Am i missing a point, then? (one law for the banks, cont. …)

One of the things that rankles most of all is the super-patronising attitude that banks come up with whenever one suggests that maybe, just possibly, pretty please, their attitude to “name change” is neither founded in law, nor actually doing much good to prevent ID fraud or even to enhance security.

Their usual spluttered riposte is something along the lines of “we’re the experts: go away!”

Which is why the latest revelations leave ME spluttering with rage.

One of my (many) start points in resisting the bank’s Gadarene rush to demand documentation to “prove” one’s identity is the immense disrespect to the individual thereby done. “What business is it of theirs?” seems like a pretty good push back.

Still, they then trot out the security mantra, which is a total lie, since the procedures in place do nothing to enhance real security – though this is sadly bought into by many in the trans community, who don’t seem to get that this is an issue that affects WOMEN and not just them.

But lets re-run the question of why we can’t do the banks for fraud. Well, there was no obvious victim.

So there you have it. If no individual is directly affected by an action, there’s no crime. End of.

Which therefore pushes me back into the question of why it is that they get away with imposing a load of discriminatory conditions on the trans community and women, when there is little suggestion that name change on its own is an especial source of crime – but steadfastly resist all calls for their own behaviour to be policed, because there are no individual victims.

I think we should be told – not least, how far this principle runs through other areas of law. Speeding down a deserted road late at night? Sure…its a TECHCNICAL breach of the law…but there is no victim and no chance of one.

So surely it can’t be anything like as bad as where an individual mows down half a school crocodile after ten pints on a friday morning?

Or even indecent exposure. To, ever so slightly, corrupt Bishop Berkeley: if you expose yourself in a wood and there’s no-one there…have you really exposed yourself?

Nope. This is a rum principle, without a doubt.

jane xx


2 Responses so far »

  1. 1

    Robyn said,

    I commented about this on an earlier post, there are victims – the FSA have pointed to potential losses by Barclays’ trading partners. As the Financial Services industry keep informing us as they hike up our insurance premiums because some bugger has made a fraudulent claim – there is no such thing as a victimless crime!

  2. 2

    Caroline said,

    Tax office sends rebate cheque to partner and she tries to cash it at the bank where she has had an account for thirty years, cheque has name which bank has used to send communications through post.

    Even with infinite evidence of her given name and the one she has chosen to use all her life they forced her to change her name on the account to one she has never used and will never use. the idiots will now change all her cards to this new nam and reprint cheque books.

    It is a joint account where I walked in one day and asked for my name and gender to be changed, they did not blink an eye!

    They have behaved like the ignorant belligerent bigoted bullies that they are, sadly I was not there when it happened so did not have the pleasure of saying that we withdrawing our custom…

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: