Don't kill cash - the campaign by GB News

[puntingking]

We have freedom of speech, unlike those countries, but we just don't allow hate speech.

Tommy Robinson does not spread hate speech. He is against an ideology, not people. I am going to leave that there with that comment before this will dive quickly into the forbidden religion topic or politics topic. 

as to the point of freedom of speech, I wonder if that will last 

[PilotMan]

for privacy, sex workers, sex workers customers, to budget, to teach kids how to add and use money. Only a few reasons... 

I'll give you sex workers and customers,  as I already said before. But, teaching kids to add up, you're stretching it there.

For people who need it to budget, I would say that's more about people educating themselves on money and the responsibility it requires.

Having physical cash or a card, doesn't make you richer or poorer, or disadvantaged, it's all about taking personal responsibility for your actions.

[PilotMan]

Tommy Robinson does not spread hate speech. He is against an ideology, not people. I am going to leave that there with that comment before this will dive quickly into the forbidden religion topic or politics topic. 

as to the point of freedom of speech, I wonder if that will last 

Are you sure you have the right Tommy Robinson, the one who preaches hate against a religion?

I think you'll find that is a crime in this country.

[David1970]

So in a nutshell : all payments should remain and no cashless services or cash only services.

I can imagine you a few thousand years ago, raging about some market stall that will not barter chickens, only taking cash.

[puntingking]

Are you sure you have the right Tommy Robinson, the one who preaches hate against a religion?

I think you'll find that is a crime in this country.

I can't say more than what I said cause as i said it would branch into a religious topic which is off limits according to the ukp rules.


Hate speech and freedom of speech: THE DIFFERENCE

saying "I believe people with the name bob should not live" - falls under freedom of speech.
Saying "I believe we should kill people with the name bob" -  falls under hate speech.

The word "bob" here is used as an example. Change the word "bob" with a religion, race or belef then you get my point.

[RedKettle]

they would accept all kinds of payment thus no one is left out (in my world) . I did not say only to accept my preference but accept every payment option.

if you don't agree with that: then you would be unknowingly discriminating against the elderly, the disabled, the not so tech savvy and also those people who choose not to have a bank account for whatever reason. 

So my window cleaner, a young woman, has to risk been violently robbed for cash she would rather not accept.

A small business has to accept the cost of getting a card machine when they are happy to just take cash?

What about a fund raising event with a refreshment stall, do they have to get a card machine.

The business that is miles away from a bank or PO has to accept cash even if they have no way of getting somewhere to pay it in?

[PilotMan]

saying "I believe people with the name bob should not live" - falls under freedom of speech.

You cannot be serious 

What exactly do you think that statement means?

It's saying the same thing in a round about way, you're just trying to justify it with a poor argument by way of semantics.

[Darren101]

So my window cleaner, a young woman, has to risk been violently robbed for cash she would rather not accept.

A small business has to accept the cost of getting a card machine when they are happy to just take cash?

What about a fund raising event with a refreshment stall, do they have to get a card machine.

The business that is miles away from a bank or PO has to accept cash even if they have no way of getting somewhere to pay it in?

Good points there.

BTW, a card machine can cost as little as £15.  (I bought one to play with)

[PilotMan]

BTW, a card machine can cost as little as £15.  (I bought one to play with)

Don't forget that on top of the purchase cost, most payment merchants charge a monthly fee as well as a % of the transaction.

[PumpDump]

Some people here have a real problem accepting that others have a different view than they do and will argue to the death.

[Darren101]

Don't forget that on top of the purchase cost, most payment merchants charge a monthly fee as well as a % of the transaction.

I know. Transaction fees, I think only 1.9%. Not high but is an extra expense.  However, no anual fees which is why I got it.  I  know ones from banks or ones providing the full EPOS setup will do. Some shops needlessly pay their bank annual fees when there are cheaper options. Just a case of shopping around like everything else. The cheaper ones rely on you having an Internet connection on your mobile being a possible hurdle.

I remember years ago card payments were done offline with imprinters and carbon paper. Then later they relied on analogue phone lines. Those setups all had annual fees.

