It seems the in thing from banks now is 'contactless payment'. This allows small transactions to be made without putting your payment card into a reader, and for the majority of transactions, without entering a PIN
On the surface this seems like a good thing, eliminating the fiddling around for small change and speeding up these transactions. However it appears that we have another case whereby neither side is prepared to invest in a full roll out.
To be of much use, not only do the majority of card suppliers need to offer it, but also we need a large infrastructure in the places where it could be useful.
I read recently that my bank would be implementing the technology from December 2011 on it's Visa cards. As my Visa debit card with them was due for renewal soon I thought I would ask whether my replacement card would include this technology.
Their response was - No, we are not implementing this in our debit cards at present and cannot say when and if we will do so in future. Seemingly it is being implemented in credit cards only. It will also be added to a very small number of smartphones, but again charged either to a credit card or phone account.
Most people like myself would not wish to run up all these transactions on a credit card, the debit card being the logical option as it replaces visits to the cash machine.
So from the point of cards, it seems we have a limited roll out.
Now look at the other side, the places where they can be used. So far this appears to be some coffee shops and I have seen them in Little Chef. I don't frequent coffee shops often and a typical LC bill would exceed the £15 limit on these transactions anyway.
How about implementing it on buses and trams, and small shops where people do make small transactions typically in cash? Unlikely to happen because the retailer is unlikely to see a benefit for the investment they will have to make in the readers.
So we are stuck. Card suppliers will be reluctant to make it widely available as there are few places to use it, retailers will be reluctant to invest as their are so few cards out there. Catch 22.
If it is so wonderful then why don't the promoters (who I assume to be the banks and card companies) back it properly and get a decent roll out?
I wonder if the fact that it's fraud implications haven't yet been fully tested is also worrying some. With a limit of £15 per transaction and a request for a PIN being likely to be made only every 5 or so transactions it would be possible for a stolen card to be used for say £60 before it is even noticed. Are the card issuers / banks prepared to fund this?
Monday, November 28, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The world is getting weirder by the day - I am beginning to wonder when listening to the news or reading the paper (any paper) whether everyday is now April the 1st.
Two recent news items only serve to help in this perception.
The first is a government minister who claims that despite continually rising energy prices, fed in part by taxes for renewable energy, our bills will be smaller in 2020. Who are they kidding?
This year alone most energy suppliers have had a series of price hikes, with the latest round being in the range of 10 to 20 percent. The minister supported the claim by suggesting our use of energy will fall more than enough to compensate for the increased unit costs.
Personally I cannot see how I can save 10 percent of my present energy use. I already have a well insulated home, switch electrical equipment off when not in use, have low energy light bulbs and even switch those off.
A wind turbine on the roof will be pointless and will likely never recoup it's purchase and installation costs, likewise the calculations I have done (and had from Solar Energy suppliers) indicate that that too will always run at a loss.
We need to see a return on our renewables tax in the form of cheaper, more effective renewable energy supplies otherwise there really is no point.
The second news item is even more unbelievable - the Isle of Wight is to become a self sufficient island and eco friendly.
This will be achieved by installing an army of wind turbines, acres of solar panels, geothermal energy plants. To supplement this there will be recycling on a massive scale, fleets of electric cars and doubtless houses will be insulated to the point where the inside space shrinks to nothing!
I have just looked at their brochure - it talks of plans for the period 2008 to 2010, so we should already have the EcoIsland we are promised, but somehow I doubt it.
If I were to visit the island again (having not been for over 15 years now) I suspect I would not notice any of the eco improvements - perhaps someone can prove me wrong. I believe that even the wind turbine factory has closed down, so any turbines would have to be manufactured elsewhere and imported with all the associated carbon footprint.
Two recent news items only serve to help in this perception.
The first is a government minister who claims that despite continually rising energy prices, fed in part by taxes for renewable energy, our bills will be smaller in 2020. Who are they kidding?
This year alone most energy suppliers have had a series of price hikes, with the latest round being in the range of 10 to 20 percent. The minister supported the claim by suggesting our use of energy will fall more than enough to compensate for the increased unit costs.
