Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

CON & LAB now level pegging in the GE most seats betting – politicalbetting.com

1235789

Comments

  • Barty: There is no such thing as "legal tender" in the UK . . .

    Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender#United_Kingdom

    Yes, really.

    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.
    I did read the link. You said that "There is no such thing as legal tender".

    Fact that the term does NOT mean what many (likely most) people THINK it means, does NOT mean that it does NOT exist.

    "In the UK legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts . . ."
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,721

    Pro_Rata said:

    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.
    Now it is: https://www.flightradar24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,785

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    I've worked in this area from the Bank's side and it's brutal. Most elderly victims blame themselves and you can't repair that sort of damage.
  • ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    probably done for tax reasons - hard to hide electronic money from the taxman
  • There is more rejoicing in Heaven etc. etc.

    #BREAKING In call with Putin, Scholz demands 'complete withdrawal' from Ukraine

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1569723938611003392
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651

    Dynamo said:

    Carnyx said:

    .

    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!
    I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
    I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.

    One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.

    Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.

  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
  • On the centreparcs thing I can imagine some families refusing to comply and just staying put. They really have not thought this through.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841
    Paying by cheque is the zizi way
  • MISTY said:

    Leon said:

    If Crimea falls, Putin falls

    When.

    Its not that long ago that Putin apologists on this site were saying the idea of Crimea falling was laughable and not achievable.

    The curtain has really been pulled back and shown Russia in its true, wretched state.
    The thing is, that could be a cue for instability and unrest in all kinds of areas where the Russians have influence. Syria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Chechnya etc.

    Good.

    Dictatorships are the wrong kind of stability. Time to shake the kaleidoscope and see what comes up.
    I can't see those being blown up being very grateful that they have been freed from their 'wrong type of stability'. What a fatuous post.
    You're the fatuous one, but considering your affectation for Putin, its not really surprising.

    How many of those getting blown up by dictators currently in order to ensure the continuation of "stability" are grateful for the security being secured by blowing them up?
    The ones in Syria are extremely grateful - tell me, who would you rather live under, Assad or those fighting him?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,853
    Globemaster now on Flight Radar:

    https://fr24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f
  • MISTY said:

    Leon said:

    If Crimea falls, Putin falls

    When.

    Its not that long ago that Putin apologists on this site were saying the idea of Crimea falling was laughable and not achievable.

    The curtain has really been pulled back and shown Russia in its true, wretched state.
    The thing is, that could be a cue for instability and unrest in all kinds of areas where the Russians have influence. Syria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Chechnya etc.

    Good.

    Dictatorships are the wrong kind of stability. Time to shake the kaleidoscope and see what comes up.
    I can't see those being blown up being very grateful that they have been freed from their 'wrong type of stability'. What a fatuous post.
    You're the fatuous one, but considering your affectation for Putin, its not really surprising.

    How many of those getting blown up by dictators currently in order to ensure the continuation of "stability" are grateful for the security being secured by blowing them up?
    The ones in Syria are extremely grateful - tell me, who would you rather live under, Assad or those fighting him?
    Those fighting him and ISIS.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

    It is the modern equivalent of banning Irish and blacks.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841
    edited September 2022

    There is more rejoicing in Heaven etc. etc.

    #BREAKING In call with Putin, Scholz demands 'complete withdrawal' from Ukraine

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1569723938611003392

    Or else they'll buy lots of Russian oil and gas
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785

    Globemaster now on Flight Radar:

    https://fr24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f

    Subscribers have priority, a wait set up for ordinary users.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959

    There is more rejoicing in Heaven etc. etc.

    #BREAKING In call with Putin, Scholz demands 'complete withdrawal' from Ukraine

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1569723938611003392

    But what does Scholz mean by "Ukraine"? Not Crimea, I'd venture....
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

    It is the modern equivalent of banning Irish and blacks.
    It doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone.

    People don't choose to be Irish or black. If people aren't using electronic funds, that is their choice. If anyone needs support to get electronic access, then that should be offered, but no need take away others choices to do so.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Yeah i mean no armed robber would want their stock or equipment
  • ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    I thought so to but it has been in existence in Norway since I started working there in the 90s. It is simply accepted now. Most people still use cash as well but it caters for both.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,156
    edited September 2022

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Yeah i mean no armed robber would want their stock or equipment
    Most want cash, for obvious reasons.

