The Supreme Court is expected to decide on Wednesday if fair trading watchdogs have the power to supervise bank charges.

It's been a long-fought case. And if the banks lose, it could cost them billions.

First, they may be forced to refund many customers who have already paid charges in the past.

And it could also cost them a regular flow of income in the future; they make more than a pretty penny from those charges.

That's money the banks will want to replace - possibly by putting new charges on everyday services, like cash withdrawals or cheques.

This is why some experts have warned we may see the end of free current account banking.

Unsurprisingly, you're not very happy about this - and made it crystal clear in your emails after Monday's programme..

Paul in East Dulwich wrote, "the major banks have just made huge profits, in the billions, and they seek to charge for use of a current account? Where will their greed stop?"

But if there's one thing Working Lunch viewers hate more than the banks and their profits, it's other bank customers. Especially those who dip into the red without permission, and then moan about charges afterwards.

Stuart wrote, "people who ran up overdrafts were informed before they did so of the charges to be incurred. Why then can they renege on their contract and force those of us who have acted responsibly to pay their debts?"

John White emailed to say, "someone who spends more money than authorised is stealing. Why should those who remain within spending limits subsidise the greedy?"

And E Lawrence noted, "unauthorised overdraft is tantamount to theft."

The banking expert on Monday's programme said the high street banks would think they're entitled to charge service fees for current accounts, as they provide a service of considerable value. Many of you said we already pay the banks - by letting them use our cash.

Alan Hall emailed, "the banks hold our cash deposits free of interest. Why should we pay to withdraw money when we need it?"

Andy said, "I agree that using the cash machine and writing cheques certainly cost money. But when you use your credit or debit card the banks do charge. They charge the retailer."

You also think we've paid a price in lower standards of service, as the banks cut their costs of doing business.

From Brian in Devon - "the banks introduced cash machines in order to save money. Local branches were closed all over the country and replaced with machines. To suggest that it provides a service that should be paid for, when the banks save money via the machines, is quite laughable!"

As a child of the 70s, I've only had two jobs in my life where I was paid in cash. (Oh those heady days as a hotel toilet cleaner.) Everything else has been paid by cheque or direct transfer into my bank account. It's the same for almost everyone else, either in work or in retirement. The banks are the conduit for our income - making us utterly reliant on them, and making it difficult to avoid any charges they might bring in.

Michelle notes, "this is a captive market. We have no choice but to use banks to lead an ordinary normal life. It is compulsory. So this gives the banks an unfair power over the consumer. It should be a public service."

Jon and Martin both say if the banks bring in charges for essential services, people should have the option of receiving their pay packets in cash once again.

Tom O'Connor: "It was the banks who encouraged employers to move from wage payments in cash to salary payments directly into bank accounts. They have access to our funds and make a nice earning off them. Don't let the apologists for the bank present this as a response to our irresponsible behaviour as customers; they brought this situation about themselves."

Rita adds, "my pension is paid into my bank account. I have no choice. If it comes to pass that fees will be added to current accounts, might there be an alternative for me if I do not want to pay?"

But there was at least one person who thoughts the banks might have a point.

Dorothy wrote, "I recall from my early days in having a bank account - over 50 years ago - that there was a small charge for having a bank account. A reasonable charge might be acceptable," she says.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I was doing my second job - broadcasting business reports on Radio 5 live's tea-time programme - when news came through that the company behind Threshers and Wine Rack was going into administration.

It will now be run by specialist accountants, who will keep it going until they break it up, sell it on or shut it down.

The news wasn't unexpected if you follow the business pages. Only last Tuesday, the Financial Times newspaper reported Threshers' owners were on the brink of collapse.

We also had been checking in with the company; in fact, its spokespeople at the posh City PR firm Brunswick told us it was not going into administration just half an hour before the announcement that the men with sharp pencils would be arriving after all.

But it seems to have come as a bit of a shock to its own workers.

I got a call last night from one store manager, who told me the first he knew he might end up shutting his shop and losing his job was when he heard it from me over his in-store radio.

I'm sorry he had to hear about it like that. And I'm not sure why he had to.

Companies are often criticised for announcing big job cuts through the media, usually at 7am. It means many of the workers affected by this news hear about it first from radio or TV over their breakfast.

That cannot be a good feeling. But there's a reason it happens so often.

Publicly-owned companies - owned by lots of shareholders - have to tell their investors about major news at the same time. If only a few investors know an inside secret, it could create what's called a false market in their shares.

To be on the safe side, companies with shares on the stock market make these announcements through official channels before the stock market opens for business at 8am. The custom has grown to announce big news - including job cuts - between 7am and 8am.

Companies with good antennae know their own workers feel under-valued by this - and that it plays badly with unions and local media. So we're seeing more cases of companies calling works meetings to break the bad news, also for 7am.

But that's for companies with shares trading on the stock market.

Thresher is owned by a firm called First Quench. It is privately owned, not publicly traded.

I can't see why it could not have told its own workers about its plans at the same time as any public statement.

It doesn't make the news any less distressing to my man behind the counter.

But it would suggest he's regarded as more than just a line in an administrator's spreadsheet.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Hello. Thanks for all your emails about the clock.

Everyone got an extra hour on Sunday when the clocks went back. I hope you enjoyed yours; mine just seemed to fritter itself away (probably on Twitter).

But changing the hours always causes, er, a minute problem.

The clocks have to be changed. Everywhere.

That includes the video recorder. And the oven. And the central heating boiler.

And don't start me about the clock on the car dashboard. Could it be any more difficult? I'm sure the real reason families have two cars is so they can keep one on summer time, and the other on winter.

So I probably should not have been surprised to get some indignant emails after Monday's programme.

"Your on-screen clock is wrong!" you complained.

I have to confess, I didn't immediately realise what you were talking about. "What on-screen clock?" I thought. "This isn't Breakfast TV. We don't have one."

Aha. But we do.

It's on the stock market display. That thing we show you - oh - only every day that we're on air.

And while the Working Lunch stock markets computer is fully up-to-speed with the second-by-second movement in stock prices around the globe, the passing of the seasons passes it by. Unless we tweak it, every day is summertime for our markets computer.

Anyway - it's fixed now. I tried to do it myself, but was defeated by the security passwords.

So we sent for someone who knew what they were doing.

That's pretty much how we handled my weekly trip to the tech shed this Tuesday.

We looked at the launch of Microsoft's new operating system, Windows 7.

I spend lots of time, money and enthusiasm on new programmes for my computer. But I don't give any thought at all to the operating system that enables all those programmes to work.

When I switch my computer on, I expect it to work. Quickly.

My many friends in computer science are horrified by this. They get alternately enthused and enraged by the different operating systems. For some of them, Windows is the soul of popular computer. For others, it's the creation of a bug-loving, spam-ridden devil.

For those in the know, this is a subject that excites strong passions. Good. People should be passionate about important things.

But when we look at technology, it's not for the benefit of specialists. It's for people who like gadgets and technology, who are comfortable using them, who want them to save time and money - but who don't need to think about what goes on behind the screen.

So when we sent for someone to explain the topic, his job was to tell me - why should my Dad care about this? Why should he have to think about his operating system? And if he does need to change it, how does he go about doing it?

Agent Fran from the Geek Squad answered all that very well, I thought.

We talked a lot about Microsoft's Windows. Like it or not, it powers the vast majority of the world's PCs. Our viewers are much more likely to use Microsoft than anything else, so it's right and proper that it dominated the discussion.

He and I also said - several times - that there were alternatives to Microsoft. Fran also demonstrated Google's Android os.

Some of you think he should have given a much more detailed list of all the competing operating systems.

James Norris emailed, "There are real full desktop and laptop alternatives to Windows but these were not even given a mention. The problem with this sloppy and ill informed journalism is that to people that are not aware of the alternatives out there would be left to think that Android is really the only (one)."

He thinks we should have mentioned the Linux operating system. It certainly has its fans.

John Maltby emailed to praise it.

"In the interest of helping viewers to save money perhaps you might consider giving the Linux operating system a little more coverage," he wrote.

"Not only is it free but it is now stable and in practically all areas equal to Windows (whichever version) if not superior. I am not a geek but a mere user who migrated from Windows several years ago."

Malcolm Collins also weighed in on behalf of Linux - used all the time by his grandchildren, he says.

"Linux is another operating system, rarely mentioned, which has many variations. All very easy to install on modern computers and ALL 100% FREE. This OS is also almost completely virus free and does not require you to purchase anti virus software too. Another big saving every year."

And there was criticism of other systems. Peter Stott has a Mac, and recently upgraded from Panther to Leopard operating systems. He thinks this was a completely unnecessary change, forced on him by Apple to make him "fork out a large sum of money".

As I said - strong passions. Thanks for all your emails. Please do continue the discussion in the comments.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?