Why cheques encourage prudence

Concerns regarding the possible withdrawal of cheques should extend beyond the elderly and vulnerable. One of the first points being why create a new paper-based system when one is already in place? It is called a cheque book.

Not everyone is happy at the expanded use of hidden transfers and payments at the flash of a bit of plastic, and it is not just pensioners who do not want to be robbed by muggers at cashpoints.

Further, scarcely a day passes without disclosure that yet another fraud has taken place by some so-called impregnable system being breached by evil-minded criminals intent on robbing people of their earnings.

However, there is a much more basic reason for retaining a system which offers the account holders an opportunity to keep track of their money by visible record.

People have become careless in their finances, making payments they can not afford, building up debt, all at the pleasure of the banks who are happy to lend far past any reasonable limits. Many people do not read statements because they dare not do so. The result is gross debt and a ballooned economy which is unsustainable.

To cap that, those who follow their finances properly find the number of occasions when incorrect charges or other errors are made by organisations. People with a more casual approach suffer losses which they may never notice.

Within the banks themselves, why should customers of years standing have to identify their authenticity with a number and a bit of plastic, instead of a smile of recognition?

Why should they have to wait weeks while correspondence is “entered to the system” before they can get a reply, a procedure which used to be dealt with in a day or so.

Further, despite the fact that the banks put far too many people into hock by overlending, many customers do keep their own money with them, so why should they have access to it denied just because they might not have a driving licence or a passport?

A bit more shouting by customers for service instead of being bullied into submission would be useful and perhaps some MPs might feel inclined to be more vigorous in supporting their case.

After all, personal financial care will assist the Government to get national debt under control.

Unfair deal for taxpayers

From: Alan Chapman, Beck Lane, Bingley.

IN 2009, data released confirmed that the total cost of the four largest public sector pension schemes was £19bn, of which public sector staff only contributed £4.4bn (23 per cent) and the taxpayer paid £14.6bn (77 per cent). Thus the taxpayers are contributing to two pension schemes – their own and the public sector’s.

Yet the public sector unions are attempting to railroad their members into strike action when less than half their members did not take part in the recent ballot.

These amendments to public sector pensions, in relation to the retirement age and closing down the final salary schemes, are long overdue as this would bring them into line with almost all the private sector staff.

Finally, let us not forget how Chancellor Gordon Brown savaged more than 15m private pension schemes to the tune of £5bn annually, to waste the stolen funds on Socialist dream projects.

From: Hilary Andrews, Nursery Lane, Leeds.

SO the teachers have decided to go ahead with their disruptive strike action over pensions which many in the private sector can only dream of.

Could it be that many have been coerced into action by the “teachers” in their schools who spend most of their time on union activities?

Under the Freedom of Information Laws, it has been revealed that Leeds spends more than £330,000 on these representatives.

Let them have the time off to do this, but don’t call them teachers and don’t let the councils pay them for union work.

Their unions should fund them out of members’ subscriptions and the councils should spend this money on care for the elderly or other services for the hard-pressed taxpayer.

Is this Britain’s worst airport?

From: Sean Crannigan, Managing Director, KnollYarns Ltd, Wells Road, Ilkley.

FOLLOWING readers’ comments (Yorkshire Post, June 28) and having recently experienced another grisly transit of this truly dreadful airport, I wonder if the management realises what a dire travel experience Leeds Bradford International Airport provides.

From being fleeced for dropping passengers off, via the interminable shuffle through security, to the scandalous length of queues at immigration, LBA ranks in my mind as the worst airport in the UK.

No opportunity is lost in attempting to chisel still more money from passengers with these parking charges, plastic bags, “FastTrack” security and being led through Duty Free to the third-world facilities beyond.

And the LBA management has the audacity to complain to the Government about Air Passenger Tax – priceless!

Go to Manchester’s Terminal 1 and see how to do it properly.