Many of the basic ones like Sumup, PayPal here don't have annual fees unless you need extra features

[daviemac]

Tommy Robinson does not spread hate speech. He is against an ideology, not people. I am going to leave that there with that comment before this will dive quickly into the forbidden religion topic or politics topic. 

as to the point of freedom of speech, I wonder if that will last 

You've started a thread about that tosser, it's gone on for 3 pages, you are obsessed with him but he has nothing to do with the topic being discussed here.

Stop derailing threads by bringing his name up on every thread you post on, you might hero worship him but plenty of others see him for the shit stirring wanker of a criminal that he is.

[PilotMan]

Good points there.

BTW, a card machine can cost as little as £15.  (I bought one to play with)

Play with, in what sense?

[Munter84]

Don't forget that on top of the purchase cost, most payment merchants charge a monthly fee as well as a % of the transaction.

Sure, but banks also charge business accounts a percentage on cash deposits. There's really no such thing as free payment handling for a business (unless of course they break the bank terms, and possibly commit fraud too, by accepting cash only and laundering it through a personal account)

[petermisc]

Sure, but banks also charge business accounts a percentage on cash deposits. There's really no such thing as free payment handling for a business (unless of course they break the bank terms, and possibly commit fraud too, by accepting cash only and laundering it through a personal account)

If their business pays their wages in cash, surely they are then allowed to pay those wages into their personal account?  There will be many small businesses where the owner's wages make up a significant proportion of the outgoings, a window cleaner for example.

[PilotMan]

Sure, but banks also charge business accounts a percentage on cash deposits. There's really no such thing as free payment handling for a business (unless of course they break the bank terms, and possibly commit fraud too, by accepting cash only and laundering it through a personal account)

Yep, as I keep telling these idiots when they say you should buy things by paying cash to avoid the seller having to pay the card fees  - like they're doing the seller a favour, when in fact cash is a PITA to handle and involves risk, not just from being robbed, but most likely from staff pilfering it.

There's no free legit way to get money in your business bank account, there's a cost to everything, either at the front end or back end. Direct Debits, Cash, Debit Cards, BACS are all chargeable.

[PilotMan]

If their business pays their wages in cash, surely they are then allowed to pay those wages into their personal account?  There will be many small businesses where the owner's wages make up a significant proportion of the outgoings, a window cleaner for example.

That would fuck up your accounting and add more work for your accountant to reconcile different money from two accounts, plus you would be breaching your banks T&C's, operating a personal account as a business account.

I doubt any proper legitimate business would pay wages in cash?

[PumpDump]

Yep, as I keep telling these idiots when they say you should buy things by paying cash to avoid the seller having to pay the card fees  - like they're doing the seller a favour, when in fact cash is a PITA to handle and involves risk, not just from being robbed, but most likely from staff pilfering it.

There's no free legit way to get money in your business bank account, there's a cost to everything, either at the front end or back end. Direct Debits, Cash, Debit Cards, BACS are all chargeable.

My local Chinese restaurant give a 10% reduction for cash payments 

[petermisc]

That would fuck up your accounting and add more work for your accountant to reconcile different money from two accounts, plus you would be breaching your banks T&C's, operating a personal account as a business account.

I doubt any proper legitimate business would pay wages in cash?

Plenty of legitimate small businesses still pay cash in hand.  Hospitality and restaurant trades, for example.

Don't see why paying yourself cash in hand would fuck up your accounting, provided that you kept a proper record of the cash that you took out of the business to pay yourself (and you should surely be keeping proper business records in the first place).  And why would you be breaching your bank's T&C's if you used your personal account purely for your personal affairs?

[petermisc]

Just checked on the Lloyds Bank website, as an example, but unless you have legally separated your business and private affairs by setting up a limited company, you don't need a separate business account.  For example,  if you're a sole trader or freelancer, or contracting, or a gig worker. It may help you to have a business account, to separate your affairs for tax purposes, and I think some banks may set a limit on the transactions that they will allow on a private account.  Effectively, unless you have set up a limited company, you are a private individual not a business.  You are just as entitled to use your private account for receipt of money for the work that you do, and for paying for things that you need for you to do that work, as any one else.