Personally I cannot see how I can save 10 percent of my present energy use. I already have a well insulated home, switch electrical equipment off when not in use, have low energy light bulbs and even switch those off.
A wind turbine on the roof will be pointless and will likely never recoup it's purchase and installation costs, likewise the calculations I have done (and had from Solar Energy suppliers) indicate that that too will always run at a loss.
We need to see a return on our renewables tax in the form of cheaper, more effective renewable energy supplies otherwise there really is no point.
The second news item is even more unbelievable - the Isle of Wight is to become a self sufficient island and eco friendly.
This will be achieved by installing an army of wind turbines, acres of solar panels, geothermal energy plants. To supplement this there will be recycling on a massive scale, fleets of electric cars and doubtless houses will be insulated to the point where the inside space shrinks to nothing!
I have just looked at their brochure - it talks of plans for the period 2008 to 2010, so we should already have the EcoIsland we are promised, but somehow I doubt it.
If I were to visit the island again (having not been for over 15 years now) I suspect I would not notice any of the eco improvements - perhaps someone can prove me wrong. I believe that even the wind turbine factory has closed down, so any turbines would have to be manufactured elsewhere and imported with all the associated carbon footprint.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
How not to run a restaurant
Recently we have had a new restaurant open just a few miles away.
This is part of the Chiquito chain and replaces an 'Old Orleans' restaurant that has been on the site for many years and although frequently quiet, served very good food, with good service.
The new Chiquito restaurant however has gone to the opposite extreme by being moderately busy but offering poor food and disappointing service.
On entering the restaurant we did have to wait a while before being seated, not because of a shortage of tables but because all the staff were running around, heads down and prodding away at their electronic order devices with a stylus.
We were duly shown to a table - standard fit I suppose, just too small to do the job! The waitress was pleasant but struggled with the electronic device and could have taken the order in a fraction of the time if only she was allowed to use a pad and pencil!
The first course arrived OK and tasted very good - no problem there. The trouble started when the main courses arrived. Given that we were a table of only two it should be within their capability to ensure both meals arrived together, but no they were slightly staggered in timing. I should have expected this because a nearby table had theirs delivered in three lots for a table of four!
I had ordered the fajitas which were excellent but this is where the small table got in the way. The tray with everything on is quite large and by the time you have your drinks on the table it becomes very crowded.
My wife ordered the chicken burger. This was where it all went downhill fast. The chicken in the burger was extremely dry and tough. We duly summoned the waitress, who had to call a manager because she was clearly not empowered to do anything.
A somewhat unkempt individual came to the table, and arranged for the chef to prepare a replacement, calling to the chef 'make sure you do it really nicely this time' - something that could be heard by the other customers.
The replacement burger was equally dry and tough despite this and once again the waitress was summoned, who then of course had to find the manager again. We decided that we had had enough and were going to leave. Graciously the manager agreed to not charge for the inedible food.
When the bill arrived, the way in which it was presented was confusing. So once again we asked the waitress, who summoned a manager (get the picture?).
This manager was far more smartly attired and professional in his manner and explained the confusion on the bill. He also did more to try and make up for the problems. However by now we had had enough, paid the bill and left.
This is clearly NOT how to run a restaurant. OK, it is new but I think the staff were poorly utilised, the electronic order machines took them away from being customer focused (and slowed them down) and at least one of the managers could learn about customer service. It would also help if the waitresses were empowered to address issues such as this themselves, OK not the cancellation from the bill but certainly organising a replacement meal.
I was extremely disappointed with the experience and given the price of the meals I am very reluctant to try the restaurant again.
The chain had a customer feedback survey on the Internet to which all customers are invited to respond. I reported my experience, fully expecting to be contacted further. As yet - nothing.
This is part of the Chiquito chain and replaces an 'Old Orleans' restaurant that has been on the site for many years and although frequently quiet, served very good food, with good service.
The new Chiquito restaurant however has gone to the opposite extreme by being moderately busy but offering poor food and disappointing service.
On entering the restaurant we did have to wait a while before being seated, not because of a shortage of tables but because all the staff were running around, heads down and prodding away at their electronic order devices with a stylus.
We were duly shown to a table - standard fit I suppose, just too small to do the job! The waitress was pleasant but struggled with the electronic device and could have taken the order in a fraction of the time if only she was allowed to use a pad and pencil!
The first course arrived OK and tasted very good - no problem there. The trouble started when the main courses arrived. Given that we were a table of only two it should be within their capability to ensure both meals arrived together, but no they were slightly staggered in timing. I should have expected this because a nearby table had theirs delivered in three lots for a table of four!
I had ordered the fajitas which were excellent but this is where the small table got in the way. The tray with everything on is quite large and by the time you have your drinks on the table it becomes very crowded.
My wife ordered the chicken burger. This was where it all went downhill fast. The chicken in the burger was extremely dry and tough. We duly summoned the waitress, who had to call a manager because she was clearly not empowered to do anything.
A somewhat unkempt individual came to the table, and arranged for the chef to prepare a replacement, calling to the chef 'make sure you do it really nicely this time' - something that could be heard by the other customers.
The replacement burger was equally dry and tough despite this and once again the waitress was summoned, who then of course had to find the manager again. We decided that we had had enough and were going to leave. Graciously the manager agreed to not charge for the inedible food.
When the bill arrived, the way in which it was presented was confusing. So once again we asked the waitress, who summoned a manager (get the picture?).
This manager was far more smartly attired and professional in his manner and explained the confusion on the bill. He also did more to try and make up for the problems. However by now we had had enough, paid the bill and left.
This is clearly NOT how to run a restaurant. OK, it is new but I think the staff were poorly utilised, the electronic order machines took them away from being customer focused (and slowed them down) and at least one of the managers could learn about customer service. It would also help if the waitresses were empowered to address issues such as this themselves, OK not the cancellation from the bill but certainly organising a replacement meal.
I was extremely disappointed with the experience and given the price of the meals I am very reluctant to try the restaurant again.
The chain had a customer feedback survey on the Internet to which all customers are invited to respond. I reported my experience, fully expecting to be contacted further. As yet - nothing.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Supermarket Price Matches
In these difficult economic times it is not surprising that the supermarkets are upping the game when competing against each other. The latest weapon appears to be price matching. So far I have seen two ways of doing this.
With Asda, after shopping you have to visit their website, enter some details from your receipt and if using their rules your shopping would have been cheaper in their competitors then they give you a voucher to use when you next shop with them.
So far so good and after an initial problem whereby they failed to make it clear that it only applied to grocery items it seems to be working. I even managed to get one of these vouchers after getting a basket of shopping in which they considered there were enough (minimum of eight) comparable items.
There is of course the issue of comparable items and these are quite often branded items, which you may not buy, especially if buying on a budget. The other issue of course is that you have to take action to get your voucher by visiting the website, printing off the voucher and then taking it and the original till receipt with you when wish to redeem it (looks like they are at least valid for a month though).
Sainsbury's have now taken up the idea, but they make it simpler in that they do the sums for you at the checkout. Here when you finish the process the till prints the voucher for you. I think they do however only offer this on branded goods and not on own brand so perhaps even less chance of meeting the criteria if you shop to a budget.
Why don't they just reduce their prices to match their competitors so there is no need for all this messing around? I can think of two simple reasons immediately and I am sure my readers can come up with many more.
The one the supermarkets will quote is the frequently changing prices will be difficult to manage in terms of shelf edge pricing tickets having to be regularly updated. This is a bit of a cop out because I have encountered issues in all the major supermarkets where the shelf edge price is at odds with the till price due to an error or oversight. This is also easy to address with technology. It has been some years now since I met electronic shelf edge pricing in a retail organisation I worked with which meant that the price displayed on the shelf was driven from the same data as the tills. This also simplifies the introduction of special offers etc.
The second, and the one that they won't tell you is that there will be two groups of customers who help fund this.
Customers whose basket of goods doesn't meet the criteria for the price match and therefore they pay the higher price, which earns revenue that would not be there if the price was kept in line, and customers who qualify for the price match and either do not check (in the case of Asda) or do not redeem their vouchers.
