What is the Internet for? For some, the answer can only be - Sir Terry Wogan. He's the reason some people bought a computer and taught themselves how to use email, so they could play their part in his celebrated Radio 2 programme by sending in their comments, exhortations, rebukes and occasional items of filth and innuendo.

Long before we started using peculiar phrases like "user generated content", listeners would join in by post. Goodness it was slow. He'd say something "witty" on air. Several days and a significant quantity of tumbleweed would pass. Then a letter would flutter in (probably starting "Dear Jimmy Young ...")

Now it's so much faster, and he's seen all the big changes in modern communication technology. He brought the fax machine into his studio. He was coaxed into email. Now he's twiddling with Twitter, has faced down his fear of Facebook and is one of the most popular BBC podcasts.

So there's no better person to turn to if we want to encourage people who aren't online already to sign up for broadband.

I couldn't imagine modern life without it; I use email rather than letters, pay bills and keep a check on my bank account online, and shop for everything from books to food to - er - food. And there's Twitter, Facebook, Linked In, Skype for everything from guest booking to cooing at photos of the latest Curry cousins.

I think anyone who isn't online is missing out on an extraordinary range of fun, information, social contact and financial savings. But preaching by the converted isn't much use. Those who haven't discovered the joy of the Internet by now want a trusted guide who shares their own scepticism and wariness, but is enthusiastic once they discover its benefits.

Which is why Sir Terry popped into the Working Lunch offices this week to give me a quick Internet lesson. He showed me his favourite sites, told me how he uses the web in everyday life, and shared some tips he has for people who want to get started for the very first time. All done with the priceless, unmistakable Wogan wit we've all enjoyed for decades. Watch it here.

It's all part of Radio 2's "Get Connected"campaign and Working Lunch's "Get Online" week, starting Monday 15th March. Too many of our viewers - and his listeners - have yet to be tempted onto the web. We hope this will be the extra sweetener they need. If only technology was this much fun all the time ...

It doesn't excuse the error, and doesn't change the fact that I should have been right first time. But owning up to it, and saying I'm sorry for it, is the very least I can do.

So thank you to WL viewer Michael Taylor for spotting my howler in today's stock market report - and emailing me about it immediately.

I was talking about the supermarket Morrison. It had a good Christmas, thanks to our love of party food. Sales of some canapés have almost doubled. Champagne sales were boosted by special offers.

So far, so good.

Then we got to the nitty gritty.

I said Morrison's pre-Christmas sales were 4.3 per cent higher than the same time the previous year.

I then compared that with Sainsbury - which saw its holiday sales rise by 4.2 per cent - and Tesco, which had a sales increase of 4.9 per cent.

If you were watching at home, the obvious inference is that Morrison did better than Sainsbury, but not as well as Tesco.

(That is, by the bye, a perfectly respectable place to be in - and a whole lot healthier than Morrison's perilous state just a few years ago. The turn around in its business has been remarkable.)

Just one problem ...

Morrison's per-Christmas sales were actually up by 6.5 per cent. I had, by mistake, written in a sales increase recorded by the company earlier in the year.

It's a very silly, and very a stupid, mistake and I am correctly ashamed. I'm sorry to you for giving you the wrong information. You deserved better.

And I'm sorry to the thousands of Morrison's employees who worked so hard in the run-up to Christmas to serve their customers and deliver this sales increase. I wouldn't want to undermine their achievement or their efforts.

One other thing I said was that the City had expected more. That much remains correct. The city's analysts saw Waitrose's champagne-popping sales figures earlier this month, and other research which suggested we'd splashed out on treats and better-quality fresh food this Christmas - and had hoped for a larger rise in sales than Morrison's delivered.

That's why its share price slipped today.

You may choose to file that away in the "some people are never happy" folder.

Meanwhile, I'm going to stand in the naughty corner for a bit longer. Well, until Naga lets me out again.

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.

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.

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.

For reasons of privacy, I'm not going to tell you who it is.

And to protect the guilty, I'm also changing the identity of the woollen goods concerned. Let's just say it was a hat.

It was a Christmas gift. The official line is that it didn't quite fit. Ahem.

So he brought it back to his nearest M&S store. The staff said exchanging it would not be a problem.

That is, until they actually caught sight of the knitted item. Then there was much drawing of breath and sucking of teeth.

The problem was, none of the staff recognised it. Clearly it was M&S, as it had the label. But it didn't match any of the current range.

A manager was sent for. There was an impromptu huddle. Reference codes were typed into the all-knowing stock computer.

And - finally - eureka! The shiny, tasteful, attractive new Christmas gift turned out to be - ten years old.

Is it possible it languished on top of the wardrobe for years before being passed on? Could it have been passed on as a Christmas gift year after year, like a seasonal, slow-motion game of pass the parcel?

My colleague doesn't care. He got his refund.

The ability to bring things back, months after they were bought, and to get your money back just because you don't like them is a rare policy on the High Street. It's one of those things that endears Marks and Spencer to the great British public. It feels reassuringly dignified.

So a few eyebrows were raised when it emerged over the weekend that M&S has cut the time for returns from the official 90 days to 35 days.

That's still more generous than many other stores. And the comments from viewers who follow me on Twitter (@declancurry) and Facebook suggest that people are fairly relaxed about it.

But the old 90-day deadline gave an impression of a store that was more interested in a long-term relationship with us than in a single commercial transaction - one that trusted us to treat it fairly.

Does the change in policy suggest that it has changed that view of us, too?

Lord Jones - better known as Digby Jones - was our guest of the day.

As you'll know, as a former head of the CBI and as a former minister, he's rarely short of things to say.

And today he was particularly fired up on behalf of that much-unloved species, bankers.

Now - he has an interest to declare in this area. He's a paid adviser to both Barclays and HSBC, big international banks who are also major players in the City.

Like many other banks, they lost heavily in exotic financial trading or investing in mortgage debt (though - notably - they didn't turn to the British taxpayer for a bail out when it all went wrong; they got their financial support elsewhere, from their own shareholders or foreign investors.)

While he's their paid adviser, Digby doesn't exactly strike you as a toadying mouthpiece for the banks.

He's been quick to criticise them for not lending more to small businesses.

He fears more small business will go bust, even as we pull out of recession, because the banks are too tight with their credit. While he says he understands their need to stash more cash to cover potential future crises, he says he's "extremely disappointed" by their treatment of British business.

He's also highly critical of the massive bonuses that were paid to top bankers and traders in the City's bonanza days - a point he repeated on our programme today.

And he has long-called for a re-adjustment in the British economy, to become less reliant on financial services and the City, and to invest more in British manufacturing.

His frequent tours of factories and workshops across the UK have made him a passionate tub-thumper for industry. It's one of the reasons he accepted the job of trade minister - the chance to sell and promote British craft and excellence in all corners of the globe.

But, but, but ...

His time as minister also reinforced his belief that banking, insurance and financial services remain crucial industries for Britain. They're home-grown businesses that draw in customers and investment from around the world.

He says we need a healthy financial industry to create jobs for the future - and to generate the taxes we'll need to repay our enormous national debts.

So he's quite cross about some comments from the City's top watchdog.

His fellow peer (and predecessor as CBI director) Adair Turner suggested recently that some of the things banks do are not socially useful.

Lord Jones thinks that's bang out of order.

He warns an attack on the banks from someone so significant as Lord Turner could harm investment in Britain and damage the reputation of British industry abroad.

As he told us about bankers - "It's not the time to smack them, it's the time to get behind them"

The full edition of today's Working Lunch - and earlier programmes over the past week - are available to watch online on the BBC iPlayer or on watch-again services like BT Vision.

And - as always - your comments are more than welcome.

PS. We're sorry we're being shunted around the schedules so much, but that's our public service duty to cover the party conferences for you.