    But that's why I said "reducing the risk" not eliminating it.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,415
    edited September 2022

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

    It is the modern equivalent of banning Irish and blacks.
    It doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone.

    People don't choose to be Irish or black. If people aren't using electronic funds, that is their choice. If anyone needs support to get electronic access, then that should be offered, but no need take away others choices to do so.
    Last week i went to my local chippy and i saw a new sign saying from the 1st September they are no longer taking cash--- For some reason my brain processed this as not taking cards so offered a £20 note from my wallet (always paid by card before!) - It was accepted in any case with change given.

    I can foresee an argument by a cash type business (to HMRC) that because they have signs saying they no longer take cash they have taken no cash (for it to be taxed ) - In reality they probaby have a bit
  • Oh dear, Charles seems to have lost his shit over a leaky pen at Hillsborough.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    Globemaster now on Flight Radar:

    https://fr24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f

    Northolt doesn't have a long runway. There was a story that a 707 landed there accidently many years ago mistaking it for Heathrow. The story goes that they had to tear out all the seats to get it back out again and that's why there was a big sign saying 'NO' (for Northolt) on the gas-storage in South Harrow.

    (No idea if it's in any way true)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    On the centreparcs thing I can imagine some families refusing to comply and just staying put. They really have not thought this through.

    At a random guess - they were finding that staff were holding out for a substantial bump in pay for working the unexpected Bank Holiday.

    This triggered a cascade of "I can't authorise this"* in management.

    *Not having the power to do something is common tactic in management. On one occasion, in a bank, I was asked to work on weekend to do a deployment**. I said that I would, once the overtime was approved. The manager did a double take, then reminded me that overtime wasn't paid to people on my grade - it was the system and he couldn't change it. I smiled and said that at soon as he got the overtime agreed, I would work the weekend. It took a few rounds until he realised I wasn't shifting.

    ** I've actually done plenty of weekend deployments. But the manager in question was someone who you'd never, ever do a favour for. Or show any flexibility to.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Yeah i mean no armed robber would want their stock or equipment
    Most want cash, for obvious reasons.

    But that's why I said "reducing the risk" not eliminating it.
    If cash isnt available they'll want stock, fags, jewellery, electronics etc
    Armed robbers arent going to stop armed robbing because of no cash
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    There is more rejoicing in Heaven etc. etc.

    #BREAKING In call with Putin, Scholz demands 'complete withdrawal' from Ukraine

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1569723938611003392

    But what does Scholz mean by "Ukraine"? Not Crimea, I'd venture....
    I doubt he would be alone in fudging on that point.
  • DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    It would be worth it to see BJ sidle up and lay claim to his besty.
  • Dynamo said:

    Dynamo said:

    Carnyx said:

    .

    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!
    I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
    I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.

    One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.

    Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.

    Typical of left wing views. It all boils down to 'forward'. Whether the planned destination is actually a shithole of human misery is usually beside the point.
  • eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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...
    London buses went cashless in 2014. (I wonder what happened to the Mayor at that time?)
    It made the drivers safer, the operations a bit simpler, cheaper and faster and didn't cause significant problems.

    The objections to cards are partly about people who don't have cards, which deffo needs to be sorted. But when people like Peter Hitchens are complaining, it's about mad paranoia...

    ... isn't it?
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

    It is the modern equivalent of banning Irish and blacks.
    It doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone.

    People don't choose to be Irish or black. If people aren't using electronic funds, that is their choice. If anyone needs support to get electronic access, then that should be offered, but no need take away others choices to do so.
    It infringes the rights of lots of people who cannot get a credit or debit card - I know from your rather privileged position you may find this hard to believe but there are plenty of people who are refused a bank account or any form of credit/debit facilities - 1.2 million of them as of 2020

    So yes for many it is not a matter of choice but of necessity to use cash.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Yeah i mean no armed robber would want their stock or equipment
    Most want cash, for obvious reasons.

    But that's why I said "reducing the risk" not eliminating it.
    If cash isnt available they'll want stock, fags, jewellery, electronics etc
    Armed robbers arent going to stop armed robbing because of no cash
    Actually plenty will.

