To think the HSBC homeless banking scheme is dangerous?

[OneRuleForThem]

I have just seen an advert for this. obviously I don’t think it’s a bad idea for homeless people. But do you also think that for everyone else overall this is a poorly thought out idea and will most likely attract nefarious types, who will take advantage of not needing to provide an address to store cash (for example - something like drug dealing)??

The OP clearly holds a lot of hate for homeless people flowers

@OneRuleForThem if you had bothered to read the article..yes I know you mentioned before you don't read..you would understand that that the offences committed in 2012 to 2016 were noticed and reported by bank staff through the correct procedure. NatWest failed to act on their own ppolicy.Hence the fine.

Had you read the report you would also know it was a jewellers not a homeless person and they deposited £365 million in 4 years.
Should a homeless no fixed abode person deposit £365 million in 4 years I am sure it will be noticed.

I am so pleased that HSBC are doing this. Hopefully it will help break the cycle for a lot of people.

@NeedsCharging
The OP clearly holds a lot of hate for homeless people flowers

No I clearly don’t? I don’t understand why you keep saying this.

No I clearly don’t? I don’t understand why you keep saying this.

Your OP and subsequent ones appear to want to promote reasons why homeless people shouldn't have bank accounts or access to support or IDS.

You have taken nothing from this thread which goes to great lengths to prove why its a good thing. Instead you only seem to comment when you think your original point is proven...which it wasn't but you didn't bother to read the article..again.

I think it’s a really good thing HSBC are doing. Lack of access to banking is a real barrier for homeless people in an increasingly cashless society.

As pp have said, this will have been piloted, scenarios will have been worked through. Getting a bank account without ID is incredibly hard. I know, because I had to do it for my foster son. We had to get him a passport too, which was also incredibly hard because he had never had one, and his mother (severe mental illness) had no ID documents of any kind.

But.

You can get a copy of anyone's birth, death or marriage certificate off the internet. You just have to know their details. I had to get foster son's BC, his mum's BC and his mum's marriage cert for the passport. I could just order them without having to ID myself - these are public records. So homeless charities are absolutely able to get this documentation.

There are also provisions for people who don't have bills etc. in their own name. We didn't have to invoke these, but they exist. So the systems are there.

I'm glad another option is opening to the homeless. It's impossible to prevent criminals from committing crimes, so the argument of 'but criminals might use it so let's not do it at all' just doesn't fly with me.

[quote OneRuleForThem]@NeedsCharging
The OP clearly holds a lot of hate for homeless people flowers

No I clearly don’t? I don’t understand why you keep saying this.[/quote]
Because you had a couple of concerns that have been addressed multiple times by multiple posters as well as having a pretty resounding YABU vote yet you keep persisting saying the same (incorrect) things.

I don't think you have a problem with homelessness. I do think you prioritise any risk to anyone else ever as more important than those who are homeless having a beneficial option.

I spent a very long time working with addicts and the homeless. I met attitudes like this a lot. Overtly people would claim to be supportive. Often challenging minor comments in a way to show they were informed or supportive (as you have done before on this thread...you aren't wrong 20 pounds is a lot of money to someone homeless but it's a surface issue in comparison with the main issue being discussed which is wider access to banking)

What this translates to is you are more concerned with a possible "breach" than with the positive benefits for far more homeless people. You think a small group taking advantage of a very well off bank with insurance should be prevented at the expense of those needing the service.

The reason people are annoyed is you are far more concerned with the rules and perceived crime than you are quite helping those who need it. It smacks of faux concern. You want to help , but only as long as it doesn't break your world in anyway, it doesn't risk anything. You would far rather anyone suffer than a single penny be "cheated".

You choose money over people. That's why people are enjoyed with your attitude.

@OneRuleForThem, the homeless charities work with the bank(s) to help the homeless person or those at-risk-of-homelessness to access and pay for the ID to which they are entitled, and to satisfy the bank within the scope of the bank's legal obligations that they are who they say they are.

Within this framework, it's vanishingly unlikely that the sceme will be cuckooed or misused by criminals.

I hope this allays your fears.

@NeedsCharging
Your OP and subsequent ones appear to want to promote reasons why homeless people shouldn't have bank accounts or access to support or IDS.

I didn’t say any of those things.

I said in my OP that I didn’t think it was a bad idea for homeless people to have this scheme

I did not say homeless people shouldn’t have access to support.