These two groups will help cover the costs of the scheme.
As a footnote, sometimes I shop in Asda when it would cost more in fuel to go to my usual store. Every time that I have met the criteria for the price guarantee it turns out that my usual store (Tesco) would have been cheaper! Therefore I qualify for the voucher (and use it).
This means I revisit the more expensive store to use my voucher - crafty marketing eh?
At least I am reassured that my choice of Tesco for my major shop is the right one for me.
Legal disclaimer: Choice of supermarket is personal and for my profile and in this area Tesco is the best choice. Other supermarkets are available.
With Asda, after shopping you have to visit their website, enter some details from your receipt and if using their rules your shopping would have been cheaper in their competitors then they give you a voucher to use when you next shop with them.
So far so good and after an initial problem whereby they failed to make it clear that it only applied to grocery items it seems to be working. I even managed to get one of these vouchers after getting a basket of shopping in which they considered there were enough (minimum of eight) comparable items.
There is of course the issue of comparable items and these are quite often branded items, which you may not buy, especially if buying on a budget. The other issue of course is that you have to take action to get your voucher by visiting the website, printing off the voucher and then taking it and the original till receipt with you when wish to redeem it (looks like they are at least valid for a month though).
Sainsbury's have now taken up the idea, but they make it simpler in that they do the sums for you at the checkout. Here when you finish the process the till prints the voucher for you. I think they do however only offer this on branded goods and not on own brand so perhaps even less chance of meeting the criteria if you shop to a budget.
Why don't they just reduce their prices to match their competitors so there is no need for all this messing around? I can think of two simple reasons immediately and I am sure my readers can come up with many more.
The one the supermarkets will quote is the frequently changing prices will be difficult to manage in terms of shelf edge pricing tickets having to be regularly updated. This is a bit of a cop out because I have encountered issues in all the major supermarkets where the shelf edge price is at odds with the till price due to an error or oversight. This is also easy to address with technology. It has been some years now since I met electronic shelf edge pricing in a retail organisation I worked with which meant that the price displayed on the shelf was driven from the same data as the tills. This also simplifies the introduction of special offers etc.
The second, and the one that they won't tell you is that there will be two groups of customers who help fund this.
Customers whose basket of goods doesn't meet the criteria for the price match and therefore they pay the higher price, which earns revenue that would not be there if the price was kept in line, and customers who qualify for the price match and either do not check (in the case of Asda) or do not redeem their vouchers.
These two groups will help cover the costs of the scheme.
As a footnote, sometimes I shop in Asda when it would cost more in fuel to go to my usual store. Every time that I have met the criteria for the price guarantee it turns out that my usual store (Tesco) would have been cheaper! Therefore I qualify for the voucher (and use it).
This means I revisit the more expensive store to use my voucher - crafty marketing eh?
At least I am reassured that my choice of Tesco for my major shop is the right one for me.
Legal disclaimer: Choice of supermarket is personal and for my profile and in this area Tesco is the best choice. Other supermarkets are available.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Strike Ballots
As we approach the 30th of November when a number of unions in the UK have planned to strike to make their point to the government about pensions I felt it was time to look at the ballots they hold.
A fine example of this is the Unison ballot.
As a percentage of those voting it seemed that there was a reasonable number of their members who supported the strike action propose by the union. I believe the figure was in the region of 78% of those who voted.
The problem however lies in the very low turnout for the ballot. If you take the number of yes votes as a percentage of the total balloted membership then the number voting for action falls to less than 23%.
We have on of two problems here (or perhaps both). Either members think that by not voting they will be counted as a no, or there is apathy about the result.
One way or another I think it needs to be changed to ensure that a strike cannot be called unless a majority of the total membership express a desire to strike. Whether this is achieved by making voting mandatory, or setting targets that ensure a higher percentage is required to call a strike if there is a lower turnout.
Neither are likely to be particularly well received, and certainly the latter would have been a problem in the recent ballot as the turnout was in the region of one third of those entitled to vote.
I do believe these people have the right to express their grievances, but it should be decided by a majority and not by a few hardened activists.
A fine example of this is the Unison ballot.
As a percentage of those voting it seemed that there was a reasonable number of their members who supported the strike action propose by the union. I believe the figure was in the region of 78% of those who voted.
The problem however lies in the very low turnout for the ballot. If you take the number of yes votes as a percentage of the total balloted membership then the number voting for action falls to less than 23%.
We have on of two problems here (or perhaps both). Either members think that by not voting they will be counted as a no, or there is apathy about the result.
One way or another I think it needs to be changed to ensure that a strike cannot be called unless a majority of the total membership express a desire to strike. Whether this is achieved by making voting mandatory, or setting targets that ensure a higher percentage is required to call a strike if there is a lower turnout.
Neither are likely to be particularly well received, and certainly the latter would have been a problem in the recent ballot as the turnout was in the region of one third of those entitled to vote.
I do believe these people have the right to express their grievances, but it should be decided by a majority and not by a few hardened activists.
Motorway Speed Limits
For some time now there have been proposals to increase the motorway speed limit in the UK to 80mph (or its kph equivalent when the EU interferes!)
Personally I think this is a good idea with one caveat - it needs to be enforced properly. Given that it appears many drivers already travel at this sort of speed, enforcing it positively will not mean much of an increase overall - though drivers who presently obey the 70 limit may well travel faster.
Opponents claim that speed kills and increasing the limit will increase road deaths. This is somewhat of a fallacy as it is inappropriate speed that kills. There are many instances where 70mph is far too fast on the motorway.
Only recently we had the horrific accident on the M5 near Taunton. I have no intention of second guessing the investigation into the cause but given the reported weather conditions at the time it would strike me that this is one of the cases where 70mph would be far too fast.
I had a very personal experience of this some years ago, travelling north on the M6 near Birmingham. As I was driving the fog became thicker and thicker to the point where I had slowed to about 20mph and was frightened by trucks overtaking with a very high relative speed.
With the conditions worsening I made the decision to leave the motorway at the next service station, contemplating spending the night there. I went for a coffee and a meal and after an hour or so reviewed the weather. There had been a significant improvement so I decided to refuel and continue my journey.
Whilst fuelling I talked to a driver who had just pulled off the motorway who told me of an accident that he had just passed. It would appear that on the southbound carriageway there had been a significant pile up which had then triggered further accidents both in the traffic slowing down behind it and also on the northbound carriageway as people slowed to 'rubber-neck' the southbound carriageway. Apparently drivers were still being caught out and he felt that more collisions could occur.
Drivers must adapt to the weather and road conditions. The speed limit is just that, a limit, not a target to be achieved at all times.
I have however witnessed an amusing incident whereby a driver whilst probably travelling within the legal limit was too fast for the road conditions / his ability. Traffic on the motorway had come to a crawl as a result of an accident and most drivers were filtering into lane one as indicated by the police Range Rover in lane two. One driver was however not paying attention and by the time he braked it was too late and in a cloud of tyre smoke he slid into the back of the police vehicle. Fortunately it seems that no one was injured as he had slowed a lot but I would have loved to have heard his explanation to the officer whose car he had hit. Given that it was fully lit with flashing blues, the red lights they use and a message board he could hardly deny having seen it.
Our sympathies should be with those affected by the horrendous accident on the M5, and others, but it should not be used as a reason not to increase the speed limit.
Personally I think this is a good idea with one caveat - it needs to be enforced properly. Given that it appears many drivers already travel at this sort of speed, enforcing it positively will not mean much of an increase overall - though drivers who presently obey the 70 limit may well travel faster.
Opponents claim that speed kills and increasing the limit will increase road deaths. This is somewhat of a fallacy as it is inappropriate speed that kills. There are many instances where 70mph is far too fast on the motorway.
Only recently we had the horrific accident on the M5 near Taunton. I have no intention of second guessing the investigation into the cause but given the reported weather conditions at the time it would strike me that this is one of the cases where 70mph would be far too fast.
I had a very personal experience of this some years ago, travelling north on the M6 near Birmingham. As I was driving the fog became thicker and thicker to the point where I had slowed to about 20mph and was frightened by trucks overtaking with a very high relative speed.