[Bigwilts]

Good points there.

BTW, a card machine can cost as little as £15.  (I bought one to play with)
Basic app controlled handsets are the cheapest.
Stand-alone handsets are the next step up with an internal SIM, may have receipt printing etc

If you browse the providers websites and put some card machines into you basket you may be offered a discount or even free machine (depending on timing and how long you are willing to wait)

Don't forget that on top of the purchase cost, most payment merchants charge a monthly fee as well as a % of the transaction.

For traditional POS systems with functions to integrate into tills, stock control, barcode scanning etc there will be an initial cost and monthly fee, but the per transaction fee will be cheaper - these are best if you have the right level of turnover and/or want the extra features

I know. Transaction fees, I think only 1.9%. Not high but is an extra expense.  However, no anual fees which is why I got it.  I  know ones from banks or ones providing the full EPOS setup will do. Some shops needlessly pay their bank annual fees when there are cheaper options. Just a case of shopping around like everything else. The cheaper ones rely on you having an Internet connection on your mobile being a possible hurdle.

I remember years ago card payments were done offline with imprinters and carbon paper. Then later they relied on analogue phone lines. Those setups all had annual fees.

Many of the basic ones like Sumup, PayPal here don't have annual fees unless you need extra features

If you have a suitable phone you don’t even need the card reader handset.
I’ve been using my iPhone apps with a couple of basic handsets, but can now just use the app and take contactless into my phone

Other payment options are available through the apps, you can generate QR codes etc which the buyer scans to pay through their phone - depending on specifics some may be zero fee

Payment processing is big business and though charges remain there are plenty of options for businesses to suit their turnover

[David1970]

My local Chinese restaurant give a 10% reduction for cash payments 

Yet gain aiding tax dogging crooks

[PilotMan]

Plenty of legitimate small businesses still pay cash in hand.  Hospitality and restaurant trades, for example.

Don't see why paying yourself cash in hand would fuck up your accounting, provided that you kept a proper record of the cash that you took out of the business to pay yourself (and you should surely be keeping proper business records in the first place).  And why would you be breaching your bank's T&C's if you used your personal account purely for your personal affairs?

There's contradictions in what you're saying.

You're suggesting that you use a personal account to run your business transactions through, but then you say why would running a personal account PURELY for personal affairs be a breach of the T&C's?

Which is it?

If you start using your personal account and the transactions increase and it's obvious that you are running a business through it, the chances are your bank will put a stop to it, as this IS likely to be a breach of their T&C's (I'm happy for you to prove otherwise with an example T&C's).

You've obviously never run a business of any "size" that has a reasonable amount of transactions going through. Try telling any business owner that they can run their business using a personal account and then they have to identify what transactions coming in and going out are to be allocated to the business and identify those in and out that are purely personal, you'll be ridiculed.

Have you heard of a thing called bank account reconciliation? Try doing that when you are running all of your personal and business transactions through one account.

Go run a business first, then come back and tell us that you're doing it all in your personal account and it's a piece of cake.

[PilotMan]

@ Bigwilts

All excellent points.

There's loads of ways to take electronic payments, readers, phones, online.

We use Shopify for our online business, we can take payments over the phone without a reader. If we needed to do sales in person (which we don't) we could just do it the same way, we would just enter their card details on line. It even links bank transfers as well and does all the stock and payment reconciliations.

A good EPOS system will integrate with your other systems, adjust the stock, give you good business intel, reconcile with your bank automatically etc.

Cash can integrate to an EPOS as well, but then you have to go to the bank to pay it in (and pay the cash transaction fee).

[petermisc]

There's contradictions in what you're saying.

You're suggesting that you use a personal account to run your business transactions through, but then you say why would running a personal account PURELY for personal affairs be a breach of the T&C's?

Which is it?

If you start using your personal account and the transactions increase and it's obvious that you are running a business through it, the chances are your bank will put a stop to it, as this IS likely to be a breach of their T&C's (I'm happy for you to prove otherwise with an example T&C's).