    Holding a machete to someone's throat to get the safe opened is very different to holding a machete to somebodies throat to get pizza sauce out of a stock room.
  • Still hasn't taken off yet.

    EDIT - FlightRadar24 website crashed! (not the aircraft, thankfully!)
  • eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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...
    London buses went cashless in 2014. (I wonder what happened to the Mayor at that time?)
    It made the drivers safer, the operations a bit simpler, cheaper and faster and didn't cause significant problems.

    The objections to cards are partly about people who don't have cards, which deffo needs to be sorted. But when people like Peter Hitchens are complaining, it's about mad paranoia...

    ... isn't it?
    Not when you look at China.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,156
    edited September 2022

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

    It is the modern equivalent of banning Irish and blacks.
    It doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone.

    People don't choose to be Irish or black. If people aren't using electronic funds, that is their choice. If anyone needs support to get electronic access, then that should be offered, but no need take away others choices to do so.
    It infringes the rights of lots of people who cannot get a credit or debit card - I know from your rather privileged position you may find this hard to believe but there are plenty of people who are refused a bank account or any form of credit/debit facilities - 1.2 million of them as of 2020

    So yes for many it is not a matter of choice but of necessity to use cash.
    You're coming from a privileged position where security and armed robberies aren't a real concern to you.

    Yes I do believe that some people struggle to access electronic funds, and fixing that should be the priority, not compelling those who don't want to, to put their own safety at risk.
  • The UK suddenly seems to have developed a long term sickness problem, where it used to be a “success” compared to peer nations.

    It’s a Covid hangover, but other countries aren’t seeing quite the same effect.

    Something to do with the way Universal Credit now works?
  • Paying by cheque is the zizi way

    Yours truly pays rent via check. About the only checks I write these days.

    Landlord wants me to use online payments, I politely demur. And they keep cashing my checks.

    Which incidentally are in name of a long-defunct bank! Which went belly up and the remains purchased by another bank.

    However, before the first bank destroyed itself, it sent me a LARGE number of checks. For reasons best known to the idiots in change.

    BUT never have any problem using them, the new bank clearly thinks they are kosher, though not of course "legal tender".

    Though they ARE in dollars & cents; in USA the former are legal tender (check the fine print on a greenback if you've got one handy) whereas the later are not (instead "money of account". A phrase apparently coined (pun intended) by Alexander Hamilton when he was 1st US Treasury Secretary.
  • Why on Earth is Charles so damn touchy?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840

    Oh dear, Charles seems to have lost his shit over a leaky pen at Hillsborough.

    He's signing for Sheffield Wednesday?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461

    Still hasn't taken off yet.

    EDIT - FlightRadar24 website crashed! (not the aircraft, thankfully!)

    Royalist geeks have overloaded it.
  • Oh dear, Charles seems to have lost his shit over a leaky pen at Hillsborough.

    Here's the video:

    https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1569725148432834561
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,785
    edited September 2022

    Oh dear, Charles seems to have lost his shit over a leaky pen at Hillsborough.

    The man looks frazzled. Put the wrong date down as well.

    Honestly the job looks grim. 6 days of this to go.
  • On the centreparcs thing I can imagine some families refusing to comply and just staying put. They really have not thought this through.

    At a random guess - they were finding that staff were holding out for a substantial bump in pay for working the unexpected Bank Holiday.

    This triggered a cascade of "I can't authorise this"* in management.

    *Not having the power to do something is common tactic in management. On one occasion, in a bank, I was asked to work on weekend to do a deployment**. I said that I would, once the overtime was approved. The manager did a double take, then reminded me that overtime wasn't paid to people on my grade - it was the system and he couldn't change it. I smiled and said that at soon as he got the overtime agreed, I would work the weekend. It took a few rounds until he realised I wasn't shifting.

    ** I've actually done plenty of weekend deployments. But the manager in question was someone who you'd never, ever do a favour for. Or show any flexibility to.
    But to keep the accommodation only open probably requires 10-20% of their staff, maybe less, I don't see why they would have any difficulty finding that level of staffing.

    Offering their normal service may well have been beyond them, but kicking out guests who have paid long in advance when their are reasonable alternatives is a no-no.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

    It is the modern equivalent of banning Irish and blacks.
    It doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone.

    People don't choose to be Irish or black. If people aren't using electronic funds, that is their choice. If anyone needs support to get electronic access, then that should be offered, but no need take away others choices to do so.
    It infringes the rights of lots of people who cannot get a credit or debit card - I know from your rather privileged position you may find this hard to believe but there are plenty of people who are refused a bank account or any form of credit/debit facilities - 1.2 million of them as of 2020

    So yes for many it is not a matter of choice but of necessity to use cash.
    You're coming from a privileged position where security and armed robberies aren't a real concern to you.

    Yes I do believe that some people struggle to access electronic funds, and fixing that should be the priority, not compelling those who don't want to, to put their own safety at risk.
    Until you have fixed the former you should not allow the latter. And even then it should not be the case. That is only one aspect of the argument against moving to a cashless society.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    Omnium said:

    Globemaster now on Flight Radar:

    https://fr24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f

    Northolt doesn't have a long runway. There was a story that a 707 landed there accidently many years ago mistaking it for Heathrow. The story goes that they had to tear out all the seats to get it back out again and that's why there was a big sign saying 'NO' (for Northolt) on the gas-storage in South Harrow.

    (No idea if it's in any way true)
    More than one, it seems:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Northolt

    Hard evidence for one here:

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1960/dec/12/aircraft-landing-northolt
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Why on Earth is Charles so damn touchy?

    He's been a prince for 70 years?
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Yeah i mean no armed robber would want their stock or equipment
    Most want cash, for obvious reasons.

    But that's why I said "reducing the risk" not eliminating it.
    If cash isnt available they'll want stock, fags, jewellery, electronics etc
    Armed robbers arent going to stop armed robbing because of no cash
    Actually plenty will.

    Holding a machete to someone's throat to get the safe opened is very different to holding a machete to somebodies throat to get pizza sauce out of a stock room.
    Ha ha! Just has gangster land has a whole vocabulary for cash (pony, score , bag ,bernie) it surely has for Pizza sauce (pineapple, cheese , big cheese , roman ) just imagine Ray Winstone demanding some from some slag who has not paid him
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

    It is the modern equivalent of banning Irish and blacks.
    It doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone.

    People don't choose to be Irish or black. If people aren't using electronic funds, that is their choice. If anyone needs support to get electronic access, then that should be offered, but no need take away others choices to do so.
    It infringes the rights of lots of people who cannot get a credit or debit card - I know from your rather privileged position you may find this hard to believe but there are plenty of people who are refused a bank account or any form of credit/debit facilities - 1.2 million of them as of 2020

    So yes for many it is not a matter of choice but of necessity to use cash.
    And many more who choose to use cash to better manage their budgets. Particularly those with poor maths or budgeting skills.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

    It is the modern equivalent of banning Irish and blacks.
    It doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone.

    People don't choose to be Irish or black. If people aren't using electronic funds, that is their choice. If anyone needs support to get electronic access, then that should be offered, but no need take away others choices to do so.
    It infringes the rights of lots of people who cannot get a credit or debit card - I know from your rather privileged position you may find this hard to believe but there are plenty of people who are refused a bank account or any form of credit/debit facilities - 1.2 million of them as of 2020

    So yes for many it is not a matter of choice but of necessity to use cash.
    You're coming from a privileged position where security and armed robberies aren't a real concern to you.

    Yes I do believe that some people struggle to access electronic funds, and fixing that should be the priority, not compelling those who don't want to, to put their own safety at risk.
    It's a lot of people. Until it is fixed, it cannot be replaced.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461

    On the centreparcs thing I can imagine some families refusing to comply and just staying put. They really have not thought this through.

    At a random guess - they were finding that staff were holding out for a substantial bump in pay for working the unexpected Bank Holiday.

    This triggered a cascade of "I can't authorise this"* in management.

    *Not having the power to do something is common tactic in management. On one occasion, in a bank, I was asked to work on weekend to do a deployment**. I said that I would, once the overtime was approved. The manager did a double take, then reminded me that overtime wasn't paid to people on my grade - it was the system and he couldn't change it. I smiled and said that at soon as he got the overtime agreed, I would work the weekend. It took a few rounds until he realised I wasn't shifting.

