As a 60 something bloke I'm surprised how much I've sleep walked into the cashless society. I can easily see why the younger and future generations will never even consider cash.
Also it seems from this mornings 'wake up to money' article more and more people are becoming currency savvy. Footballers are looking into more profitable ways to receive their filthy lucre and other mere mortals are investing in currencies to protect future holidays and business trips, especially with the pounds volatility due to brexit - all achieved without so much as a rustle from a paper note of course.
Whilst the privacy issue is important and one that is growimg momentum in public opinion and in the press I actually don't think it is the major issue of society going completely cashless.
The benefits are very attractive, ease and convenience for the consumer removal of a huge amount of small scale tax avoidance. There will be practical issues like every babysitter or handyman needing a card machine to ensure payment on the spot.
The real issue in my view occurs when a country next has a financial crisis. Cash is a large part of the basis for our whole economic system. The system has adapted to less cash usage and rightly so. But to completely remove it risks the removal of something fundamental to the system.
Whilst times are good there won't be an issue, when a financial crisis occurs we would no longer have the ability to have our basic economic right to hold our wealth as cash as a show of distrust in a particular bank or the banking system. It may benefit the banks to prevent a run taking place but it isn't good for the individual or the economy.
Also - and some may see this as conspiracy theorist of me but hear me out. With the current financial state of so many western countries another financial crisis could well lead to extreme measures to raise cash and fund services. In Cyprus after the last crisis the government simply dipped into all bank accounts and took a %. Completely cashless leaves that open as an easy option when it should be last resort. Whilst I don't think that sort of action is likely in the UK anytime soon another financial crisis could well push counties like Portugal Ireland italy Greece Spain into desperate measures. The ECB or IMF are unlikely to approve another set of loans. Governments may be backed into a corner.
That’s partly why we have the FSCS to guarantee £85k per person per bank ie to give some comfort.
And thankfully the financial centres and politicians in this country are renowned for their decency, honesty and not changing rules to benefit them as and when. You really think that would be honoured if there was a really big financial crisis?
For the sake of clarity, the money used by the FSCS to pay compensation in the event of a bank failure or whatever is raised by a levy on the remaining financial institutions. The more institutions that go bust, the less likely it is that the Scheme would be able to raise funds to pay out. There is no (little?) chance that anyone would get compensation if there was a catastrophic systemic failure. There is even less chance that the Govt. would be in a position to bail the Scheme out.
As for the original article - what a pile of crap. Does the author REALLY think the HMRC has the time/capacity/computer power/staff/brains/inclination to waste its time on billions of non-cash transactions? Or for that matter the legal ability to do so? Bonkers. Real tin foil hat stuff.
Cash, well I carry a couple of hundred around but infrequently use any of it. The exceptions being in a pub (but even then rarely now that contactless payments work so well), for tips or buying a football programme every now and again.
Whilst the privacy issue is important and one that is growimg momentum in public opinion and in the press I actually don't think it is the major issue of society going completely cashless.
The benefits are very attractive, ease and convenience for the consumer removal of a huge amount of small scale tax avoidance. There will be practical issues like every babysitter or handyman needing a card machine to ensure payment on the spot.
The real issue in my view occurs when a country next has a financial crisis. Cash is a large part of the basis for our whole economic system. The system has adapted to less cash usage and rightly so. But to completely remove it risks the removal of something fundamental to the system.
Whilst times are good there won't be an issue, when a financial crisis occurs we would no longer have the ability to have our basic economic right to hold our wealth as cash as a show of distrust in a particular bank or the banking system. It may benefit the banks to prevent a run taking place but it isn't good for the individual or the economy.
Also - and some may see this as conspiracy theorist of me but hear me out. With the current financial state of so many western countries another financial crisis could well lead to extreme measures to raise cash and fund services. In Cyprus after the last crisis the government simply dipped into all bank accounts and took a %. Completely cashless leaves that open as an easy option when it should be last resort. Whilst I don't think that sort of action is likely in the UK anytime soon another financial crisis could well push counties like Portugal Ireland italy Greece Spain into desperate measures. The ECB or IMF are unlikely to approve another set of loans. Governments may be backed into a corner.
That’s partly why we have the FSCS to guarantee £85k per person per bank ie to give some comfort.
For the sake of clarity, the money used by the FSCS to pay compensation in the event of a bank failure or whatever is raised by a levy on the remaining financial institutions. The more institutions that go bust, the less likely it is that the Scheme would be able to raise funds to pay out. There is no (little?) chance that anyone would get compensation if there was a catastrophic systemic failure. There is even less chance that the Govt. would be in a position to bail the Scheme out.
As for the original article - what a pile of crap. Does the author REALLY think the HMRC has the time/capacity/computer power/staff/brains/inclination to waste its time on billions of non-cash transactions? Or for that matter the legal ability to do so? Bonkers. Real tin foil hat stuff.
.
They will always be able to pay Sterling compensation for Sterling deposits
And banks are the real watchdogs of your financial transactions, not HMRC or any giver agency.
Whilst the privacy issue is important and one that is growimg momentum in public opinion and in the press I actually don't think it is the major issue of society going completely cashless.
The benefits are very attractive, ease and convenience for the consumer removal of a huge amount of small scale tax avoidance. There will be practical issues like every babysitter or handyman needing a card machine to ensure payment on the spot.
The real issue in my view occurs when a country next has a financial crisis. Cash is a large part of the basis for our whole economic system. The system has adapted to less cash usage and rightly so. But to completely remove it risks the removal of something fundamental to the system.
Whilst times are good there won't be an issue, when a financial crisis occurs we would no longer have the ability to have our basic economic right to hold our wealth as cash as a show of distrust in a particular bank or the banking system. It may benefit the banks to prevent a run taking place but it isn't good for the individual or the economy.
Also - and some may see this as conspiracy theorist of me but hear me out. With the current financial state of so many western countries another financial crisis could well lead to extreme measures to raise cash and fund services. In Cyprus after the last crisis the government simply dipped into all bank accounts and took a %. Completely cashless leaves that open as an easy option when it should be last resort. Whilst I don't think that sort of action is likely in the UK anytime soon another financial crisis could well push counties like Portugal Ireland italy Greece Spain into desperate measures. The ECB or IMF are unlikely to approve another set of loans. Governments may be backed into a corner.
That’s partly why we have the FSCS to guarantee £85k per person per bank ie to give some comfort.
Until a crisis comes along and the government suspends the guarantee.
I bank with a bank with no branches (First Direct and moving to Monzo), and I have the modern version of a two pence pot using an app like Moneybox, which rounds up that change and saves it for me.
Whilst the privacy issue is important and one that is growimg momentum in public opinion and in the press I actually don't think it is the major issue of society going completely cashless.
The benefits are very attractive, ease and convenience for the consumer removal of a huge amount of small scale tax avoidance. There will be practical issues like every babysitter or handyman needing a card machine to ensure payment on the spot.
The real issue in my view occurs when a country next has a financial crisis. Cash is a large part of the basis for our whole economic system. The system has adapted to less cash usage and rightly so. But to completely remove it risks the removal of something fundamental to the system.
Whilst times are good there won't be an issue, when a financial crisis occurs we would no longer have the ability to have our basic economic right to hold our wealth as cash as a show of distrust in a particular bank or the banking system. It may benefit the banks to prevent a run taking place but it isn't good for the individual or the economy.
Also - and some may see this as conspiracy theorist of me but hear me out. With the current financial state of so many western countries another financial crisis could well lead to extreme measures to raise cash and fund services. In Cyprus after the last crisis the government simply dipped into all bank accounts and took a %. Completely cashless leaves that open as an easy option when it should be last resort. Whilst I don't think that sort of action is likely in the UK anytime soon another financial crisis could well push counties like Portugal Ireland italy Greece Spain into desperate measures. The ECB or IMF are unlikely to approve another set of loans. Governments may be backed into a corner.
That’s partly why we have the FSCS to guarantee £85k per person per bank ie to give some comfort.
For the sake of clarity, the money used by the FSCS to pay compensation in the event of a bank failure or whatever is raised by a levy on the remaining financial institutions. The more institutions that go bust, the less likely it is that the Scheme would be able to raise funds to pay out. There is no (little?) chance that anyone would get compensation if there was a catastrophic systemic failure. There is even less chance that the Govt. would be in a position to bail the Scheme out.
As for the original article - what a pile of crap. Does the author REALLY think the HMRC has the time/capacity/computer power/staff/brains/inclination to waste its time on billions of non-cash transactions? Or for that matter the legal ability to do so? Bonkers. Real tin foil hat stuff.
.
They will always be able to pay Sterling compensation for Sterling deposits
And banks are the real watchdogs of your financial transactions, not HMRC or any giver agency.
How? As at June UK retail deposits totalled £1,641,809,000,000. Who has got that sort of money? (BTW the scheme covers retail deposits in all currencies not just sterling.
The banks are not the real watchdogs. That's rubbish. Unless the MLR points are triggered, that don't give a stuff. (The returns to HMRC on interest earned are a whole different ball game - and tiny compared with total transactional data.)
With cash, you don't end up paying for someone else's drinks. In the pub the other week and a lad at work tapped his card, then found out he paid for a round that wasn't his. Spent about 15 mins trying to resolve the issue.
Never heard of Monzo but leaving Nat West for First Direct just after First Direct started was probably the best single financial decision I have ever made. Of course like others here I have a 'penny jar' which I would raid if I know I need money for the parking meter. The notion of parking by paying by phone is a step too far and totally defeats me. I always like to carry actual money, because of data breaches I am very wary of only using cards but contactless, which I call tippy tappy, saves a few seconds at the checkout.
I watched something recently about how the Federal Reserve in the States is being blamed in some quarters for devaluing money by removing the precious/valuable metal content that used to act as a guarantee on the value of the coin.
This thread has encouraged me to look into this whole cashless society idea.
I try to use cash as much as possible for everyday transactions and even when purchasing something that I could buy online. Might have something to do with preferring to interact with people and being able to polish up on the haggling technique for when I'm browsing a Turkish market for snide Rolex's (@bobmunro will know what I'm talking about ).
There's nothing snide about my Rolex's - I sincerely hope so anyway!
On topic! I always carry some cash, maybe £50 or so, but the vast majority of my purchases are by card, mainly Debit but Credit where I want Section 75 protection for larger purchases. It's just so much more convenient.
You are also covered for some debit (VISA but not others) card transactions via your bank reclaiming the money from the bank of the organisation that has gone bust.
Never heard of Monzo but leaving Nat West for First Direct just after First Direct started was probably the best single financial decision I have ever made. Of course like others here I have a 'penny jar' which I would raid if I know I need money for the parking meter. The notion of parking by paying by phone is a step too far and totally defeats me. I always like to carry actual money, because of data breaches I am very wary of only using cards but contactless, which I call tippy tappy, saves a few seconds at the checkout.
99% of what I do is via card. I find if I have cash I spend it. Although I do like to use cash on a night out to keep a track on what I spend i.e. only spend what I have on me. Pain in the arse when you given cash for birthday/Xmas and you have to go into town to go to a bank to put it in your account.
However, all you need is an IT system failure/hack and we're all buggered.
Whilst the privacy issue is important and one that is growimg momentum in public opinion and in the press I actually don't think it is the major issue of society going completely cashless.
The benefits are very attractive, ease and convenience for the consumer removal of a huge amount of small scale tax avoidance. There will be practical issues like every babysitter or handyman needing a card machine to ensure payment on the spot.
The real issue in my view occurs when a country next has a financial crisis. Cash is a large part of the basis for our whole economic system. The system has adapted to less cash usage and rightly so. But to completely remove it risks the removal of something fundamental to the system.