With the conditions worsening I made the decision to leave the motorway at the next service station, contemplating spending the night there. I went for a coffee and a meal and after an hour or so reviewed the weather. There had been a significant improvement so I decided to refuel and continue my journey.
Whilst fuelling I talked to a driver who had just pulled off the motorway who told me of an accident that he had just passed. It would appear that on the southbound carriageway there had been a significant pile up which had then triggered further accidents both in the traffic slowing down behind it and also on the northbound carriageway as people slowed to 'rubber-neck' the southbound carriageway. Apparently drivers were still being caught out and he felt that more collisions could occur.
Drivers must adapt to the weather and road conditions. The speed limit is just that, a limit, not a target to be achieved at all times.
I have however witnessed an amusing incident whereby a driver whilst probably travelling within the legal limit was too fast for the road conditions / his ability. Traffic on the motorway had come to a crawl as a result of an accident and most drivers were filtering into lane one as indicated by the police Range Rover in lane two. One driver was however not paying attention and by the time he braked it was too late and in a cloud of tyre smoke he slid into the back of the police vehicle. Fortunately it seems that no one was injured as he had slowed a lot but I would have loved to have heard his explanation to the officer whose car he had hit. Given that it was fully lit with flashing blues, the red lights they use and a message board he could hardly deny having seen it.
Our sympathies should be with those affected by the horrendous accident on the M5, and others, but it should not be used as a reason not to increase the speed limit.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Tobin Tax
The news today reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury backs the introduction of the so called Tobin Tax on financial transactions.
Apart from the fact that I strongly believe that church and state should be totally separate, has he considered the implications of the tax?
I suggest he has not fully thought it through.
For starters, a tax on trading will be payable by the church on all the transactions it carries out in this field. Those managing the church investment portfolio will perhaps then look to trade in countries which are not subject to the same taxation, which may well be where many of the financial institutions from the City of London decide to relocate also.
Secondly, the proceeds are supposed to go to helping fund social projects and investments. We have all seen from the lottery that many so called good causes are anything but.
Finally, what will be the cost of administering all this. I remember in the days of CB radio, the government freely admitted that the cost of issuing and tracking licenses far outweighed the revenue earned from them - hence nowadays CBs are licence free. Someone somewhere has to pay for another group of bean counters to administer this.
You've guessed it. The taxpayer will pay but no one will really benefit!
Apart from the fact that I strongly believe that church and state should be totally separate, has he considered the implications of the tax?
I suggest he has not fully thought it through.
For starters, a tax on trading will be payable by the church on all the transactions it carries out in this field. Those managing the church investment portfolio will perhaps then look to trade in countries which are not subject to the same taxation, which may well be where many of the financial institutions from the City of London decide to relocate also.
Secondly, the proceeds are supposed to go to helping fund social projects and investments. We have all seen from the lottery that many so called good causes are anything but.
Finally, what will be the cost of administering all this. I remember in the days of CB radio, the government freely admitted that the cost of issuing and tracking licenses far outweighed the revenue earned from them - hence nowadays CBs are licence free. Someone somewhere has to pay for another group of bean counters to administer this.
You've guessed it. The taxpayer will pay but no one will really benefit!
Archbishop of Canterbury - Capitalist?
In the news we read that the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken out about the so called invasion of St Paul's. Apparently he backs the protesters.
First I think it is necessary to correct the media, no invasion of the cathedral took place as the protesters were outside the building and were at the time given permission to be on the church land by the chancellor of the church.
Secondly the target was not the cathedral but the nearby London Stock Exchange.
My understanding is that the protest is about capitalism. So perhaps they do want to target the church. We have seen in recent days that the church is threatening to withdraw their investment from Internet service providers if they do not address the issue of porn.
I find it commendable that the church wishes to address porn but do think that they ought to address issues in the church before telling the rest of the world what to do.
What does strike me as odd is the fact that the church has so much money invested in this way. What we are seeing is just one element of a massive financial organisation. Investing in ISPs is a very roundabout way of supporting the needy (I think that was one of the stated aims of the church).
