A difference of Opinion

[Sir T Fireball]

Just heard on Sky news that they have underestimated the cost of these cards slightly. New figure is now nearer to £300 each!  :o

That's only for the Platinum Card to be allocated to you rich sods :P

[Belatucadrus]

Just heard on Sky news that they have underestimated the cost of these cards slightly. New figure is now nearer to £300 each!  :o

Seems that terrorism is no longer the rationale for the cards, it's now to protect us against identity theft.

You will pay £300 for this card that's in your own interest or else ! :uhm:

Does this not sound rather like prohibition era Chicago.

Buy de insurance or your house may catch fire,      in fact it probably will.

I'm not suggesting that the government will engage in identity theft, but to force people to pay for another tier of protection when the financial institutions are already addressing the problem.

Before the enforcers get ratty, I acknowledge I'm :offtopic: but by the time I read any complaints the edit button will have vanished.

[catgate]

During my time in industry I was able to observe "consultants" at work. It was always the same. I would go to a suppliers to do a quality audit and find some small thing that needed correction. "Oh, leave it to us, we will get in Mr ****. He's a good chap,...does a lot of work for us." Mr **** would come and find other things that "needed doing" and would then proceed to put right things which did not need doing. He would then slap in a bill which was way over the top for what was actually needed. As a result the company in question paid for 'solutions' to 'problems' that did not exist and we got a bit more added on to the price per pound of whatever. It's a cracking technique. Find a money making solution and then create the problem to fit it.

[andsome]

The Labour supporters are quiet about this latest stealth tax.

[Tankus]

I'm not suggesting that the government will engage in identity theft, but to force people to pay for another tier of protection when the financial institutions are already addressing the problem

himm ...chip and pin cards ....heres how it works for retailers ......

before ........

If a fraudulent purchase was made on a card ...the card owner would question the purchase on their statement with their bank ...... the bank would then get in touch with the retailer and ask for the pop (proof of purchase ) If the retailer could show that signature and the card stamp imprint , proving that the card was in the retailers presence during the purchase , and had obtained a streamline authorisation code if the sale was over the retail floor limit (which the retailer pays for the privilege for as a percentage of the sale ) The bank would take the hit on the loss , but disputes were getting more common over slip clarity , Failure to provide the pop intact and clear , the retailer would cop the loss .

Now ...........

Fraudulent sale and pin not used ....100% loss to the retailer regardless of production of the pop .

Therefore the retailer has to rent the pin equipment , update his epos system (electronic point of sale ) at a considerable cost (its noticeable that most tills now are PC derived ) ...And still pay the transaction percentage on top ....

A surprising amount of people have pin enabled cards , but still dont know what their pin is

Pay for our equipment , or you will pay for the fraudulent use of our cards ....