    ** I've actually done plenty of weekend deployments. But the manager in question was someone who you'd never, ever do a favour for. Or show any flexibility to.
    But to keep the accommodation only open probably requires 10-20% of their staff, maybe less, I don't see why they would have any difficulty finding that level of staffing.

    Offering their normal service may well have been beyond them, but kicking out guests who have paid long in advance when their are reasonable alternatives is a no-no.
    Especially ones who on a Friday to Friday stay, not beginning of ending on the Monday.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Yeah i mean no armed robber would want their stock or equipment
    Most want cash, for obvious reasons.

    But that's why I said "reducing the risk" not eliminating it.
    If cash isnt available they'll want stock, fags, jewellery, electronics etc
    Armed robbers arent going to stop armed robbing because of no cash
    Actually plenty will.

    Holding a machete to someone's throat to get the safe opened is very different to holding a machete to somebodies throat to get pizza sauce out of a stock room.
    You dont think they might not just target convenient stock rich environments instead? Theyll just give up their life of crime and take up macramė
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,397
    There's a hybrid system in the nearest grocery store to me (Metropolitan): Supermarkets in the Seattle area are adding automated checkout stations, and recently I learned that some, including the one just installed there, only takes debit and credit cards. So, when I pick up a copy of the New York Times this morning -- I like the Tuesday science section, though it is not as good as it was years ago -- I won't be able to pay cash for it at one of the automated stations. (I now usually pay cash for purchases costing less than 20 dollars, even though Chase gives me a little back for every purchase made with their credit card.)

    In contrast, the next nearest supermarket (QFC), part of the immense Kroger chain, has automated checking stations that do take cash.
  • eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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...
    London buses went cashless in 2014. (I wonder what happened to the Mayor at that time?)
    It made the drivers safer, the operations a bit simpler, cheaper and faster and didn't cause significant problems.

    The objections to cards are partly about people who don't have cards, which deffo needs to be sorted. But when people like Peter Hitchens are complaining, it's about mad paranoia...

    ... isn't it?
    Look at social credit in China. Why would western governments eventually not want similar powers? Cashless gives them this.

    Put a poster up mocking the Kings brother? Limit their pizza choice to hawaiian only for the next month.....much quieter than having to arrest them and justify it.
  • Oh dear, Charles seems to have lost his shit over a leaky pen at Hillsborough.

    Prostates can be a bugger at that age
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    People should cut Charles some slack. He’s just lost his Mum and the whole spectacle is being played out in the public eye. It’s a test for anyone.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.

    Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.

    Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
  • On the centreparcs thing I can imagine some families refusing to comply and just staying put. They really have not thought this through.

    At a random guess - they were finding that staff were holding out for a substantial bump in pay for working the unexpected Bank Holiday.

    This triggered a cascade of "I can't authorise this"* in management.

    *Not having the power to do something is common tactic in management. On one occasion, in a bank, I was asked to work on weekend to do a deployment**. I said that I would, once the overtime was approved. The manager did a double take, then reminded me that overtime wasn't paid to people on my grade - it was the system and he couldn't change it. I smiled and said that at soon as he got the overtime agreed, I would work the weekend. It took a few rounds until he realised I wasn't shifting.

    ** I've actually done plenty of weekend deployments. But the manager in question was someone who you'd never, ever do a favour for. Or show any flexibility to.
    But to keep the accommodation only open probably requires 10-20% of their staff, maybe less, I don't see why they would have any difficulty finding that level of staffing.

    Offering their normal service may well have been beyond them, but kicking out guests who have paid long in advance when their are reasonable alternatives is a no-no.
    Especially ones who on a Friday to Friday stay, not beginning of ending on the Monday.
    The rooms arent even cleaned so it just needs a handful of maintenance and security staff for any problems. I predict if they don't u-turn they will need more security staff to get people out than they would have done if they had left it open.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    edited September 2022

    Still hasn't taken off yet.

    EDIT - FlightRadar24 website crashed! (not the aircraft, thankfully!)


    They have very sensibly provided a special youtube link. It's been through UFO country and is over Ayrshire at present.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uBNoG914jI
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited September 2022
    Taz said:

    People should cut Charles some slack. He’s just lost his Mum and the whole spectacle is being played out in the public eye. It’s a test for anyone.

