Fingerprint recognition in schools

[Nicholas Bohm]

Ian Batten wrote:
> 
> On 05 Oct 08, at 1046, David Hansen wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Oct 2008 at 9:18, Ian Batten wrote:
>>
>>> parents whose
>>> children are already in the school are heartily sick of the fact that
>>> payment has to be made by cheque,
>>
>> Why are they?
> 
> 
> Because when daughter shouts ``I need some money for lunch'' as we're
> all heading out of the house in the morning (for extra points on a day
> when other daughter needs to be taken early), it means ferreting around
> for a cheque book, writing a cheque, and then her going to the other end
> of the school when she gets there in order to pay it in.
> 
> Alternatively, I can just stick some money in online with a debit card
> when I get to work, making things much easier for everyone.
> 
> Cheques are over.  It may be that for a tiny minority they still have an
> appeal --- although I'd have thought pieces of paper with name, sort
> code and account number on the front, a good example of your signature,
> and either your address or your debit card number written on the back
> would be regarded as a bit worrying --- but for most of the population
> they're an archaic nuisance.  Remember: one thing M&S did to restore
> their high-street sales was to stop insisting that cash and cheques were
> the only means of payment they'd accept.
> 
> About the only people we write cheques to are schools (trips, lunches,
> peripatetics, etc) and in every case doing an on-line transfer would be
> easier and cheaper for all parties concerned. And it always comes in
> clusters one larger than the new cheque book ordering threshold, too; I
> think last week's highspot was five cheques in a morning.
> 
> Extra idiocy points to the woman in Waitrose last week, loudly telling
> everything that as cheques were legal tender she intended to keep paying
> with them and would call the police if shops refused to accept them.  
> It's quite a trifecta to (a) not understand what legal tender means (b)
> not know that cheques aren't, and never were, legal tender and (c) not
> understand how legal tender would be enforced.

I suspect (a) and (c) are very widespread, though expecting a cheque to
be legal tender is fairly startling.

(Just for the curious, if in your capacity as a debtor you present your
creditor by way of payment with something that is "legal tender" for the
amount in question, and she declines to accept it, then when faced with
a claim for the sum owed you have a defence of tender.)

But the real point is that although cheques are a nuisance to pay with
and to receive, as a form of payment they have the advantage that a
forgery is almost always a nullity (s24 Bills of Exchange Act 1882:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a signature on a bill is
forged or placed thereon without the authority of the person whose
signature it purports to be, the forged or unauthorised signature is
wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the bill or to give a
discharge therefor or to enforce payment thereof against any party
thereto can be acquired through or under that signature, unless the
party against whom it is sought to retain or enforce payment of the bill
is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.

Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the ratification of
an unauthorised signature not amounting to a forgery.)

So cheque forgery is a form of identity fraud which almost always
lumbers the bank, not the customer.  But with chip and pin, and online
payments, the banks often get away with the line that it was your
number/password, so it must have been you or you must have been careless
in breach of the banking code, and you rather than the bank get lumbered.

Nicholas
-- 
Salkyns, Great Canfield, Takeley,
Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone  01279 870285    (+44 1279 870285)
Mobile  07715 419728    (+44 7715 419728)

PGP public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF