Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unambiguously that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland.
It isn't hers to do anything with, is it?
It is. Commissioners for the Keeping of the Regalia.
Ah, fair enough. Her and a few friends, anyway.
Is the current one even the original? It was out of sight for quite a while, after all.
Just a bit of stone from the Annaty Burn anyway, innit? It isn't from anywhere exotic.
Put it this way, if it's a black sculptured stone from Ireland/the West, it's a bloody odd one. Its lithology is inconsistent with Dunstaffnage, but consistent with stone from the district, and most of all with the Perth area. Which, interpreted, means Edward Longshanks just grabbed the nearest lump with a handle on it, on top of the Abbey cesspit, when he needed to foist something on his homies back in London.
Though I don't think it's such a bad reminder of some of the key responsibilityes of government - to keep the utilities running.
Lol, ArmchairWarlord, a former Us army officer now popular pro-Russia Twitter cheerleader who has spent the last week trying to spin Russia's capitulation in Kharkiv as a strategic brilliance has thrown on the towel, announced they've stopped posting on Twitter and locked their account.
He's at least slightly more honest thanbthe pro-Russians who seemlessly switched from "Izyum is in no danger, it strategically hugely important and concealed reinforcements will trap the Ukrainians" to "we never wanted Kharkiv anyways" in the space of 4 hours withour an ounce of shame.
I attempted to engage another pro-Russian Twitter guy, but he has now blocked me: I'd appreciate it if PBers would help me out by asking what offense I committed to get blocked?
(I was, I would note, scrupulously polite.)
He looks rugged. I get a Trumpy 'sat on front porch with a rifle' vibe.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice. Even public transport works contactless now too, anyway.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
There will be much better bargains to be had outside the electronic transfer economy. They'll soon come crawling back
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Didn’t he affirm some oath about defending the Church of Scotland?
So he did, on checking. Maybe when he was up here anyway.
Lots of excitement on twitter that this was some affirmation of (a minimal) Scottish sovereignty, but afaics it was mostly about confirming that the Church of Scotland has ascendancy over the Papists. Am I misreading it?
No - it was very much a case of ascendancy over Erastian Episcopalian/C of E type such as bishops and Royal supremacy. To help araldite King Billy on the throne by leeping the minister mannies happy, and to be fair manyt lieges. The RC bit was sort of baked in anyway once you'd done that, but was a bonus given the proclivities of the later Stuarts.
No more Laudian innovations and no more stools* flung in the High Kirk a la 1637.
*The three legged kind, but I'm sure the unfortunate guinea pig of a priest in 1638 got the brown kind outside as well.
Though notably 14% of those living in Scotland are Roman Catholic now but only 9.6% in England are Roman Catholics
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unambiguously that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland.
It isn't hers to do anything with, is it?
It is. Commissioners for the Keeping of the Regalia.
Ah, fair enough. Her and a few friends, anyway.
Is the current one even the original? It was out of sight for quite a while, after all.
Just a bit of stone from the Annaty Burn anyway, innit? It isn't from anywhere exotic.
Put it this way, if it's a black sculptured stone from Ireland/the West, it's a bloody odd one. Its lithology is inconsistent with Dunstaffnage, but consistent with stone from the district, and most of all with the Perth area. Which, interpreted, means Edward Longshanks just grabbed the nearest lump with a handle on it, on top of the Abbey cesspit, when he needed to foist something on his homies back in London.
Though I don't think it's such a bad reminder of some of the key responsibilityes of government - to keep the utilities running.
That is down from 75% 10 years ago, and at a time of high emotion. It'll be sub 50 in 10 years time.
There is a danger that it could unravel if they don't move with the times, abolish a lot of the rigmarole and bowing ( nobody should bow to another)and above all be seen to be paying taxes
If they recognise these dangers then they should survive, but need to make sure they are not taking the public for granted at anytime
This will be Charles:-
"He unfortunately forgot that, where no resistance can be made, no courage can be exerted; and instead of consulting the dictates of reason and magnanimity, he indulged the furious emotions of his temper, at a time when they were disgraceful to himself, and fatal to the defenceless objects of his displeasure. In the government of his household, or of his empire, slight, or even imaginary offences — a hasty word, a casual omission, an involuntary delay — were chastised by a sentence of immediate death. The expressions which issued the most readily from the mouth of the emperor of the West were, "Strike off his head;" — "Burn him alive;" "Let him be beaten with clubs till he expires;"
and his most favoured ministers soon understood that, by a rash attempt to dispute or suspend the execution of his sanguinary commands; they might involve themselves in the guilt and punishment of disobedience.
The repeated gratification of this savage justice hardened the mind of Valentinian against pity and remorse; and the sallies of passion were confirmed by the habits of cruelty.
He could behold with calm satisfaction the convulsive agonies of torture and death: he reserved his friendship for those faithful servants whose temper was the most congenial to his own. The merit of Maximin, who had slaughtered the noblest families of Rome, was rewarded with the royal approbation, and the praefecture of Gaul. Two fierce and enormous bears, distinguished by the appellations of Innocence and Mica Aurea, could alone deserve to share the favour of Maximin. The cages of those trusty guards were always placed near the bed-chamber of Valentinian, who frequently amused his eyes with the grateful spectacle of seeing them tear and devour the bleeding limbs of the malefactors who were abandoned to their rage. Their diet and exercises were carefully inspected by the Roman emperor; and when Innocence had earned her discharge, by a long course of meritorious service, the faithful animal was again restored to the freedom of her native woods.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice. Even public transport works contactless now too, anyway.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
There will be much better bargains to be had outside the electronic transfer economy. They'll soon come crawling back
If they choose to, that's their choice and fair enough. If they choose not to, that's equally their choice.
No business should be compelled to be electronic, and none should be forbidden from it. Free choice for all.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Didn’t he affirm some oath about defending the Church of Scotland?
So he did, on checking. Maybe when he was up here anyway.
Lots of excitement on twitter that this was some affirmation of (a minimal) Scottish sovereignty, but afaics it was mostly about confirming that the Church of Scotland has ascendancy over the Papists. Am I misreading it?
No - it was very much a case of ascendancy over Erastian Episcopalian/C of E type such as bishops and Royal supremacy. To help araldite King Billy on the throne by leeping the minister mannies happy, and to be fair manyt lieges. The RC bit was sort of baked in anyway once you'd done that, but was a bonus given the proclivities of the later Stuarts.
No more Laudian innovations and no more stools* flung in the High Kirk a la 1637.
*The three legged kind, but I'm sure the unfortunate guinea pig of a priest in 1638 got the brown kind outside as well.
Though notably 14% of those living in Scotland are Roman Catholic now but only 9.6% in England are Roman Catholics
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Didn’t he affirm some oath about defending the Church of Scotland?
So he did, on checking. Maybe when he was up here anyway.
Lots of excitement on twitter that this was some affirmation of (a minimal) Scottish sovereignty, but afaics it was mostly about confirming that the Church of Scotland has ascendancy over the Papists. Am I misreading it?
No - it was very much a case of ascendancy over Erastian Episcopalian/C of E type such as bishops and Royal supremacy. To help araldite King Billy on the throne by leeping the minister mannies happy, and to be fair manyt lieges. The RC bit was sort of baked in anyway once you'd done that, but was a bonus given the proclivities of the later Stuarts.
No more Laudian innovations and no more stools* flung in the High Kirk a la 1637.
*The three legged kind, but I'm sure the unfortunate guinea pig of a priest in 1638 got the brown kind outside as well.
Though notably 14% of those living in Scotland are Roman Catholic now but only 9.6% in England are Roman Catholics
"Metro @MetroUK Center Parcs has been inundated with complaints after announcing it will close UK sites on the day of the Queen’s funeral - with holidaymakers told to leave their sites."
What's the alternative? Parc employees made to work on a holiday and spitting in the guests' coffee?
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
The most seats market is wrong on this. The value is on Labour.
Don't follow Mike's scepticism on this. He hasn't been sceptical when it comes to LibDem successes and shouldn't be on this occasion.
The tories are going to get an absolute shellacking, as TSE has rightly suggested. And it will be far worse than would have been the case if Johnson had clung on.
You are very certain on this -why are you so sure? Its possible, yes, but its also possible that the war in Ukraine resolves, inflation peaks and possibly also sees reductions in prices and you never know, Truss may suprise.
Not saying you are wrong, more wanting to know why you think you are right.
Her last point is almost certainly wrong, because the reality wouldn’t have been that Johnson continued as a somehow reformed character and then rediscovered his mojo come 2024, but that the next scandal would have come along and he’d have been forced out for some other piece of bad behaviour with the Tories more divided and electorally damaged than they are now.
Yes - the Johnson of 2024 was not the Johnson of 2019. Thats why he had to go. If it hadn't been this year, it would have happened as he cannot change his nature.
Quite. If the Tories lose the fantasy will be that 2019 Boris would have won.
But there's a reason a leader with a huge majority got ousted, and I guarantee it wasnt because a majority of Tory MPs decided to give in to Labour.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice. Even public transport works contactless now too, anyway.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
There will be much better bargains to be had outside the electronic transfer economy. They'll soon come crawling back
If they choose to, that's their choice and fair enough. If they choose not to, that's equally their choice.
No business should be compelled to be electronic, and none should be forbidden from it. Free choice for all.
As long as the same applies to cash and that remains the case in perpetuity then all is good
Lol, ArmchairWarlord, a former Us army officer now popular pro-Russia Twitter cheerleader who has spent the last week trying to spin Russia's capitulation in Kharkiv as a strategic brilliance has thrown on the towel, announced they've stopped posting on Twitter and locked their account.
He's at least slightly more honest thanbthe pro-Russians who seemlessly switched from "Izyum is in no danger, it strategically hugely important and concealed reinforcements will trap the Ukrainians" to "we never wanted Kharkiv anyways" in the space of 4 hours withour an ounce of shame.
I attempted to engage another pro-Russian Twitter guy, but he has now blocked me: I'd appreciate it if PBers would help me out by asking what offense I committed to get blocked?
(I was, I would note, scrupulously polite.)
He looks rugged. I get a Trumpy 'sat on front porch with a rifle' vibe.
I hear....
Wife - "Did you finish all of my shampoos and conditioner, again?"
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
The thing I like most about that speech is the subtle but powerful way it frames Russia like a controlling ex-husband in a broken marriage. Because that’s exactly the dynamic here: “You belong to me. You can’t leave. But if you do, I’ll destroy you”.
Zelensky has the opportunity to join the greats of global politics. He needs to win the war (of course), guide Ukraine carefully into a prosperous and corruption free future, and then crucially retire at the top, Mandela style, rather than hanging on and becoming grumpy and backwards looking (like De Gaulle) or a tyrant (like Kagame or Mugabe).
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice. Even public transport works contactless now too, anyway.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
I am already choosing not to shop anywhere that does not take cash. I do not exclusively use cash, indeed I probably use cards more often than cash but I think it is important that the choice to use it is there for everyone. I will not support any business who seeks to remove that choice.
Zelensky has the opportunity to join the greats of global politics. He needs to win the war (of course), guide Ukraine carefully into a prosperous and corruption free future,
He's gone totally native since he got all those lovely contacts for his SpaceX book.
That's what people said when he predicted the SLS launch date, years back. Which turned out to be optimistic.
Or predicted that Vulcan would slip to the right repeatedly. Which turned out to be exactly right as well.
His track record means he is the top space reporter, now.
The maths is fairly simple - ULA, based on track record, isn't going to integrate new engines to a new booster, doing the testing and launch in 3 months.
No, they didn't say that back then, because he only released his book in March last year. But the time it was published coincided with his articles getting (ahem) rather anti any competitors to SpaceX. And you cannot blame him: I think he has said his next book is also going to be about SpaceX (for all the fanbois), and Musk notoriously cuts off access to journalists who writes stories he does not like - ref. Ashlee Vance.
You may have noticed SpaceX having had a few issues with SS/SH recently. He is oddly less keen to write clickbait articles about those. I wonder why? And Musk repeatedly misses deadlines for that as well....
"Metro @MetroUK Center Parcs has been inundated with complaints after announcing it will close UK sites on the day of the Queen’s funeral - with holidaymakers told to leave their sites."
What's the alternative? Parc employees made to work on a holiday and spitting in the guests' coffee?
If you work in hospitality then that may include working on holidays, yes, of course.
We stayed there on a Bank Holiday Monday earlier this year, don't remember it being closed then.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice. Even public transport works contactless now too, anyway.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
I am already choosing not to shop anywhere that does not take cash. I do not exclusively use cash, indeed I probably use cards more often than cash but I think it is important that the choice to use it is there for everyone. I will not support any business who seeks to remove that choice.
Absolutely. If they can afford to turn down good business then good luck to them
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unambiguously that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland.
It isn't hers to do anything with, is it?
It is. Commissioners for the Keeping of the Regalia.
Ah, fair enough. Her and a few friends, anyway.
Is the current one even the original? It was out of sight for quite a while, after all.
Just a bit of stone from the Annaty Burn anyway, innit? It isn't from anywhere exotic.
Put it this way, if it's a black sculptured stone from Ireland/the West, it's a bloody odd one. Its lithology is inconsistent with Dunstaffnage, but consistent with stone from the district, and most of all with the Perth area. Which, interpreted, means Edward Longshanks just grabbed the nearest lump with a handle on it, on top of the Abbey cesspit, when he needed to foist something on his homies back in London.
Though I don't think it's such a bad reminder of some of the key responsibilityes of government - to keep the utilities running.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unambiguously that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland.
It isn't hers to do anything with, is it?
It is. Commissioners for the Keeping of the Regalia.
Ah, fair enough. Her and a few friends, anyway.
Is the current one even the original? It was out of sight for quite a while, after all.
Just a bit of stone from the Annaty Burn anyway, innit? It isn't from anywhere exotic.
Put it this way, if it's a black sculptured stone from Ireland/the West, it's a bloody odd one. Its lithology is inconsistent with Dunstaffnage, but consistent with stone from the district, and most of all with the Perth area. Which, interpreted, means Edward Longshanks just grabbed the nearest lump with a handle on it, on top of the Abbey cesspit, when he needed to foist something on his homies back in London.
Though I don't think it's such a bad reminder of some of the key responsibilityes of government - to keep the utilities running.
[I have spent a lot of time in Scone, hence the interest]
I can't remember if it is the novel I read as a teenager - or a histdory book - seems to be the novel, though. Rather a cheerful effort, I recall dimly.
Zelensky has the opportunity to join the greats of global politics. He needs to win the war (of course), guide Ukraine carefully into a prosperous and corruption free future,
...as full and productive members of the EU...
Trust you
Some members of the EU are very definitely not on his Christmas card list
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice. Even public transport works contactless now too, anyway.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
There will be much better bargains to be had outside the electronic transfer economy. They'll soon come crawling back
If they choose to, that's their choice and fair enough. If they choose not to, that's equally their choice.
No business should be compelled to be electronic, and none should be forbidden from it. Free choice for all.
But God forbid that they try to employ a shelf stacker from Calais.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice. Even public transport works contactless now too, anyway.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
There will be much better bargains to be had outside the electronic transfer economy. They'll soon come crawling back
If they choose to, that's their choice and fair enough. If they choose not to, that's equally their choice.
No business should be compelled to be electronic, and none should be forbidden from it. Free choice for all.
I agree with you about accepting cash but your statement “ Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice” is a libertarian fantasy and one you always put forward when anyone criticises the behaviour of companies. You may have complete freedom of movement but others don’t. Off the top of my head some who don’t are people in council housing, people with 24/7 caring responsibilities, people with special access requirements, people who can’t afford to live somewhere else, people in rural areas. I hate the phrase check your privilege but before putting this argument forward again you really should.
"Metro @MetroUK Center Parcs has been inundated with complaints after announcing it will close UK sites on the day of the Queen’s funeral - with holidaymakers told to leave their sites."
What's the alternative? Parc employees made to work on a holiday and spitting in the guests' coffee?
If you work in hospitality then that may include working on holidays, yes, of course.
We stayed there on a Bank Holiday Monday earlier this year, don't remember it being closed then.
Getting people to work on an *extra* Bank Holiday will require extra cash and then you might not get enough staff.
Businesses are learning that you can't just zero hour the staff, give them shifts at the last minute and expect them to be grateful.
"Metro @MetroUK Center Parcs has been inundated with complaints after announcing it will close UK sites on the day of the Queen’s funeral - with holidaymakers told to leave their sites."
What's the alternative? Parc employees made to work on a holiday and spitting in the guests' coffee?
Allow people to check in to their lodges but close the on site restaurants, events and facilities seems the very least guests could expect.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Almost as if they are trying to create a cashless society by default This card is not compatible with meat based product barcodes
"Metro @MetroUK Center Parcs has been inundated with complaints after announcing it will close UK sites on the day of the Queen’s funeral - with holidaymakers told to leave their sites."
What's the alternative? Parc employees made to work on a holiday and spitting in the guests' coffee?
close the facilities for the duration of the funeral ?
Brief point of order for those looking at Russia’s allies elsewhere: Armenia isn’t a dictatorship, it’s a reasonably healthy though not perfect democracy. Just one that sadly has a long running blood feud with two of its neighbours.
Azerbaijan by contrast is an authoritarian state, and increasingly a Turkish satellite.
That conflict is the exception to the rule of Russia’s usual preference for the strongman. Armenia has some common features with Israel, including being a small homeland boxed in by hostile states and having gone through a historical almost terminal genocide.
"Metro @MetroUK Center Parcs has been inundated with complaints after announcing it will close UK sites on the day of the Queen’s funeral - with holidaymakers told to leave their sites."
What's the alternative? Parc employees made to work on a holiday and spitting in the guests' coffee?
I'd guess it's not unusual for employees at Center Parcs to work during bank holidays. You can even stay at them over Christmas.
Sure, the place might shut some of the on-site services during the funeral, but turfing people out of their holiday accommodation for a night in the middle of their break is a massive overreaction.
That is down from 75% 10 years ago, and at a time of high emotion. It'll be sub 50 in 10 years time.
There is a danger that it could unravel if they don't move with the times, abolish a lot of the rigmarole and bowing ( nobody should bow to another)and above all be seen to be paying taxes
If they recognise these dangers then they should survive, but need to make sure they are not taking the public for granted at anytime
I quite like a bit of bowing. Germans in particular nod their heads as they shake hands in mutual respect, which is really quite pleasant. Thankfully most of them have dispensed with the heel clicking and the funny Roman salute though.
It is lovely in Japan and showing respect is fine, but bowing to a monarch is subjugation and needs to go
He's gone totally native since he got all those lovely contacts for his SpaceX book.
That's what people said when he predicted the SLS launch date, years back. Which turned out to be optimistic.
Or predicted that Vulcan would slip to the right repeatedly. Which turned out to be exactly right as well.
His track record means he is the top space reporter, now.
The maths is fairly simple - ULA, based on track record, isn't going to integrate new engines to a new booster, doing the testing and launch in 3 months.
No, they didn't say that back then, because he only released his book in March last year. But the time it was published coincided with his articles getting (ahem) rather anti any competitors to SpaceX. And you cannot blame him: I think he has said his next book is also going to be about SpaceX (for all the fanbois), and Musk notoriously cuts off access to journalists who writes stories he does not like - ref. Ashlee Vance.
You may have noticed SpaceX having had a few issues with SS/SH recently. He is oddly less keen to write clickbait articles about those. I wonder why? And Musk repeatedly misses deadlines for that as well....
The pro SLS types have been banging on about Berger being biased to SpaceX, every time he writes a story about SLS, for years. Remember when SLS was going to launch in 2018 - nailed on, dead certain?
He has been rather complimentary about some of the up and coming rocket companies. And has a very good relationship with Tory Bruno.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Good luck after a mass coronal ejection solar flare or an emp takes out the grid, or the net is screwed
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Didn’t he affirm some oath about defending the Church of Scotland?
So he did, on checking. Maybe when he was up here anyway.
Lots of excitement on twitter that this was some affirmation of (a minimal) Scottish sovereignty, but afaics it was mostly about confirming that the Church of Scotland has ascendancy over the Papists. Am I misreading it?
No - it was very much a case of ascendancy over Erastian Episcopalian/C of E type such as bishops and Royal supremacy. To help araldite King Billy on the throne by leeping the minister mannies happy, and to be fair manyt lieges. The RC bit was sort of baked in anyway once you'd done that, but was a bonus given the proclivities of the later Stuarts.
No more Laudian innovations and no more stools* flung in the High Kirk a la 1637.
*The three legged kind, but I'm sure the unfortunate guinea pig of a priest in 1638 got the brown kind outside as well.
Though notably 14% of those living in Scotland are Roman Catholic now but only 9.6% in England are Roman Catholics
That is down from 75% 10 years ago, and at a time of high emotion. It'll be sub 50 in 10 years time.
There is a danger that it could unravel if they don't move with the times, abolish a lot of the rigmarole and bowing ( nobody should bow to another)and above all be seen to be paying taxes
If they recognise these dangers then they should survive, but need to make sure they are not taking the public for granted at anytime
I quite like a bit of bowing. Germans in particular nod their heads as they shake hands in mutual respect, which is really quite pleasant. Thankfully most of them have dispensed with the heel clicking and the funny Roman salute though.
It is lovely in Japan and showing respect is fine, but bowing to a monarch is subjugation and needs to go
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Good luck after a mass coronal ejection solar flare or an emp takes out the grid, or the net is screwed
A mass coronal ejection seems somehow to have been what we've been experiencing this week.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Didn’t he affirm some oath about defending the Church of Scotland?
So he did, on checking. Maybe when he was up here anyway.
Lots of excitement on twitter that this was some affirmation of (a minimal) Scottish sovereignty, but afaics it was mostly about confirming that the Church of Scotland has ascendancy over the Papists. Am I misreading it?
No - it was very much a case of ascendancy over Erastian Episcopalian/C of E type such as bishops and Royal supremacy. To help araldite King Billy on the throne by leeping the minister mannies happy, and to be fair manyt lieges. The RC bit was sort of baked in anyway once you'd done that, but was a bonus given the proclivities of the later Stuarts.
No more Laudian innovations and no more stools* flung in the High Kirk a la 1637.
*The three legged kind, but I'm sure the unfortunate guinea pig of a priest in 1638 got the brown kind outside as well.
Though notably 14% of those living in Scotland are Roman Catholic now but only 9.6% in England are Roman Catholics
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Another reason to move to the alt-banks - they offer limiting transaction sizes, locking/unlocking accounts instantly and virtual cards (one use or multi). All things the legacy clown shows are having extreme trouble with.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Didn’t he affirm some oath about defending the Church of Scotland?
So he did, on checking. Maybe when he was up here anyway.
Lots of excitement on twitter that this was some affirmation of (a minimal) Scottish sovereignty, but afaics it was mostly about confirming that the Church of Scotland has ascendancy over the Papists. Am I misreading it?
No - it was very much a case of ascendancy over Erastian Episcopalian/C of E type such as bishops and Royal supremacy. To help araldite King Billy on the throne by leeping the minister mannies happy, and to be fair manyt lieges. The RC bit was sort of baked in anyway once you'd done that, but was a bonus given the proclivities of the later Stuarts.
No more Laudian innovations and no more stools* flung in the High Kirk a la 1637.
*The three legged kind, but I'm sure the unfortunate guinea pig of a priest in 1638 got the brown kind outside as well.
Though notably 14% of those living in Scotland are Roman Catholic now but only 9.6% in England are Roman Catholics
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unambiguously that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland.
It isn't hers to do anything with, is it?
It is. Commissioners for the Keeping of the Regalia.
Ah, fair enough. Her and a few friends, anyway.
Is the current one even the original? It was out of sight for quite a while, after all.
Just a bit of stone from the Annaty Burn anyway, innit? It isn't from anywhere exotic.
Put it this way, if it's a black sculptured stone from Ireland/the West, it's a bloody odd one. Its lithology is inconsistent with Dunstaffnage, but consistent with stone from the district, and most of all with the Perth area. Which, interpreted, means Edward Longshanks just grabbed the nearest lump with a handle on it, on top of the Abbey cesspit, when he needed to foist something on his homies back in London.
Though I don't think it's such a bad reminder of some of the key responsibilityes of government - to keep the utilities running.
Yes, I was always told it was just a rock from somewhere local to Scone Palace, and probably from somewhere near to what is now Quarrymill Park.
Did someone stash the original? Perhaps this is the third one (after the second was nicked in the 50s and allegedly 'returned').
What would you do with Longshanks and his nutters approaching? Leave it out?
Obviously not. Where to stash it though? The river?
Perhaps someone would like to write a conspiracy thriller based on the founding of an ancient order tasked with looking after it.
There were two competing wings of the ancient order, tracing their lineage to the court of King Arthur pledging to save the ancient British relic from the descendants of the vile Normans.
One group was based in Cornwall and one in Devon. A blood feud started when they met at the grand secret council on the isle of Lundy.
Do we hide the stone of Scone on top of something or underneath something?
He's gone totally native since he got all those lovely contacts for his SpaceX book.
That's what people said when he predicted the SLS launch date, years back. Which turned out to be optimistic.
Or predicted that Vulcan would slip to the right repeatedly. Which turned out to be exactly right as well.
His track record means he is the top space reporter, now.
The maths is fairly simple - ULA, based on track record, isn't going to integrate new engines to a new booster, doing the testing and launch in 3 months.
No, they didn't say that back then, because he only released his book in March last year. But the time it was published coincided with his articles getting (ahem) rather anti any competitors to SpaceX. And you cannot blame him: I think he has said his next book is also going to be about SpaceX (for all the fanbois), and Musk notoriously cuts off access to journalists who writes stories he does not like - ref. Ashlee Vance.
You may have noticed SpaceX having had a few issues with SS/SH recently. He is oddly less keen to write clickbait articles about those. I wonder why? And Musk repeatedly misses deadlines for that as well....
The pro SLS types have been banging on about Berger being biased to SpaceX, every time he writes a story about SLS, for years. Remember when SLS was going to launch in 2018 - nailed on, dead certain?
He has been rather complimentary about some of the up and coming rocket companies. And has a very good relationship with Tory Bruno.
I'm not pro-SLS BTW. But I'm amazed you cannot see a pro-SpaceX bias in Berger's work, especially since the release of his book. He knows where the money is...
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
That is down from 75% 10 years ago, and at a time of high emotion. It'll be sub 50 in 10 years time.
There is a danger that it could unravel if they don't move with the times, abolish a lot of the rigmarole and bowing ( nobody should bow to another)and above all be seen to be paying taxes
If they recognise these dangers then they should survive, but need to make sure they are not taking the public for granted at anytime
I quite like a bit of bowing. Germans in particular nod their heads as they shake hands in mutual respect, which is really quite pleasant. Thankfully most of them have dispensed with the heel clicking and the funny Roman salute though.
It is lovely in Japan and showing respect is fine, but bowing to a monarch is subjugation and needs to go
it is an individual choice
It shouldn’t need to be
so you are saying the state should forbid it - ie tell you what you have to do? Surely the ideal is an individual choice? (which it is of course now)
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
Wonder if he'll make an appearance at the funeral.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Almost as if they are trying to create a cashless society by default This card is not compatible with meat based product barcodes
Or you do not have enough social credits to make these purchases. A system the Chinese are already running.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
That is down from 75% 10 years ago, and at a time of high emotion. It'll be sub 50 in 10 years time.
There is a danger that it could unravel if they don't move with the times, abolish a lot of the rigmarole and bowing ( nobody should bow to another)and above all be seen to be paying taxes
If they recognise these dangers then they should survive, but need to make sure they are not taking the public for granted at anytime
I quite like a bit of bowing. Germans in particular nod their heads as they shake hands in mutual respect, which is really quite pleasant. Thankfully most of them have dispensed with the heel clicking and the funny Roman salute though.
It is lovely in Japan and showing respect is fine, but bowing to a monarch is subjugation and needs to go
it is an individual choice
It shouldn’t need to be
so you are saying the state should forbid it - ie tell you what you have to do? Surely the ideal is an individual choice?
No - the King should deem it unnecessary as he modernises the monarchy
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
LOL you really think the original is in Scotland?
Of course it's the original. Haven't you read 'Thud!'
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
He's gone totally native since he got all those lovely contacts for his SpaceX book.
That's what people said when he predicted the SLS launch date, years back. Which turned out to be optimistic.
Or predicted that Vulcan would slip to the right repeatedly. Which turned out to be exactly right as well.
His track record means he is the top space reporter, now.
The maths is fairly simple - ULA, based on track record, isn't going to integrate new engines to a new booster, doing the testing and launch in 3 months.
No, they didn't say that back then, because he only released his book in March last year. But the time it was published coincided with his articles getting (ahem) rather anti any competitors to SpaceX. And you cannot blame him: I think he has said his next book is also going to be about SpaceX (for all the fanbois), and Musk notoriously cuts off access to journalists who writes stories he does not like - ref. Ashlee Vance.
You may have noticed SpaceX having had a few issues with SS/SH recently. He is oddly less keen to write clickbait articles about those. I wonder why? And Musk repeatedly misses deadlines for that as well....
The pro SLS types have been banging on about Berger being biased to SpaceX, every time he writes a story about SLS, for years. Remember when SLS was going to launch in 2018 - nailed on, dead certain?
He has been rather complimentary about some of the up and coming rocket companies. And has a very good relationship with Tory Bruno.
I'm not pro-SLS BTW. But I'm amazed you cannot see a pro-SpaceX bias in Berger's work, especially since the release of his book. He knows where the money is...
He's been factually correct on all the his reporting, so far. What else do you want?
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
What happens when Barty cuts his finger or sands the skin off his fingerpads doing DIY or hobbies? I've done both in my time, quite often.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Almost as if they are trying to create a cashless society by default This card is not compatible with meat based product barcodes
Or you do not have enough social credits to make these purchases. A system the Chinese are already running.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
There is no such thing as "legal tender" in the UK, but electronic payments are every bit as legal as cash, so any business that accepts electronic payments only is accepting a form of legal payment. Why should they be compelled by law to accept other forms of legal payment like cash if they don't want to? Should cash-only businesses be compelled by law to accept electronic payments too?
"Apartheid system" that is ridiculous.
If anyone doesn't have access to electronic funds then they should be offered help or support if they need it to enable them to do so. If anyone has access but chooses not to use it, then that's their own choice.
I know many people who have been victims of armed robberies. A woman I know had a machete held to her throat in Walton (Liverpool), while she was pregnant, in order for the manager of the business to open its timed delay safe.
If a company in Walton decides they don't want to be at risk of a robbery, so they're not going to accept cash, then that should be their free choice.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
LOL you really think the original is in Scotland?
Of course it's the original. Haven't you read 'Thud!'
Not sure for HMQ, but the typical southbound commercial flight path from Edinburgh to London would overpass Manchester and possibly Birmingham. (On Yorkshire side, we tend to see northbound London-Scotland paths).
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
That is down from 75% 10 years ago, and at a time of high emotion. It'll be sub 50 in 10 years time.
There is a danger that it could unravel if they don't move with the times, abolish a lot of the rigmarole and bowing ( nobody should bow to another)and above all be seen to be paying taxes
If they recognise these dangers then they should survive, but need to make sure they are not taking the public for granted at anytime
I quite like a bit of bowing. Germans in particular nod their heads as they shake hands in mutual respect, which is really quite pleasant. Thankfully most of them have dispensed with the heel clicking and the funny Roman salute though.
It is lovely in Japan and showing respect is fine, but bowing to a monarch is subjugation and needs to go
it is an individual choice
It shouldn’t need to be
so you are saying the state should forbid it - ie tell you what you have to do? Surely the ideal is an individual choice?