We've been told for years that a morning shower is cheaper than having a bath, as it uses less water and therefore less energy.

(There's a whole other discussion about just how hygienic it is to lie around in a soup of rapidly-cooling water and soap scum, but we'll leave that for another time.)

So just how much cheaper is it?

Not as much as you might think, according to the electricity company E.On.

It has produced an "electricity menu", listing the cost of everyday activities.

It claims a bath costs just 10 pence. A shower comes in at 5 pence.

Frankly I find that somewhat unbelievable. One of the few things that sticks in my mind from school science is that water requires an immense amount of energy to heat up because of its high specific heat capacity. (See, Mr Conway? I was listening.)

Unless you're in the shower for an EXTRAORDINARY amount of time in the morning* or you've got a monstrous power shower, the shower must use less than half the amount of water that you would if you filled the bath.

My eyebrows went up when I read some of the other "costs". Boiling the kettle for your morning cuppa costs 2p. Really? I had expected that to be a lot higher, though if you have about 20 cups of tea when you're at home on a day off, I suppose it all adds up.

The point of the menu is to make all of us more aware about what uses a lot of electricity in the home - and what doesn't.

We all know we should use less energy if we want to reduce our bills, or if we want to cut the amount of carbon dioxide that's produced when the electricity we demand is generated.

This menu tries to tell us which cuts will have the biggest impact.

The man from e-on will be on the programme later to talk about all this. We'll find out how he arrived at these prices - and ask why he's encouraging us to cut back when electricity companies make their money selling the stuff to us.

But we'd welcome your thoughts too. How do you cut your energy use, and keep your bills down? If you can get your tips to us before the start of the programme, we'll use some of the best on air. Use the comments below - or send us an email or a Tweet. You can sign up to our feed here - Twitter

* Naga would like me to point out that while she can get ready in the morning in just 15 minutes, I take over an hour - so am the last person to comment on people spending too long in the shower.

Stuff tends to happen. Big stuff.

Two years ago, we had the credit crunch. August was when the paralysing fear of risk and default spread like a poison - turning a little local difficulty in the markets to a crisis that almost toppled high street banks.

In earlier years, we had the Asian financial crisis, a Russian one, and a bit of a to-do over hedge funds that - for a few wild moments - seemed destined to bring the world to its knees.

If the world is ever going to end, it will probably happen during August.

So - it feels like a slightly odd time for us to pack our bags for the month. It's one of those Working Lunch traditions that I've had to get used to over the last year.

And you've become used to us. We changed the programme a lot since last summer - new faces, new set, new colours. Fish were out, pigs in.

We know it was unsettling for some of you - many of you have been loyal viewers for years, and you weren't shy about telling us in your emails and letters that you thought we'd misjudged some things.

We listened. And we tweaked and adapted some of our changes.

But we also knew that those changes were attracting many more viewers to the programme, viewers who were hungry for advice and information about that credit crunch and the recession.

Unless there's a nasty surprise waiting for me in September, we're not planning changes of the same magnitude this summer.

When we come back, we'll still give you the best tips and knowledge about your money and your work.

But we also want more of your stories about how you've survived and thrived through the recession - or how you've taken any bad news, and used it as an opportunity to refresh your own career.

And we want to lay the groundwork for what's next.

We're probably too early to talk about the road to recovery. But we're all hoping it's not too far away. And we want you to help us plot the map.

Enjoy your summer. And thanks for sharing your many comments and thoughts. I may not reply here directly, but I do read every one - on the blog, in the email box and on Twitter.

If you've - er - enjoyed my reports on TV, radio or online over the years you'll know that I've had more than my fair share of them.

I once missed the start of my own programme, by lingering too long over a last-minute script change.

I also forgot the name of a guest while introducing him at the start of a live interview, and had to ask him to remind me who he was and why I was talking to him.

I laugh about it now (in a high-pitched, nervous way) but at the time it was taken very seriously. Rightly so.

We don't like mistakes, and we do everything in our power to prevent them.

Our aim is always to bring you relevant information that correct every time. Even though we all face deadlines, we value accuracy over speed. That's as it should be.

But sometimes errors are made - both by us, and by the people we ask for information. When we do get it wrong, it's important we put it right quickly, and with an appropriate sense of apology.

So - here goes.

We brought you a report yesterday on the cost of calling government helplines if you've only got a mobile phone.

These are helplines that you would call when you need to make your first claim for unemployment benefit if you lose your job, or if you're a parent tracking down your child benefit that's been cancelled by an administrative blunder, or if you need to apply for a crisis loan if you find yourself in a financial emergency.

But the very helplines that are meant to assist you could end up making your money troubles worse, if you call from a mobile.

Those 0845 and 0800 numbers could cost you for every minute you're on the line. If you're put on hold this could add up as the minutes soon whizz by.

Why would you ever call these numbers from a mobile? Well, according to Ofcom, in 2008 11% of households didn't have a landline at all - they only had mobile phones.

If you're strapped for cash and need to make the choice between one and the other, many opt for the mobile phone instead. It's more useful and practical.

Telling you this story is one thing.

But you've told us you also want practical advice. Tips that make life cheaper or easier. So we compiled a few, including the very obvious point that it's much cheaper to call these numbers from a fixed landline than from a mobile.

That is true.

But how much cheaper?

We went straight to BT to ask. It referred us to an old news announcement which proclaimed that "BT had offered ... cheer to 14 million customers by becoming the first UK telephone company to make calls to 0870 and 0845 numbers free."

That looked fairly straight up-and-down to us, so we broadcast that as part of our report.

Unfortunately it's not quite true - as a flood of emails from you pointed out. Many of you have been charged for calls from your BT phone to these very numbers.

That's because they're not "free" for everyone.

What BT has done is include these numbers in its existing call packages.

So if you're on a deal that gives you free calls anytime, your calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers are free, any time of the day or night.

But if you are on a deal that only gives you free calls at evenings and weekends, then 0845 and 0870 numbers will only be free at evenings and weekends too.

And if your calling package is for free calls at weekends only, then 0845 and 0870 calls will only be free at weekends.

To be fair to BT, even though their headline and the first part of the news announcement proclaimed "free" calls, the detail showing they were not exactly free was in the later paragraphs.

So - we're sorry to have confused you. And we're grateful to you for pointing our mistake out so quickly.

But should he have been hired?

As you'll have seen elsewhere, Sir Alan Sugar is to be the Government's new adviser on enterprise. He's not going to be a minister. He says himself he's not going to be involved in devising policy. He sees his role as tub-thumper-in-chief for entrepreneurs, in the corridors of Whitehall.

Throughout his career, he's always been a man who excites strong views. But the opinions about him doing this job are especially tart.

I asked this question on my Twitter page this morning - is Sir Alan the right person to tell Government about enterprise?

Sylvia Tidy Harris, who you might remember from her own recent appearance on Working Lunch, says Sir Alan has "grass roots experience, fire in his belly and a gut instinct". He is, she says, "perfect for it".

(If there was a club for entrepreneurs with firm opinions on life and business, both Sylvia and Sir Alan would qualify for life membership.)

"Katiemoffat" wrote that it's easy to be "sniffy" about his credentials, but "he's done it and he lives and breathes enterprise."

And UKBI - a body which supports business incubation and innovation - tweeted me to say it was a step in the right direction. "We need more real business people advising on real measures to grow small and medium sized businesses."

But not everyone agrees that Sir Alan is a sweet appointment.

"Mikejulietbravo" called it a publicity stunt. "DavidWorsfold" wrote that Sir Alan is "just celebrity window dressing". "Simeonides" holds the opinion that Sir Alan "has nothing to teach business".

"MTFlanders" slammed it as a "cosmetic decision" and asked why the Government didn't hire a business icon like Sir Terry Leahy. (Sir Terry is a member of the Prime Minister's Business Council.)

There are many other views - you can see them all here.

And of course you can add your own comments here.

As a 80s teenager, my lasting impression of Sir Alan is of a man who made technology an affordable tool of the general public. There's an Amstrad PCW somewhere in my parent's attic. Unfortunately, there's also one of his Emailer phones, little used and unloved - then again, innovation will always produce success alongside failure.

He's also walking, talking proof that anyone with enough talent and self-belief can try to make their fortune, whatever their background.

The popularity of The Apprentice TV programme has rammed that message home for a new generation.

But he faces criticism from two groups that he may want to win over when he's "Enterprise Tsar".

The first is the business community. Some there think his most successful days as an entrepreneur were a long time ago. They think he crossed the line from commercial business to show business years ago. They ask - does he really represent what we in business think?

The second is from those who campaign for employees' rights. Sir Alan has been noticeably chilly on workplace issues like childcare. There has also been criticism about his own managerial manner, which is seen by some as overly abrasive. They ask - how can someone with these views work within a Government that has passed laws to give new mothers and fathers time off, that has extended the rights of part-time workers and which criticises bullying in the workplace?

Perhaps Sir Alan needs some more time in the Apprentice café to think all that over?

As you and I both know, business is all about money and the decisions we make about it.

It's the information we need to earn money, spend it and invest it.

It's about the choices that are made in the board room, at our office desks, at our kitchen tables - even those made around the cabinet table.

The fascinating thing is how those decisions intersect.

We told you yesterday that the oil giant BP had shut its current pension scheme to new workers. It's a final salary scheme, where your pension payout is usually a proportion of your last pay cheque before retirement.

The big plus of these schemes is that you know what you're going to get in your old age. The pension fund - or the employer that stands behind it - coughs up if the investments are not performing. It takes the risk.

Anyone who joins BP in the future will be offered an alternative scheme where the amount of pension you get in retirement in old age is linked to the performance of the investment. If shares or bonds don't earn as much as expected, you get less in your pension. You take the risk.

Many big companies have already closed their final salary schemes to new workers. BP is one of the last to do so.

Others have gone a stage further.

Barclays says this week it will close its final salary pension scheme to EXISTING workers. The money they've already saved is still there - but they can't add to it.

If they want to make further pension savings, they'll have to take out an alternative scheme where they, not the company, takes the savings risk.

So. What about those connections?

In other news this week, it was revealed that the bosses of Britain's biggest companies got an average pay rise of 7 percent last year.

Not bad in these credit crunched times, you might think.

You may think it's even more remarkable when you remember that the stock market value of top companies - as measured by the FTSE 100 index - is 26 percent lower today than it was a year ago.

Whatever performance targets are used to trigger the pay rises, it's clearly more than just a bald reading of the share price.

My BBC colleague Peter Allen - who I bump into every afternoon during his Drive programme on 5 Live - demanded to know why bosses can give themselves pay rises and bonuses, often in the teeth of opposition from their own shareholders, while they're cutting pension benefits to their workers.

As Gillian pointed out on Working Lunch yesterday, it's less about cutting benefits and more about reducing risks to the company.

Under the alternative schemes, the employer takes the risk of under-performance, not the company.

But retirement costs are an issue for our biggest companies. As another story we covered this week demonstrates.

General Motors.

One of the reasons GM slid into bankruptcy protection is obviously that not enough Americans are buying American cars.

But that's partly because retirement and healthcare costs bump up the price of GM-made motors. On one estimate, they add $1,500 to the cost of American vehicles, relative to those made more cheaply by Asian rivals.

And that will become an increasingly important issue in countries like the USA and the UK.

We have a growing, ageing population - and a shrinking, younger one - at a time when retired people are not just living longer lives, but more demanding and exciting ones too.

This poses a major challenge to welfare systems based on the assumption that current workers pay for the costs of retired ones.

And the demographics are going the wrong way for a comfortable solution. As demonstrated at a BP refinery or a Barclays bank branch near you.

Naga has been filming something for BBC Two - it might be Eastenders, it might be a new property show; I wasn't really listening. We'll find out what it is on Monday. Entirely selfishly, it's a terrible combination: I'm working harder than I expected, and the programme isn't as much fun without her.

I might have cut a lonely figure on the sofa, but it would be wrong to say that I've been left alone. We presenters are merely a small part of the Working Lunch team, and everyone has been at their sparkling best this week.

Part of our job is to help you save money. Both Dominic and Gillian had plenty of tips - Dom on the cheapest way to get foreign money for your holidays, Gillian on how to cut hundreds of pounds off your gas and electricity bills. Producer Ben helped both gather the facts and figures.

We also like showing you how small businesses are beating the recession. We know many of you find it helpful to see how others are dealing with the problems you are facing too.

Simon went to a Portsmouth fish restaurant that's offering tasty treats to lure in new customers, while Rob was at a toy shop in Long Eaton that's puzzling out the threat and the opportunity presented by e-commerce. Our colleague Carolyn helped both with the stories, and our camera operators Eddie and Hume captured the moment.

On the side of hard-pressed savers, Simon discovered a new way to make your money earn more. The trick is - you don't put your cash in the bank, you SELL it to the bank instead.

And the Lord taketh away, the Lord giveth - wasn't it great to see Paddy O'Connell back on the programme? He had some splendid stories about people who've used redundancy as the springboard to revive their lives and start a new career. There's a lot of optimism and determination amid the economic doom and gloom, and we sometimes miss it in the media. Producer Ian found the uplifting tales.

There's also web producer Zoe who tirelessly tweets all the news from Working Lunch on our Twitter feed every day.

And I read some words out loud.

If you missed any of this, don't forget our programmes are on the iPlayer for 7 days after transmission. Some of you can also see them on the replay service on your Virgin cable TV or on BT Vision.

On Monday 6 April, I did a piece about a new approach to sending parcels. It's offered by a company called stuff2send.

The principle: if you want to send a parcel, you log on to their website, describe the journey you want the parcel to make, and someone else in the community - either a professional courier themselves, or a private car user - can arrange to pick up your parcel for you, if they happen to be travelling along a similar route.

The idea is to help courier firms (who may for example be travelling back empty from a drop) or contribute towards the running costs of a private car. But the firm says it also benefits senders too as it's cheaper than hiring a van.

A few of you have written to us asking whether a private car driver is invalidating their car insurance by receiving money for taking parcels this way. Christabel Hallas, Tony Clegg, Joyce Diment, Roger Powell, Ian Little -- thank you for getting in touch. Doesn't a car insurance policy that covers Social, Domestic and Pleasure forbid using your vehicle for "hire and reward"?

Well, I asked stuff2send, and this was their reply: "Private individuals use the site as deliverers in a not-for-profit capacity. Senders contribute towards the individual's running costs for the agreed journey, and vehicles must seat eight passengers or less".

They say this is consistent with the advice that the insurance industry gives to those "offering lift share services where passengers may contribute to running costs for a journey." However, stuff2send does say that "anyone unsure of cover, should check with their insurer before proceeding."

It basically means that as "private" couriers receive less money that the actual cost of the journey, they are not doing it for profit or reward. So the Social, Domestic and Pleasure insurance policies that most of us have would not be invalidated. If they were taking several at a time, though, this would obviously change.

I also checked with the Association of British Insurers (ABI). They are the body that represents the industry and it was them that stuff2send says it went to for advice.

Malcolm Tarling from the ABI told me that the first thing to do is always to check with your insurer before you undertake to join any type of scheme such as this.

Your insurer, he says, will want to know whether the activity places you or your car at increased risk. Are you carrying expensive goods that will make your car more liable to be broken into? Does it make you at greater risk of having an accident?

On the other hand, they will also bear in mind that you are a private motorist who would have been making the journey anyway. So, before you do anything, give your insurer a call.

Dominic Laurie