So is the church just a capitalist organisation just like the others the protesters are attacking? It seems to me that it is, after all it raises considerable income (including admission charges for cathedrals and profit from trading on Sunday (making people work on Sunday by definition), which it then invests in a variety of portfolios to make profit.
Yet when a church needs a new roof, or the bells need work we see the familiar thermometer on the side of the building and a plea for donations - this should be covered by existing funds.
When there is a disaster in this country, for example the flooding in Cumbria from which many are still recovering, how much input is there from the church? Not a lot that I have seen, though the community supports itself and often companies offer support to those affected.
I have long since wondered about the openness of the church and it's accounting. When I was younger and before I recovered from religion I remember two things.
The first was thinking how much money must be taken in the collection plate, or nowadays by direct debit from the faithful.
The second was at my wedding - my wife and I had to pay various fees, which I have no problem with, but in cash in envelopes. Some would say that that was to avoid banking charges but to be fair the charge for banking a cheque is trivial compared to the amounts involved. So the other possible explanation is that the moneys received were perhaps not accurately recorded and accounted for.
Before anyone gets on their soapbox, I am merely speculating here and not accusing any one of wrongdoing - but the method used leaves itself open to such speculation.
The accounts for the Church of England for 2010 make very interesting reading, both in terms of the amount of assets the church has but also for little nuggets like the fact that seventeen members of staff within the church have emoluments (good word) of between £60,000 and £310,000 with five of them getting over £100,000.
Clearly doing god's work pays quite well.
As a final humorous note, if the local church went on Dragon's Den to seek investment for roof repairs or the like, the dragons would ask what assets the parent organisation had. After reviewing this they would all declare themselves out on the grounds that the need should be addressed with existing funds.
First I think it is necessary to correct the media, no invasion of the cathedral took place as the protesters were outside the building and were at the time given permission to be on the church land by the chancellor of the church.
Secondly the target was not the cathedral but the nearby London Stock Exchange.
My understanding is that the protest is about capitalism. So perhaps they do want to target the church. We have seen in recent days that the church is threatening to withdraw their investment from Internet service providers if they do not address the issue of porn.
I find it commendable that the church wishes to address porn but do think that they ought to address issues in the church before telling the rest of the world what to do.
What does strike me as odd is the fact that the church has so much money invested in this way. What we are seeing is just one element of a massive financial organisation. Investing in ISPs is a very roundabout way of supporting the needy (I think that was one of the stated aims of the church).
So is the church just a capitalist organisation just like the others the protesters are attacking? It seems to me that it is, after all it raises considerable income (including admission charges for cathedrals and profit from trading on Sunday (making people work on Sunday by definition), which it then invests in a variety of portfolios to make profit.
Yet when a church needs a new roof, or the bells need work we see the familiar thermometer on the side of the building and a plea for donations - this should be covered by existing funds.
When there is a disaster in this country, for example the flooding in Cumbria from which many are still recovering, how much input is there from the church? Not a lot that I have seen, though the community supports itself and often companies offer support to those affected.
I have long since wondered about the openness of the church and it's accounting. When I was younger and before I recovered from religion I remember two things.
The first was thinking how much money must be taken in the collection plate, or nowadays by direct debit from the faithful.
The second was at my wedding - my wife and I had to pay various fees, which I have no problem with, but in cash in envelopes. Some would say that that was to avoid banking charges but to be fair the charge for banking a cheque is trivial compared to the amounts involved. So the other possible explanation is that the moneys received were perhaps not accurately recorded and accounted for.
Before anyone gets on their soapbox, I am merely speculating here and not accusing any one of wrongdoing - but the method used leaves itself open to such speculation.
The accounts for the Church of England for 2010 make very interesting reading, both in terms of the amount of assets the church has but also for little nuggets like the fact that seventeen members of staff within the church have emoluments (good word) of between £60,000 and £310,000 with five of them getting over £100,000.
Clearly doing god's work pays quite well.
As a final humorous note, if the local church went on Dragon's Den to seek investment for roof repairs or the like, the dragons would ask what assets the parent organisation had. After reviewing this they would all declare themselves out on the grounds that the need should be addressed with existing funds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)