No - the King should deem it unnecessary as he modernises the monarchy
but that is the situation now - it is not necessary , it is an individual choice - I suspect that the King saying he does not want it woudl put a lot of people in an uncomfortable position when the status quo of letting people decide free of direction is best. The King is not in a position anyway to dictate , he is a constitutional monarch , a keyholder for the Monarchy
Zelensky has the opportunity to join the greats of global politics. He needs to win the war (of course), guide Ukraine carefully into a prosperous and corruption free future,
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
Why should people have the ability to make purchases without electronic means, in a firm that only wants to accept electronic payments?
That's no better than saying any cash only firms should be compelled by law to accept electronic transactions.
I don't carry cash, but I don't expect any cash-only firms to be compelled by law to accept my custom. I just choose to shop elsewhere instead.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
As someone deeply in favour of phasing out the lower value coins and who barely if ever uses cash, I agree with that. There is still a need and desire for some physical cash.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
LOL you really think the original is in Scotland?
Of course it's the original. Haven't you read 'Thud!'
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
LOL you really think the original is in Scotland?
Of course it's the original. Haven't you read 'Thud!'
Actually that's in The Fifth Elephant.
Once every year I treat myself to reading these books again. And discover another layer of jokes I missed the previous times through. That time might start about now.
Not sure for HMQ, but the typical southbound commercial flight path from Edinburgh to London would overpass Manchester and possibly Birmingham. (On Yorkshire side, we tend to see northbound London-Scotland paths).
Damn. Was hoping it would fly over leeds. Not showing on flightradar yet.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
As someone deeply in favour of phasing out the lower value coins and who barely if ever uses cash, I agree with that. There is still a need and desire for some physical cash.
Cash is available for those who want to use it, and can be used at places that choose to accept it.
There are restaurants near me that refuse cash. That's their choice, anyone who goes their knows that they don't accept cash before they get a table. If someone like Richard chooses to take his business elsewhere, that's his choice, but why should these firms be compelled by law to open themselves to burglaries are robberies if they don't want to be open to them?
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
Wonder if he'll make an appearance at the funeral.
I think that he is a little busy but it would be a sensation.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
Why should people have the ability to make purchases without electronic means, in a firm that only wants to accept electronic payments?
That's no better than saying any cash only firms should be compelled by law to accept electronic transactions.
I don't carry cash, but I don't expect any cash-only firms to be compelled by law to accept my custom. I just choose to shop elsewhere instead.
Because it gives the government an intrusive and easy to apply capability to control peoples individual personal finances on a scale never seen before. That is scary. Not sure on the answer, because generally cashless is easier, but there is a definite problem here.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
There is no such thing as "legal tender" in the UK, but electronic payments are every bit as legal as cash, so any business that accepts electronic payments only is accepting a form of legal payment. Why should they be compelled by law to accept other forms of legal payment like cash if they don't want to? Should cash-only businesses be compelled by law to accept electronic payments too?
"Apartheid system" that is ridiculous.
If anyone doesn't have access to electronic funds then they should be offered help or support if they need it to enable them to do so. If anyone has access but chooses not to use it, then that's their own choice.
I know many people who have been victims of armed robberies. A woman I know had a machete held to her throat in Walton (Liverpool), while she was pregnant, in order for the manager of the business to open its timed delay safe.
If a company in Walton decides they don't want to be at risk of a robbery, so they're not going to accept cash, then that should be their free choice.
Until the time comes when banks are willing to provide a debit card to EVERYONE companies need to accept cash...
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Didn’t he affirm some oath about defending the Church of Scotland?
So he did, on checking. Maybe when he was up here anyway.
Lots of excitement on twitter that this was some affirmation of (a minimal) Scottish sovereignty, but afaics it was mostly about confirming that the Church of Scotland has ascendancy over the Papists. Am I misreading it?
No - it was very much a case of ascendancy over Erastian Episcopalian/C of E type such as bishops and Royal supremacy. To help araldite King Billy on the throne by leeping the minister mannies happy, and to be fair manyt lieges. The RC bit was sort of baked in anyway once you'd done that, but was a bonus given the proclivities of the later Stuarts.
No more Laudian innovations and no more stools* flung in the High Kirk a la 1637.
*The three legged kind, but I'm sure the unfortunate guinea pig of a priest in 1638 got the brown kind outside as well.
Though notably 14% of those living in Scotland are Roman Catholic now but only 9.6% in England are Roman Catholics
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
As someone deeply in favour of phasing out the lower value coins and who barely if ever uses cash, I agree with that. There is still a need and desire for some physical cash.
Real life example - a number of the van type coffee stands in London only take cards. On asking, this is because they feel they have no-where safe for cash - their van is often one of those repro French van things. What should be done?
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
Why should people have the ability to make purchases without electronic means, in a firm that only wants to accept electronic payments?
That's no better than saying any cash only firms should be compelled by law to accept electronic transactions.
I don't carry cash, but I don't expect any cash-only firms to be compelled by law to accept my custom. I just choose to shop elsewhere instead.
Because it gives the government an intrusive and easy to apply capability to control peoples individual personal finances on a scale never seen before. That is scary. Not sure on the answer, because generally cashless is easier, but there is a definite problem here.
Banning cash would give the government that control.
Firms or individuals choosing to be cashless is an entirely different matter to banning cash.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
There is no such thing as "legal tender" in the UK, but electronic payments are every bit as legal as cash, so any business that accepts electronic payments only is accepting a form of legal payment. Why should they be compelled by law to accept other forms of legal payment like cash if they don't want to? Should cash-only businesses be compelled by law to accept electronic payments too?
"Apartheid system" that is ridiculous.
If anyone doesn't have access to electronic funds then they should be offered help or support if they need it to enable them to do so. If anyone has access but chooses not to use it, then that's their own choice.
I know many people who have been victims of armed robberies. A woman I know had a machete held to her throat in Walton (Liverpool), while she was pregnant, in order for the manager of the business to open its timed delay safe.
If a company in Walton decides they don't want to be at risk of a robbery, so they're not going to accept cash, then that should be their free choice.
Until the time comes when banks are willing to provide a debit card to EVERYONE companies need to accept cash...
Companies don't need to accept cash today. That is the law today.
If we're going to change the law, then making it easier to provide debit cards to everyone is better than compelling every business to jeopardise their security even when they don't want to.
Interesting stats. I am something of a monarchy-sceptic, but nonetheless feel the change is not really worth the hassle. I do think they should be taxed in the same way any other ordinary billionaire is though.
The interesting question that would reveal is - how much is your average billionaire on the street actually taxed, when it comes to family trusts? A very sensitive issue. Perhaps the RF should take one for their income class.
Very little I should think.
The thing about IHT is that it's only expensive houses, bank accounts, and quoted shares that are taxed at 40%.
Everything else is either untaxed, or taxed at a much lower level. That includes country houses that are open to the public, for at least 25 days a year, heritage assets, business property, farmland, woodland and unit trusts.
I believe the Duke of Westminster paid virtually nothing when he inherited his £9bn estate. (It's held in trust and makes extensive use of tax breaks to minimise tax liabilities)
Ah yes, the convenience of being rich and getting away with legalised murder, in a financial sense. Must be nice.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
There is no such thing as "legal tender" in the UK, but electronic payments are every bit as legal as cash, so any business that accepts electronic payments only is accepting a form of legal payment. Why should they be compelled by law to accept other forms of legal payment like cash if they don't want to? Should cash-only businesses be compelled by law to accept electronic payments too?
"Apartheid system" that is ridiculous.
If anyone doesn't have access to electronic funds then they should be offered help or support if they need it to enable them to do so. If anyone has access but chooses not to use it, then that's their own choice.
I know many people who have been victims of armed robberies. A woman I know had a machete held to her throat in Walton (Liverpool), while she was pregnant, in order for the manager of the business to open its timed delay safe.
If a company in Walton decides they don't want to be at risk of a robbery, so they're not going to accept cash, then that should be their free choice.
And I know far more people who have lost money due to card fraud. Of which there was £574 million worth in 2020 in the UK.
Puts your physical robbery into some sort of perspective.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
Why should people have the ability to make purchases without electronic means, in a firm that only wants to accept electronic payments?
That's no better than saying any cash only firms should be compelled by law to accept electronic transactions.
I don't carry cash, but I don't expect any cash-only firms to be compelled by law to accept my custom. I just choose to shop elsewhere instead.
Because it gives the government an intrusive and easy to apply capability to control peoples individual personal finances on a scale never seen before. That is scary. Not sure on the answer, because generally cashless is easier, but there is a definite problem here.
Banning cash would give the government that control.
Firms or individuals choosing to be cashless is an entirely different matter to banning cash.
Not sure it is in the medium term. For the reasons you have given firms will increasingly go cashless. Then banks will start to go cashless. Then the govt will say cash is pointless and out of date. That is when the governments of the future will make their power grab.
Try reading the link and coming back to me, legal tender in this country is contrary to misbelief not about shops, if a shop doesn't let you get into debt then there is no legal tender issue.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
There is no such thing as "legal tender" in the UK, but electronic payments are every bit as legal as cash, so any business that accepts electronic payments only is accepting a form of legal payment. Why should they be compelled by law to accept other forms of legal payment like cash if they don't want to? Should cash-only businesses be compelled by law to accept electronic payments too?
"Apartheid system" that is ridiculous.
If anyone doesn't have access to electronic funds then they should be offered help or support if they need it to enable them to do so. If anyone has access but chooses not to use it, then that's their own choice.
I know many people who have been victims of armed robberies. A woman I know had a machete held to her throat in Walton (Liverpool), while she was pregnant, in order for the manager of the business to open its timed delay safe.
If a company in Walton decides they don't want to be at risk of a robbery, so they're not going to accept cash, then that should be their free choice.
And I know far more people who have lost money due to card fraud. Of which there was £574 million worth in 2020 in the UK.
Puts your physical robbery into some sort of perspective.
Yes, card fraud is nowhere near as serious as people getting stabbed or held up in an armed robbery.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
Wonder if he'll make an appearance at the funeral.
I think that he is a little busy but it would be a sensation.
A chance of the war being finished in time for the Coronation though.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
Why should people have the ability to make purchases without electronic means, in a firm that only wants to accept electronic payments?
That's no better than saying any cash only firms should be compelled by law to accept electronic transactions.
I don't carry cash, but I don't expect any cash-only firms to be compelled by law to accept my custom. I just choose to shop elsewhere instead.
In Norway all companies by law have to accept card payments. From the biggest multinational to the smallest corner shop. I don't object to that as it provides choice (something you keep banging on about). I do object to removing that choice from the customer by forcing them to use electronic means.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
Why should people have the ability to make purchases without electronic means, in a firm that only wants to accept electronic payments?
That's no better than saying any cash only firms should be compelled by law to accept electronic transactions.
I don't carry cash, but I don't expect any cash-only firms to be compelled by law to accept my custom. I just choose to shop elsewhere instead.
In Norway all companies by law have to accept card payments. From the biggest multinational to the smallest corner shop. I don't object to that as it provides choice (something you keep banging on about). I do object to removing that choice from the customer by forcing them to use electronic means.
That would be incredibly unpopular around here given the numbers who use cash only.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
There is no such thing as "legal tender" in the UK, but electronic payments are every bit as legal as cash, so any business that accepts electronic payments only is accepting a form of legal payment. Why should they be compelled by law to accept other forms of legal payment like cash if they don't want to? Should cash-only businesses be compelled by law to accept electronic payments too?
"Apartheid system" that is ridiculous.
If anyone doesn't have access to electronic funds then they should be offered help or support if they need it to enable them to do so. If anyone has access but chooses not to use it, then that's their own choice.
I know many people who have been victims of armed robberies. A woman I know had a machete held to her throat in Walton (Liverpool), while she was pregnant, in order for the manager of the business to open its timed delay safe.
If a company in Walton decides they don't want to be at risk of a robbery, so they're not going to accept cash, then that should be their free choice.
And I know far more people who have lost money due to card fraud. Of which there was £574 million worth in 2020 in the UK.
Puts your physical robbery into some sort of perspective.
Yes, card fraud is nowhere near as serious as people getting stabbed or held up in an armed robbery.
People get stabbed for their wallets when they have no money. Again it is a straw man argument.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
Why should people have the ability to make purchases without electronic means, in a firm that only wants to accept electronic payments?
That's no better than saying any cash only firms should be compelled by law to accept electronic transactions.
I don't carry cash, but I don't expect any cash-only firms to be compelled by law to accept my custom. I just choose to shop elsewhere instead.
In Norway all companies by law have to accept card payments. From the biggest multinational to the smallest corner shop. I don't object to that as it provides choice (something you keep banging on about). I do object to removing that choice from the customer by forcing them to use electronic means.