No, what I was suggesting that you run your business on a purely cash basis.  You pay yourself in cash, which you pay into your personal bank account.

Having said that, if you are a sole trader, you don't need a business account - as stated on the Lloyds Bank website for example:
External Link/Members Only

[PumpDump]

Yet gain aiding tax dogging crooks

They are not very busy, struggling to survive. Concern about tax dodging should be aimed at the big multinationals who manipulate legal loopholes to avoid paying tax. Do you buy coffee from Starbucks? External Link/Members Only. Do you use Google? External Link/Members Only. How about Apple? External Link/Members Only

[PilotMan]

Just checked on the Lloyds Bank website, as an example, but unless you have legally separated your business and private affairs by setting up a limited company, you don't need a separate business account.  For example,  if you're a sole trader or freelancer, or contracting, or a gig worker. It may help you to have a business account, to separate your affairs for tax purposes, and I think some banks may set a limit on the transactions that they will allow on a private account.  Effectively, unless you have set up a limited company, you are a private individual not a business.  You are just as entitled to use your private account for receipt of money for the work that you do, and for paying for things that you need for you to do that work, as any one else.

Chatting shit unfortunately.

From Lloyds Banks Personal Account T&C's


Our accounts are for personal customers and must not be used by a business, club, charity or other organisation.
You must not hold money for someone else in your account. We may close your account if you use it in this way.

Hidden Image/Members Only

[PilotMan]

They are not very busy, struggling to survive. Concern about tax dodging should be aimed at the big multinationals who manipulate legal loopholes to avoid paying tax. Do you buy coffee from Starbucks? External Link/Members Only. Do you use Google? External Link/Members Only. How about Apple? External Link/Members Only

Tax evasion (what you're advocating and is illegal) and tax avoidance (what big corps do legally) are two different things.

What about a small business turning over £50k, or £100k, or £1M - they are struggling, as are lots of small, medium and large businesses. Struggling to pay suppliers, employee wages, rent etc. Would you advocate that they evade tax too?

Where do you draw the line?

There isn't a line, you're either a tax evader or not.

[PilotMan]

No, what I was suggesting that you run your business on a purely cash basis.  You pay yourself in cash, which you pay into your personal bank account.

Having said that, if you are a sole trader, you don't need a business account - as stated on the Lloyds Bank website for example:
External Link/Members Only

I must have a problem reading - where does it say "You don't need a business account"?


Here's what the page says where you linked it.



Hidden Image/Members Only

[petermisc]

Chatting shit unfortunately.

From Lloyds Banks Personal Account T&C's
Our accounts are for personal customers and must not be used by a business, club, charity or other organisation.
You must not hold money for someone else in your account. We may close your account if you use it in this way.

If you are a sole trader, not running a business organisation involving others, so holding the money for yourself, then you are not contravening any of those conditions.  Again, I refer you to Lloyds information on when you do need a business account.

[petermisc]

I must have a problem reading - where does it say "You don't need a business account"?
Here's what the page says where you linked it
Hidden Image/Members Only

It specifies when they require you to have a business account.  Agreed that the bit you have highlighted mentions sole traders, but only who wants to keep business and personal finances separate . 

[puntingking]

Even if your story was right which it isnt, I have no problem banning a cunt like Yaxley Lennon, no I dont mind and not at all scared people like him get banned.
Apply it to every fucking lunatic that wants to stir the shit and build tension and the world would be a much nicer place.

There is a place for protest, it all used to happen quite nicely, lately the world has gone to ratshit and its people like him who stir the pot for their own benefit thats made it that way.

You've started a thread about that tosser, it's gone on for 3 pages, you are obsessed with him but he has nothing to do with the topic being discussed here.

Stop derailing threads by bringing his name up on every thread you post on, you might hero worship him but plenty of others see him for the shit stirring wanker of a criminal that he is.

I did not bring the conversation up, this guy did in reply to a comment i made in early March.

[PilotMan]

It specifies when they require you to have a business account.  Agreed that the bit you have highlighted mentions sole traders, but only who wants to keep business and personal finances separate .