I did not say homeless people shouldn’t have access to ID’s. I questioned how a homeless person was to be expected to go through a successful in-person ID check at the bank when they are more likely to not be able to instantly produce any form of ID compared to a non-homeless person - that was in response to someone elses comment.

I don’t mind people disagreeing but not when they just start making things up.

scheme not sceme

oh dear

[quote OneRuleForThem]@NeedsCharging
Your OP and subsequent ones appear to want to promote reasons why homeless people shouldn't have bank accounts or access to support or IDS.

I didn’t say any of those things.

I said in my OP that I didn’t think it was a bad idea for homeless people to have this scheme

I did not say homeless people shouldn’t have access to support.

I did not say homeless people shouldn’t have access to ID’s. I questioned how a homeless person was to be expected to go through a successful in-person ID check at the bank when they are more likely to not be able to instantly produce any form of ID compared to a non-homeless person - that was in response to someone elses comment.

I don’t mind people disagreeing but not when they just start making things up.[/quote]
Are you taking anything on board though now those "genuine" concerns have been answered?

@Nietzschethehiker

I don't think you have a problem with homelessness. I do think you prioritise any risk to anyone else ever as more important than those who are homeless having a beneficial option.

I spent a very long time working with addicts and the homeless. I met attitudes like this a lot. Overtly people would claim to be supportive. Often challenging minor comments in a way to show they were informed or supportive (as you have done before on this thread...you aren't wrong 20 pounds is a lot of money to someone homeless but it's a surface issue in comparison with the main issue being discussed which is wider access to banking)

What this translates to is you are more concerned with a possible "breach" than with the positive benefits for far more homeless people. You think a small group taking advantage of a very well off bank with insurance should be prevented at the expense of those needing the service.

The reason people are annoyed is you are far more concerned with the rules and perceived crime than you are quite helping those who need it. It smacks of faux concern. You want to help , but only as long as it doesn't break your world in anyway, it doesn't risk anything. You would far rather anyone suffer than a single penny be "cheated".

You choose money over people. That's why people are enjoyed with your attitude.

Mic drop.

Oh come on OP.

You saw a 30 second advert and instead of thinking "this is a great scheme for the most vulnerable of society" you decided to post about how it can be abused by drug dealers despite not having read any info on how it works.

Your own prejudice decided that it was a flawed scheme because in your uneducated view it could be abused. Therefore not a good scheme.
You didnt even care enough to look in to it before you judged.

Not only that you then tried to use the NatWest ruling as proof of your prejudice which was yet again based on an article you hadn't bothered to read.

My advice is research stuff before you judge if it's right or wrong.

Anything that helps homeless people move a step forward shoudl be welcomed. Theya re not responsible for the actions of any scammers and I think it is wrong to oppose attempts to help the most marginalised.

[quote OneRuleForThem]@NeedsCharging
Your OP and subsequent ones appear to want to promote reasons why homeless people shouldn't have bank accounts or access to support or IDS.

I didn’t say any of those things.

I said in my OP that I didn’t think it was a bad idea for homeless people to have this scheme

I did not say homeless people shouldn’t have access to support.

I did not say homeless people shouldn’t have access to ID’s. I questioned how a homeless person was to be expected to go through a successful in-person ID check at the bank when they are more likely to not be able to instantly produce any form of ID compared to a non-homeless person - that was in response to someone elses comment.

I don’t mind people disagreeing but not when they just start making things up.[/quote]
There's not being able to read, and then there's not being able to read your own posts.

@Nietzschethehiker

I don't think you have a problem with homelessness. I do think you prioritise any risk to anyone else ever as more important than those who are homeless having a beneficial option.

I spent a very long time working with addicts and the homeless. I met attitudes like this a lot. Overtly people would claim to be supportive. Often challenging minor comments in a way to show they were informed or supportive (as you have done before on this thread...you aren't wrong 20 pounds is a lot of money to someone homeless but it's a surface issue in comparison with the main issue being discussed which is wider access to banking)

What this translates to is you are more concerned with a possible "breach" than with the positive benefits for far more homeless people. You think a small group taking advantage of a very well off bank with insurance should be prevented at the expense of those needing the service.

The reason people are annoyed is you are far more concerned with the rules and perceived crime than you are quite helping those who need it. It smacks of faux concern. You want to help , but only as long as it doesn't break your world in anyway, it doesn't risk anything. You would far rather anyone suffer than a single penny be "cheated".

You choose money over people. That's why people are enjoyed with your attitude.

100% this comment, explains exactly how the OP comes off.

I don't think drug dealers will be opening HSBC accounts to keep their ill gotten gains.