving a system with declining usage, might as well toss £50 notes in a shredder.

jambosans

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I did read it in context! Don't try the 'English grammar' trick with us! Doesn't wash!!

Who are you? The MSE Police?

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I was explicitly referring to, and answering your comment 'I will converse with you on the matter no longer' which I made bold in the quote to point this out to you - see here! #92

Your original post was:

never-in-doubt wrote: »

LOL, well that's good of you isn't it? If you don't like what you're reading them don't come and post on this thread!

It had nothing to do with the discussion on cheques which this sentence seems to imply by telling me not to bother posting. I told you to read the sentence in context as the sentence in question was specifically referring to an exchange between myself and Inactive. It had nothing to do with the fact I didn't like what I was "hearing", it was to do with the fact that the exchange had taken the post completely off topic.

I removed my comments and subsequent replies to Inactive to close the matter and return the post to it's original subject. However you decided to comment on something you were unable to read in full context (as my replies were deleted) and have now decided to make an issue out of some silly exchange you were not party to.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I never said you did say the thread was dead mate? LOL, you've totally lost me on that one! Maybe you were reading my post but answering another

You were addressing a post that was in response to a series of exchanges with Inactive which he has left up but I decided to delete.

This just sounds ridiculous but I'm gonna have to say it... I never said you said I said the thread was dead. Haha. I was merely explaining the reasoning behind the comment which you replied to.

BTW I have no interest in getting into some stupid argument with yourself I am only responding because you have decided to argue over something you never read in full context. Of course you reply as you wish to whoever you want but you decided to specifically ridicule a post which you couldn't read in full context.

A complete waste of my time and yours, and has once again taken this thread off topic. Think I should just steer clear of this thread, seeing as I have to contend with people who won't let sleeping dogs lie.

I should've done the bigger thing and not replied to your post but I can't help a good argument. However for the sake of avoiding more stupid arguments breaking out I will shut up on this matter. :T

jojojez

Just one question about all of this. Legally you can pay someone by cheque, credit/debit card, DD, money transfer etc...but also with unused stamps! So as the laws stands how can you refuse a legal means of payment??

I have lived in Italy, where cheques are used and unfortunately due to stolen cheque books are being accepted less and less, this is also the case in France, where I currently live. Today I went to buy a new washing machine and was told by the salesman that I could not pay by cheque, this was refuted at the cash desk. I was able to pay by cheque, providing I had 2 pieces of ID, which gives no guarantee of payment. It was suggested to me that I used their store card to pay, of course! Or that I used my credit card. As I wanted to pay from a different account I paid by cheque.

Cheques ARE useful, they leave a trace that often credit cards don't. In several ways they are safer for both parties, and are easier to use. If I have forgotten my PIN, as has happened on a few occasions, I can always pull out my trusty cheque book. If I wish to spend 25 euros then I either have to draw out 40-50 from the bank, as they do not have smaller notes in the machines anymore. Also my rent is always paid by cheque, to set up a DD would cost me more. I have rented out flats and the clients always pay by cheque, I do not accept credit cards!

All in all it is a way to reduce , once again, staff levels in banks, cut costs,increase share payouts and head towards a fully automated system, which as we all know is NEVER foolproof!

jambosans

jojojez wrote: »

Just one question about all of this. Legally you can pay someone by cheque, credit/debit card, DD, money transfer etc...but also with unused stamps! So as the laws stands how can you refuse a legal means of payment??

A private business is not legally bound to accept any particular form of payment, whether it be legal tender or otherwise.

jojojez wrote: »

It was suggested to me that I used their store card to pay, of course! Or that I used my credit card. As I wanted to pay from a different account I paid by cheque.

Assuming you were using a British cheque, does the attached bank account not come with a debit card of some description? If so, could you not have used that?

jojojez wrote: »

Cheques ARE useful, they leave a trace that often credit cards don't. In several ways they are safer for both parties, and are easier to use.

I would say handing over a piece of paper with your name, signature, sort code and account number is less secure than paying using a card with a Chip & PIN Machine. Both have security vulnerabilities but I would say an electronic trail is more secure than a paper one. As for ease of use, writing out a cheque or putting a card in a slot and punching in a four digit number? The latter is in most cases the quickest means of payment.

The rest of your post seems to suggest you are talking about making payments outside of Britain (you mention Euros). Everything I've said only really applies to Britain, I have no idea about the rest of the world.

Extant

Stamps are not legal tender. They can be refused for settlement of a debt, and rightly so - they are not fixed price/value.

jambosans

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Stamps are not legal tender. They can be refused for settlement of a debt, and rightly so - they are not fixed price/value.

See I wasn't sure on that one, thanks. I Googled it but different sources say different things. The Wiki page on legal tender (I know, not the best source) says nothing on stamps. I will edit my reply.

jambosans

You learn something new every day. I will have to correct myself in accordance with the all knowing Wikipedia.