It says that they want you to open a business account if you're a Sole Trader - but it doesn't say ONLY, "who wants to keep business and personal finances separate". You added the word ONLY.

If you are a sole trader, not running a business organisation involving others, so holding the money for yourself, then you are not contravening any of those conditions.  Again, I refer you to Lloyds information on when you do need a business account.

It doesn't say that, that's your re-interpretation to fit your argument.

You seem to be reading things and adding things that aren't there again, stick to quoting what's actually there, not making things up to suit your argument.

This is what it says.

"Our accounts are for personal customers and must not be used by a business"

A sole trader is a business, and is a recognised entity as defined by HMRC. What is is a sole trader if it isn't a business?

[Munter84]

Even if it is better for the banks if cash goes, and by the way I do not accept that, there is no grand conspiracy by them to get rid of it.  The change is being led by us the public.

Yes and no, there's a definite (and intentional; by the banks) muddling of cause and effect.

Banks are rapidly closing physical branches (which I grant you isn't entirely related to less cash usage), which suits them just fine as building rents, utilities, and staff wages take a massive chunk of profits. The branch closures are often justified by the banks saying, well, 95% of our customer base primarily access their account using the app and online banking, footfall in branches is down, and so on. Which is a disingenuous argument when you note that this has been preceded by the banks themselves diverting their customers toward online banking, reducing counter services, cutting opening hours, and so on. The more branches you close, the fewer customers bank in-branch, which is then used as justification for further closures.

Similar arguments were made in the early days of self-service supermarket checkouts: "the majority of our customers use them!" - yeah, because you removed most of your tills and the two that are staffed have queues around the shop floor!

What I'm saying is that businesses both respond to, and create, customer behaviour. If it's in their interests to do so, why wouldn't they!

[daviemac]

I did not bring the conversation up, this guy did in reply to a comment i made in early March.

The comment you made in early March brought the subject up on this thread and you have continued to post about him since.

Take notice of the warning about derailing threads with posts about your hero or don't take notice, makes no difference to me.

[RedKettle]

Yes and no, there's a definite (and intentional; by the banks) muddling of cause and effect.

Banks are rapidly closing physical branches (which I grant you isn't entirely related to less cash usage), which suits them just fine as building rents, utilities, and staff wages take a massive chunk of profits. The branch closures are often justified by the banks saying, well, 95% of our customer base primarily access their account using the app and online banking, footfall in branches is down, and so on. Which is a disingenuous argument when you note that this has been preceded by the banks themselves diverting their customers toward online banking, reducing counter services, cutting opening hours, and so on. The more branches you close, the fewer customers bank in-branch, which is then used as justification for further closures.

Similar arguments were made in the early days of self-service supermarket checkouts: "the majority of our customers use them!" - yeah, because you removed most of your tills and the two that are staffed have queues around the shop floor!

What I'm saying is that businesses both respond to, and create, customer behaviour. If it's in their interests to do so, why wouldn't they!

We are discussing cash usage and whether banks are driving that change, not the number of bank branches. Clearly you can see the profit motive in reducing branch overheads and as you say the reduced use age is both customer driven, as we use technology, and bank encouraged.

Separate point to the use of cash where the banks are relatively indifferent, although probably on balance prefer not to be dealing with it.  Cash useage is falling because of changing habits and is not driven by the banks.  Other than on the margins as some businesses may find it harder to pay in cash if distant from a bank or PO plus do not like the charges.

[petermisc]

It says that they want you to open a business account if you're a Sole Trader - but it doesn't say ONLY, "who wants to keep business and personal finances separate". You added the word ONLY.

Except that it doesn't say that they want sole traders to open a business account.  It ONLY mentions sole traders who want to keep business and personal finances separate.  I use the word only because you keep implying that ALL sole traders need to open a business account, which is NOT the case.

It doesn't say that, that's your re-interpretation to fit your argument.
You seem to be reading things and adding things that aren't there again, stick to quoting what's actually there, not making things up to suit your argument.
This is what it says.
"Our accounts are for personal customers and must not be used by a business"

Except that isn't what it says, is it?  Once again, you have truncated the sentence to fit your argument.

What it actually says is that personal accounts are not for use by "business,,,, or other organisations.".  A sole trader is not an organisation.

I can say from personal experience that they are okay with sole traders using personal accounts, provided that you don't overdo it (in my case, it is only a couple of payins per month). Once I had explained where the money was coming from, they were okay with it.  I won't go so far as to say they were happy about it, as they did try hard to persuade me to open a business account, but I stood my ground.  I am not the only one in the same situation.  Provided that you are only making a limited number of business transactions, you should have no trouble.

[PilotMan]

Except that it doesn't say that they want sole traders to open a business account.  It ONLY mentions sole traders who want to keep business and personal finances separate.  I use the word only because you keep implying that ALL sole traders need to open a business account, which is NOT the case.
Except that isn't what it says, is it?  Once again, you have truncated the sentence to fit your argument.

What it actually says is that personal accounts are not for use by "business,,,, or other organisations.".  A sole trader is not an organisation.

I can say from personal experience that they are okay with sole traders using personal accounts, provided that you don't overdo it (in my case, it is only a couple of payins per month). Once I had explained where the money was coming from, they were okay with it.  I won't go so far as to say they were happy about it, as they did try hard to persuade me to open a business account, but I stood my ground.  I am not the only one in the same situation.  Provided that you are only making a limited number of business transactions, you should have no trouble.

I agree with you on the point of a sole trader who only has a handful of transactions, not really needing a business account. It's probably quite easy to see which transactions are which. But as you say, the bank will want you to open a business account.

Of course a sole trader isn't an "organisation", nobody is saying that. A sole trader is a business, the description from Lloyds covers it, you even quoted it (truncated it) above.

I don't know why you are trying to confuse the issue.

[PilotMan]

We are discussing cash usage and whether banks are driving that change, not the number of bank branches. Clearly you can see the profit motive in reducing branch overheads and as you say the reduced use age is both customer driven, as we use technology, and bank encouraged.

Separate point to the use of cash where the banks are relatively indifferent, although probably on balance prefer not to be dealing with it.  Cash useage is falling because of changing habits and is not driven by the banks.  Other than on the margins as some businesses may find it harder to pay in cash if distant from a bank or PO plus do not like the charges.

100% and it's not just about people not needing cash banking, there are other factors that the banks have to consider too - loss of third party rental income.

Almost all businesses are reducing their commercial floorspace, especially offices and a lot of retail spaces. I have seen this with many of my B2B customers, reducing their office space and or moving to smaller serviced offices and hot desking. This is causing a seismic shift on the High St. The traditional high street was retail premises with offices and occasionally flats above.

Banks had traditionally purchased the whole building on the high st, and if they didn't need the upper space themselves, rented it out to a business. Businesses no longer want these spaces, so compound this with the reduced demand for in person banking and you can see why banks are selling up their presence on the high street.

The Government introduced "permitted rights" that allows developers to convert offices to residential, those permitted rights are being lightened again to make it easier to do this. Commercial buildings are ridiculously cheap per SqFt when compared to residential. So the banks now have an opportunity to save money on branch operation costs AND sell their buildings to developers who will convert them to residential.

 

[Munter84]

We are discussing cash usage and whether banks are driving that change, not the number of bank branches. Clearly you can see the profit motive in reducing branch overheads and as you say the reduced use age is both customer driven, as we use technology, and bank encouraged.

Separate point to the use of cash where the banks are relatively indifferent, although probably on balance prefer not to be dealing with it.  Cash useage is falling because of changing habits and is not driven by the banks.  Other than on the margins as some businesses may find it harder to pay in cash if distant from a bank or PO plus do not like the charges.

True, true... I went off on a bit of a tangent, I believe there are plenty of parallels though. Also I think you may be underestimating how much of a hassle cash handling is for banks - the insurance for holding high six-figure sums in the safe, the time consuming nature of counter transactions and ATM loading, the losses associated with first and third party fraud/theft, paying third parties to securely transport cash in/out of the building, the list goes on. For business accounts some of these expenses can be recouped with cash handling fees. For personal accounts, it's straight loss.

