In message <64phulF2cm3ooU1@mid.individual.net>, joe
writes
>Mike_B wrote:
>
>> > > I wouldn't bother. Both Alex and Joe have already been quite open
>> > > that their views are based on no evidence whatsoever other than
>> > > their own feelings. They appear to have no knowledge of whole
>> > > sectors of society that remain financially excluded and have
>> > > taken the position that their lack of knowledge of it means that
>> > > it doesn't exist. It's pointless letting views formed in that way
>> > > annoy you.
>> >
>> > Now, would you care to make a post which has some basis in reality,
>> > rather than your fantasy about what we think?
>> >
>>
>> We? Since joe accepted the accuracy of my assessment, and all you
>> have posted was that you found the figures hard to believe then I
>> think you may protest too much.
>
>Only speak for myself. I had only the few hundred people I know, and
>all of them have an account, so based on that, I would think the number
>was pretty low, despite realising a lot of people do try to resist
>having one despite being inconvenienced and despite inconveniencing
>businesses.
>I also imagine very few people are actually barred from having a basic
>account.
>To support my views now, after looking at a few sites, all bar one,
>contradict the view that 1 in 12 households do not have a bank account.
>Most say 6% of very low income have no account.
>No cites or evidence
>has been given to support the views that 1 in 12 of all households do
>not have an account.
Except the cites to the reports that do say that.
>I still wait of any evidence that anyone except fraudsters and
>bankrupts have been barred from having accounts.
>
>
Someone posted a link to a reports "Banking Benefits" which had numerous
examples of people's difficulties in opening accounts. The evidence is
there if you want to read it, but still wont help those who simply
refuse to believe it.
>
>
--
Mike_B |