Whilst times are good there won't be an issue, when a financial crisis occurs we would no longer have the ability to have our basic economic right to hold our wealth as cash as a show of distrust in a particular bank or the banking system. It may benefit the banks to prevent a run taking place but it isn't good for the individual or the economy.
Also - and some may see this as conspiracy theorist of me but hear me out. With the current financial state of so many western countries another financial crisis could well lead to extreme measures to raise cash and fund services. In Cyprus after the last crisis the government simply dipped into all bank accounts and took a %. Completely cashless leaves that open as an easy option when it should be last resort. Whilst I don't think that sort of action is likely in the UK anytime soon another financial crisis could well push counties like Portugal Ireland italy Greece Spain into desperate measures. The ECB or IMF are unlikely to approve another set of loans. Governments may be backed into a corner.
That’s partly why we have the FSCS to guarantee £85k per person per bank ie to give some comfort.
For the sake of clarity, the money used by the FSCS to pay compensation in the event of a bank failure or whatever is raised by a levy on the remaining financial institutions. The more institutions that go bust, the less likely it is that the Scheme would be able to raise funds to pay out. There is no (little?) chance that anyone would get compensation if there was a catastrophic systemic failure. There is even less chance that the Govt. would be in a position to bail the Scheme out.
As for the original article - what a pile of crap. Does the author REALLY think the HMRC has the time/capacity/computer power/staff/brains/inclination to waste its time on billions of non-cash transactions? Or for that matter the legal ability to do so? Bonkers. Real tin foil hat stuff.
.
They will always be able to pay Sterling compensation for Sterling deposits
And banks are the real watchdogs of your financial transactions, not HMRC or any giver agency.
How? As at June UK retail deposits totalled £1,641,809,000,000. Who has got that sort of money? (BTW the scheme covers retail deposits in all currencies not just sterling.
The banks are not the real watchdogs. That's rubbish. Unless the MLR points are triggered, that don't give a stuff. (The returns to HMRC on interest earned are a whole different ball game - and tiny compared with total transactional data.)
QE and printing banknotes is how it’s done, how it’s been done;
Banks do give a stuff. The money laundering regs are just one aspect, there’s loads of other UK, EU and US laws banks have to be mindful of, covering among, other things, Fraud, bribery, tax evasion etc. Customers already hand over probably more info than they need to sometimes and, as necessary, search engines, deep dives fill in the rest and of course there’s tons of useful info helpfully posted on social networks. Run customer data and transactions through screening and algorithms and you are being monitored closely by banks you’ve never even considered would be looking at what you are doing because for you to make a payment from your account at A bank to somebody else’s account at B bank it actually goes through X, Y and Z banks as well. All those banks then decide whether to bring you and your transaction to the attention of the NCA, Action Fraud, HMRC and uncle Ron cobbly and all. For the period Oct 2015 to Mar 2017 some 634,113 reports were submitted to the National Crime Agency alone, the majority of those by banks and the numbers go up year by year.
These days it seems like buying a Fucking pint with cash is too much.
They instantly go for the ping machine and if you try to tap your note on it for a bit of a "laugh" - I have done - they look at you as if you've just shat all over the bar.
(to be fair, that happened a few hours afterwards)
Was in a pub on Saturday which didn't accept cash. Usually wouldn't have minded but it was the one time I had specifically brought cash out to spunk away.
I watched something recently about how the Federal Reserve in the States is being blamed in some quarters for devaluing money by removing the precious/valuable metal content that used to act as a guarantee on the value of the coin.
This thread has encouraged me to look into this whole cashless society idea.
I try to use cash as much as possible for everyday transactions and even when purchasing something that I could buy online. Might have something to do with preferring to interact with people and being able to polish up on the haggling technique for when I'm browsing a Turkish market for snide Rolex's (@bobmunro will know what I'm talking about ).
There's nothing snide about my Rolex's - I sincerely hope so anyway!
On topic! I always carry some cash, maybe £50 or so, but the vast majority of my purchases are by card, mainly Debit but Credit where I want Section 75 protection for larger purchases. It's just so much more convenient.
You are also covered for some debit (VISA but not others) card transactions via your bank reclaiming the money from the bank of the organisation that has gone bust.
Yes I know but if the organisation you transacted with has gone bust it is unlikely they will have much 'cash at bank' and their bank is not 'jointly and severally liable' as your bank is when using one of their credit cards under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.
I speak from painful experience, having got stung using a debit card to pay a large deposit on a new kitchen. I discovered the company had gone under 3 days before they were due to deliver.
Never heard of Monzo but leaving Nat West for First Direct just after First Direct started was probably the best single financial decision I have ever made. Of course like others here I have a 'penny jar' which I would raid if I know I need money for the parking meter. The notion of parking by paying by phone is a step too far and totally defeats me. I always like to carry actual money, because of data breaches I am very wary of only using cards but contactless, which I call tippy tappy, saves a few seconds at the checkout.
When did youlast visit China? Your next visit is gonna blow your mind, even beggars accept phone payments these days!
Not one word is true? They don't use algorithms to predict future behaviour? Your card does not leave a data trail? They don't monitor spending - see LTGTR's post above?
The conclusion might be nonsense, but the statements are true.
Whilst the privacy issue is important and one that is growimg momentum in public opinion and in the press I actually don't think it is the major issue of society going completely cashless.
The benefits are very attractive, ease and convenience for the consumer removal of a huge amount of small scale tax avoidance. There will be practical issues like every babysitter or handyman needing a card machine to ensure payment on the spot.
The real issue in my view occurs when a country next has a financial crisis. Cash is a large part of the basis for our whole economic system. The system has adapted to less cash usage and rightly so. But to completely remove it risks the removal of something fundamental to the system.
Whilst times are good there won't be an issue, when a financial crisis occurs we would no longer have the ability to have our basic economic right to hold our wealth as cash as a show of distrust in a particular bank or the banking system. It may benefit the banks to prevent a run taking place but it isn't good for the individual or the economy.
Also - and some may see this as conspiracy theorist of me but hear me out. With the current financial state of so many western countries another financial crisis could well lead to extreme measures to raise cash and fund services. In Cyprus after the last crisis the government simply dipped into all bank accounts and took a %. Completely cashless leaves that open as an easy option when it should be last resort. Whilst I don't think that sort of action is likely in the UK anytime soon another financial crisis could well push counties like Portugal Ireland italy Greece Spain into desperate measures. The ECB or IMF are unlikely to approve another set of loans. Governments may be backed into a corner.
That’s partly why we have the FSCS to guarantee £85k per person per bank ie to give some comfort.
For the sake of clarity, the money used by the FSCS to pay compensation in the event of a bank failure or whatever is raised by a levy on the remaining financial institutions. The more institutions that go bust, the less likely it is that the Scheme would be able to raise funds to pay out. There is no (little?) chance that anyone would get compensation if there was a catastrophic systemic failure. There is even less chance that the Govt. would be in a position to bail the Scheme out.
As for the original article - what a pile of crap. Does the author REALLY think the HMRC has the time/capacity/computer power/staff/brains/inclination to waste its time on billions of non-cash transactions? Or for that matter the legal ability to do so? Bonkers. Real tin foil hat stuff.
.
They will always be able to pay Sterling compensation for Sterling deposits
And banks are the real watchdogs of your financial transactions, not HMRC or any giver agency.
How? As at June UK retail deposits totalled £1,641,809,000,000. Who has got that sort of money? (BTW the scheme covers retail deposits in all currencies not just sterling.
The banks are not the real watchdogs. That's rubbish. Unless the MLR points are triggered, that don't give a stuff. (The returns to HMRC on interest earned are a whole different ball game - and tiny compared with total transactional data.)
QE and printing banknotes is how it’s done, how it’s been done;
Banks do give a stuff. The money laundering regs are just one aspect, there’s loads of other UK, EU and US laws banks have to be mindful of, covering among, other things, Fraud, bribery, tax evasion etc. Customers already hand over probably more info than they need to sometimes and, as necessary, search engines, deep dives fill in the rest and of course there’s tons of useful info helpfully posted on social networks. Run customer data and transactions through screening and algorithms and you are being monitored closely by banks you’ve never even considered would be looking at what you are doing because for you to make a payment from your account at A bank to somebody else’s account at B bank it actually goes through X, Y and Z banks as well. All those banks then decide whether to bring you and your transaction to the attention of the NCA, Action Fraud, HMRC and uncle Ron cobbly and all. For the period Oct 2015 to Mar 2017 some 634,113 reports were submitted to the National Crime Agency alone, the majority of those by banks and the numbers go up year by year.
You don't understand how QE works. The clue is in the full name - Quantitative Easing Asset Purchase Programme. It's the exchange of cash for other less liquid assets, eg, corporate bonds. It's not merely printing money. If the banks didn't have the assets because they were bust there will be no QE.
The other stuff is all a complete irrelevance to almost all of us for at least 99.996% of our transactions. The SAR reports to the NCA are just that - suspicious activity reports. Again the clue is in the name. If the banks inundated the NCA with useless bollocks they'd soon get a slap. As it is, the NCA carry out a triage on reports - most go straight in the electronic version of the paper bin. The figure you cite is miniscule for an 18-month period. There are circa 15bn card transactions alone in the UK per year. Your figure is around 0.004% of card transactions alone per year. Add in all the other types of transaction and, well, you get the picture.
So, by way of example, I recently bought a car and paid for it on debit card. It's a transaction in the multiple £10ks because it's an expensive car. I pre-notified my bank. There will be no report because they know the source of funds and see the counterparty is a bone fide car dealer. There would be no grounds for a SAR under any of the legislation.
I’ve been with Monzo for a couple years now and use it as my day to day account. My missus is with them too so splitting the cost of things is so easy.
Not one word is true? They don't use algorithms to predict future behaviour? Your card does not leave a data trail? They don't monitor spending - see LTGTR's post above?
The conclusion might be nonsense, but the statements are true.
Usually me being pedantic, yes some of the facts used are true but the aim of the article is to incite fear and paranoia and to look back on the good old days with rose tinted spectacles.
Let me get this right? Looking at the Monza thing it seems that you have to own an iphone and do everything via some things called apps. I imagine the Apple iPhone is used like an oyster card for all of your financials, and Monza has a website system that you have to learn before you use it. A daunting prospect for the tech clumsy like me. What about if you lose or misplace your mobile phone? Wouldn't you then be fecked every which way? As a side thing, Twitter and Facebook are private businesses, yet the world seems to assume we all buy from those businesses and structures so much on that assumption.
Let me get this right? Looking at the Monza thing it seems that you have to own an iphone and do everything via some things called apps. I imagine the Apple iPhone is used like an oyster card for all of your financials, and Monza has a website system that you have to learn before you use it. A daunting prospect for the tech clumsy like me. What about if you lose or misplace your mobile phone? Wouldn't you then be fecked every which way? As a side thing, Twitter and Facebook are private businesses, yet the world seems to assume we all buy from those businesses and structures so much on that assumption.
Not one word is true? They don't use algorithms to predict future behaviour? Your card does not leave a data trail? They don't monitor spending - see LTGTR's post above?
The conclusion might be nonsense, but the statements are true.
Usually me being pedantic, yes some of the facts used are true but the aim of the article is to incite fear and paranoia and to look back on the good old days with rose tinted spectacles.
Better for you?
Yes - a bit more balance and a bit less of the hysteria you accuse the article of containing suits me far better.
Let me get this right? Looking at the Monza thing it seems that you have to own an iphone and do everything via some things called apps. I imagine the Apple iPhone is used like an oyster card for all of your financials, and Monza has a website system that you have to learn before you use it. A daunting prospect for the tech clumsy like me. What about if you lose or misplace your mobile phone? Wouldn't you then be fecked every which way? As a side thing, Twitter and Facebook are private businesses, yet the world seems to assume we all buy from those businesses and structures so much on that assumption.
Comments
Also it seems from this mornings 'wake up to money' article more and more people are becoming currency savvy. Footballers are looking into more profitable ways to receive their filthy lucre and other mere mortals are investing in currencies to protect future holidays and business trips, especially with the pounds volatility due to brexit - all achieved without so much as a rustle from a paper note of course.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/banknote
As for the original article - what a pile of crap. Does the author REALLY think the HMRC has the time/capacity/computer power/staff/brains/inclination to waste its time on billions of non-cash transactions? Or for that matter the legal ability to do so? Bonkers. Real tin foil hat stuff.
Cash, well I carry a couple of hundred around but infrequently use any of it. The exceptions being in a pub (but even then rarely now that contactless payments work so well), for tips or buying a football programme every now and again.
And banks are the real watchdogs of your financial transactions, not HMRC or any giver agency.
Rarely have cash on me
The banks are not the real watchdogs. That's rubbish. Unless the MLR points are triggered, that don't give a stuff. (The returns to HMRC on interest earned are a whole different ball game - and tiny compared with total transactional data.)
Of course like others here I have a 'penny jar' which I would raid if I know I need money for the parking meter. The notion of parking by paying by phone is a step too far and totally defeats me. I always like to carry actual money, because of data breaches I am very wary of only using cards but contactless, which I call tippy tappy, saves a few seconds at the checkout.
https://monzo.com/
However, all you need is an IT system failure/hack and we're all buggered.
Banks do give a stuff. The money laundering regs are just one aspect, there’s loads of other UK, EU and US laws banks have to be mindful of, covering among, other things, Fraud, bribery, tax evasion etc. Customers already hand over probably more info than they need to sometimes and, as necessary, search engines, deep dives fill in the rest and of course there’s tons of useful info helpfully posted on social networks. Run customer data and transactions through screening and algorithms and you are being monitored closely by banks you’ve never even considered would be looking at what you are doing because for you to make a payment from your account at A bank to somebody else’s account at B bank it actually goes through X, Y and Z banks as well. All those banks then decide whether to bring you and your transaction to the attention of the NCA, Action Fraud, HMRC and uncle Ron cobbly and all. For the period Oct 2015 to Mar 2017 some 634,113 reports were submitted to the National Crime Agency alone, the majority of those by banks and the numbers go up year by year.
I speak from painful experience, having got stung using a debit card to pay a large deposit on a new kitchen. I discovered the company had gone under 3 days before they were due to deliver.
The conclusion might be nonsense, but the statements are true.
The other stuff is all a complete irrelevance to almost all of us for at least 99.996% of our transactions. The SAR reports to the NCA are just that - suspicious activity reports. Again the clue is in the name. If the banks inundated the NCA with useless bollocks they'd soon get a slap. As it is, the NCA carry out a triage on reports - most go straight in the electronic version of the paper bin. The figure you cite is miniscule for an 18-month period. There are circa 15bn card transactions alone in the UK per year. Your figure is around 0.004% of card transactions alone per year. Add in all the other types of transaction and, well, you get the picture.
So, by way of example, I recently bought a car and paid for it on debit card. It's a transaction in the multiple £10ks because it's an expensive car. I pre-notified my bank. There will be no report because they know the source of funds and see the counterparty is a bone fide car dealer. There would be no grounds for a SAR under any of the legislation.
Better for you?
Looking at the Monza thing it seems that you have to own an iphone and do everything via some things called apps.
I imagine the Apple iPhone is used like an oyster card for all of your financials, and Monza has a website system that you have to learn before you use it. A daunting prospect for the tech clumsy like me.
What about if you lose or misplace your mobile phone? Wouldn't you then be fecked every which way?
As a side thing, Twitter and Facebook are private businesses, yet the world seems to assume we all buy from those businesses and structures so much on that assumption.
A nice bright pink one.