In the news recently, restricting cash deposits seems to be becoming industry standard. Officially to crack down on money laundering and to discourage undeclared business use of personal accounts, but you can bet the banks aren't mourning the reduced cashflow!

[RedKettle]

True, true... I went off on a bit of a tangent, I believe there are plenty of parallels though. Also I think you may be underestimating how much of a hassle cash handling is for banks - the insurance for holding high six-figure sums in the safe, the time consuming nature of counter transactions and ATM loading, the losses associated with first and third party fraud/theft, paying third parties to securely transport cash in/out of the building, the list goes on. For business accounts some of these expenses can be recouped with cash handling fees. For personal accounts, it's straight loss.

In the news recently, restricting cash deposits seems to be becoming industry standard. Officially to crack down on money laundering and to discourage undeclared business use of personal accounts, but you can bet the banks aren't mourning the reduced cashflow!

It is all connected, just as the public are moving away from cash as it is inconvenient compared to other methods so businesses including banks would generally prefer not to be handling it. For reasons like those you mention.  Which is the point I was making, it is a natural process for good reasons and not some grand conspiracy by the banks waging some secret campaign to stop cash.

[JontyR]

Didn't BBC Breakfast time back in the day of punting comrade Frank Bough launch a campaign to save the pound note?

[petermisc]

You can still use £1 notes on the Isle of Man.

[daviemac]

You can still use £1 notes on the Isle of Man.

IOM is different it isn't part of the UK, it's is a self-governing British Crown Dependency with it's own parliament, government and currency, External Link/Members Only.

[radioman33]

Everyone must be hoarding loads of coins,I used  the supermarket change machine sometimes but they have increased there charges so don’t bother.
The hardest up in society need cash to budget monthly,20 on electric,20 on gas ,rent etc,some can’t handle tap and pay they just end up in more debt.

[puntingking]

IN THE NEWS THIS MORNING :

- Roughly 30 banks and building societies participate in the existing deal, paying in aggregate approximately £200m annually to facilitate customer access to the Post Office's 11,500 branches.
- More than 6,000 UK bank branches now gone in nine years of ‘disastrous’ closures
- Nationwide Building Society recommits to ‘stay everywhere’ until 2028


link one - External Link/Members Only
link two- External Link/Members Only
link three - External Link/Members Only

[RedKettle]

IN THE NEWS THIS MORNING :

- Roughly 30 banks and building societies participate in the existing deal, paying in aggregate approximately £200m annually to facilitate customer access to the Post Office's 11,500 branches.
- More than 6,000 UK bank branches now gone in nine years of ‘disastrous’ closures
- Nationwide Building Society recommits to ‘stay everywhere’ until 2028


link one - External Link/Members Only
link two- External Link/Members Only
link three - External Link/Members Only

Are you trying to make a point?  Nobody is disputing that banks are closing branches so are you pushing towards something else??

[PilotMan]

IN THE NEWS THIS MORNING :

- Roughly 30 banks and building societies participate in the existing deal, paying in aggregate approximately £200m annually to facilitate customer access to the Post Office's 11,500 branches.
- More than 6,000 UK bank branches now gone in nine years of ‘disastrous’ closures
- Nationwide Building Society recommits to ‘stay everywhere’ until 2028


link one - External Link/Members Only
link two- External Link/Members Only
link three - External Link/Members Only

It's fantastic news, there are some great property deals to be had at the moment.

Banks are just old relics of a bygone age and people just don't go to them anymore as the evidence shows. They need to be re-purposed in to places where people want to go.

The high street needs some new life injected in to it, old bank buildings are a great opportunity to achieve that.

[Darren101]

Play with, in what sense?

Sorry, missed this.  To test out how it works and see how money is paid out. I like gadgets and like to try out new tech. It is basically a gizmo that you pair with your phone via Bluetooth.

At one point, I was thinking of selling stuff offline as a side hustle although that did’n’t take off.