Nobody is forced to do anything, its a choice. Nobody compels you to go to a corner shop that is cash only, or a restaurant that is card only.
Most firms choose to accept cash and card because they want to appeal to as many customers as possible. If any don't, due to security or other concerns, then that's their choice too - and yours if you choose to frequent them or not.
Comments
Perhaps someone would like to write a conspiracy thriller based on the founding of an ancient order tasked with looking after it.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
https://www.statista.com/statistics/367848/scotland-religious-beliefs-population/
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stone-Nigel-Tranter/dp/1873631014
"He unfortunately forgot that, where no resistance can be made, no courage can be exerted; and instead of consulting the dictates of reason and magnanimity, he indulged the furious emotions of his temper, at a time when they were disgraceful to himself, and fatal to the defenceless objects of his displeasure. In the government of his household, or of his empire, slight, or even imaginary offences — a hasty word, a casual omission, an involuntary delay — were chastised by a sentence of immediate death. The expressions which issued the most readily from the mouth of the emperor of the West were, "Strike off his head;" — "Burn him alive;" "Let him be beaten with clubs till he expires;"
and his most favoured ministers soon understood that, by a rash attempt to dispute or suspend the execution of his sanguinary commands; they might involve themselves in the guilt and punishment of disobedience.
The repeated gratification of this savage justice hardened the mind of Valentinian against pity and remorse; and the sallies of passion were confirmed by the habits of cruelty.
He could behold with calm satisfaction the convulsive agonies of torture and death: he reserved his friendship for those faithful servants whose temper was the most congenial to his own. The merit of Maximin, who had slaughtered the noblest families of Rome, was rewarded with the royal approbation, and the praefecture of Gaul. Two fierce and enormous bears, distinguished by the appellations of Innocence and Mica Aurea, could alone deserve to share the favour of Maximin. The cages of those trusty guards were always placed near the bed-chamber of Valentinian, who frequently amused his eyes with the grateful spectacle of seeing them tear and devour the bleeding limbs of the malefactors who were abandoned to their rage. Their diet and exercises were carefully inspected by the Roman emperor; and when Innocence had earned her discharge, by a long course of meritorious service, the faithful animal was again restored to the freedom of her native woods.
No business should be compelled to be electronic, and none should be forbidden from it. Free choice for all.
Parc employees made to work on a holiday and spitting in the guests' coffee?
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
But there's a reason a leader with a huge majority got ousted, and I guarantee it wasnt because a majority of Tory MPs decided to give in to Labour.
Wife - "Did you finish all of my shampoos and conditioner, again?"
Zelensky has the opportunity to join the greats of global politics. He needs to win the war (of course), guide Ukraine carefully into a prosperous and corruption free future, and then crucially retire at the top, Mandela style, rather than hanging on and becoming grumpy and backwards looking (like De Gaulle) or a tyrant (like Kagame or Mugabe).
You may have noticed SpaceX having had a few issues with SS/SH recently. He is oddly less keen to write clickbait articles about those. I wonder why? And Musk repeatedly misses deadlines for that as well....
We stayed there on a Bank Holiday Monday earlier this year, don't remember it being closed then.
[I have spent a lot of time in Scone, hence the interest]
Some members of the EU are very definitely not on his Christmas card list
Businesses are learning that you can't just zero hour the staff, give them shifts at the last minute and expect them to be grateful.
This card is not compatible with meat based product barcodes
Azerbaijan by contrast is an authoritarian
state, and increasingly a Turkish satellite.
That conflict is the exception to the rule of Russia’s usual preference for the strongman. Armenia has some common features with Israel, including being a small homeland boxed in by hostile states and having gone through a historical almost terminal genocide.
Sure, the place might shut some of the on-site services during the funeral, but turfing people out of their holiday accommodation for a night in the middle of their break is a massive overreaction.
He has been rather complimentary about some of the up and coming rocket companies. And has a very good relationship with Tory Bruno.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Corgi - "Shall I be mum?"
Queen - "Carry on ..."
Corgi - Pisses on the red shoes of TSE
Queen - "Don't be concerned TSE - It's a sign of endearment. He so enjoys an AV thread"
TSE - "Oh ....and if we run out of sandwiches I've got a slice of pizza in my man bag."
Queen - "Wonderful. In emergencies in my handbag I always keep a slice too - pineapple pizza !!!"
TSE - Collapses ....
One group was based in Cornwall and one in Devon. A blood feud started when they met at the grand secret council on the isle of Lundy.
Do we hide the stone of Scone on top of something or underneath something?
This secret war has raged for centuries since.
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4?r=US&IR=T.
Haven't you read 'Thud!'
Vulcan isn't going to launch before Q1 2023
Oh, and this - https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1382378135757332490
But we are nice countries, it couldnt happen here!
"Apartheid system" that is ridiculous.
If anyone doesn't have access to electronic funds then they should be offered help or support if they need it to enable them to do so. If anyone has access but chooses not to use it, then that's their own choice.
I know many people who have been victims of armed robberies. A woman I know had a machete held to her throat in Walton (Liverpool), while she was pregnant, in order for the manager of the business to open its timed delay safe.
If a company in Walton decides they don't want to be at risk of a robbery, so they're not going to accept cash, then that should be their free choice.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
*pulls out submachine gun loaded with bullets that only shoot pineapple pizza users*
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
That's no better than saying any cash only firms should be compelled by law to accept electronic transactions.
I don't carry cash, but I don't expect any cash-only firms to be compelled by law to accept my custom. I just choose to shop elsewhere instead.
There are restaurants near me that refuse cash. That's their choice, anyone who goes their knows that they don't accept cash before they get a table. If someone like Richard chooses to take his business elsewhere, that's his choice, but why should these firms be compelled by law to open themselves to burglaries are robberies if they don't want to be open to them?
Firms or individuals choosing to be cashless is an entirely different matter to banning cash.
If we're going to change the law, then making it easier to provide debit cards to everyone is better than compelling every business to jeopardise their security even when they don't want to.
Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender#United_Kingdom
Puts your physical robbery into some sort of perspective.
Try reading the link and coming back to me, legal tender in this country is contrary to misbelief not about shops, if a shop doesn't let you get into debt then there is no legal tender issue.
Any guesses on the date for that?
Most firms choose to accept cash and card because they want to appeal to as many customers as possible. If any don't, due to security or other concerns, then that's their choice too - and yours if you choose to frequent them or not.