    Yes, but that’s the job.
    As noted above, it’s a ghastly thing, but that’s the bargain.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

    It is the modern equivalent of banning Irish and blacks.
    It doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone.

    People don't choose to be Irish or black. If people aren't using electronic funds, that is their choice. If anyone needs support to get electronic access, then that should be offered, but no need take away others choices to do so.
    It infringes the rights of lots of people who cannot get a credit or debit card - I know from your rather privileged position you may find this hard to believe but there are plenty of people who are refused a bank account or any form of credit/debit facilities - 1.2 million of them as of 2020

    So yes for many it is not a matter of choice but of necessity to use cash.
    You're coming from a privileged position where security and armed robberies aren't a real concern to you.

    Yes I do believe that some people struggle to access electronic funds, and fixing that should be the priority, not compelling those who don't want to, to put their own safety at risk.
    Until you have fixed the former you should not allow the latter. And even then it should not be the case. That is only one aspect of the argument against moving to a cashless society.
    The latter is already allowed. It has always been allowed. That ship sailed a long time ago.

    There are many businesses which have never accepted cash, for decades now. Many used to only accept cheques, before cards became an option.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

    Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

    Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.
    Yeah i mean no armed robber would want their stock or equipment
    Most want cash, for obvious reasons.

    But that's why I said "reducing the risk" not eliminating it.
    If cash isnt available they'll want stock, fags, jewellery, electronics etc
    Armed robbers arent going to stop armed robbing because of no cash
    Actually plenty will.

    Holding a machete to someone's throat to get the safe opened is very different to holding a machete to somebodies throat to get pizza sauce out of a stock room.
    You dont think they might not just target convenient stock rich environments instead? Theyll just give up their life of crime and take up macramė
    Firms with valuable stock need to be able to secure their stock as well as their cash if they have it.

    Firms that don't though, may and do find securing cash is a headache they don't need.

    To be frank, especially in places like Merseyside more than some other places.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.

    Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.

    Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
    Didn't take long did it for the UK to come to terms with reality and bounce back with a more realistic appreciation of its place in the world?
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,004

    Why on Earth is Charles so damn touchy?

    Perhaps because his mother has just died?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149

    On the centreparcs thing I can imagine some families refusing to comply and just staying put. They really have not thought this through.

    At a random guess - they were finding that staff were holding out for a substantial bump in pay for working the unexpected Bank Holiday.

    This triggered a cascade of "I can't authorise this"* in management.

    *Not having the power to do something is common tactic in management. On one occasion, in a bank, I was asked to work on weekend to do a deployment**. I said that I would, once the overtime was approved. The manager did a double take, then reminded me that overtime wasn't paid to people on my grade - it was the system and he couldn't change it. I smiled and said that at soon as he got the overtime agreed, I would work the weekend. It took a few rounds until he realised I wasn't shifting.

    ** I've actually done plenty of weekend deployments. But the manager in question was someone who you'd never, ever do a favour for. Or show any flexibility to.
    But to keep the accommodation only open probably requires 10-20% of their staff, maybe less, I don't see why they would have any difficulty finding that level of staffing.

    Offering their normal service may well have been beyond them, but kicking out guests who have paid long in advance when their are reasonable alternatives is a no-no.
    Especially ones who on a Friday to Friday stay, not beginning of ending on the Monday.
    Or on booked public transport. (That matter of 'choice' again.)
  • Omnium said:

    Globemaster now on Flight Radar:

    https://fr24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f

    Northolt doesn't have a long runway. There was a story that a 707 landed there accidently many years ago mistaking it for Heathrow. The story goes that they had to tear out all the seats to get it back out again and that's why there was a big sign saying 'NO' (for Northolt) on the gas-storage in South Harrow.

    (No idea if it's in any way true)
    That was nearly the case when they used to fly 747s for maintenance by Marshalls at Cambridge Airport. They would fly the planes to Stansted, low-fuel them and take off everything not fixed down.

    I only worked a few minutes walk away, but I never got to see one land, or take off.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqKQwzNYnwI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJDB9oqVAu8

    We certainly used to hear when they were doing engine tests...
  • There's a hybrid system in the nearest grocery store to me (Metropolitan): Supermarkets in the Seattle area are adding automated checkout stations, and recently I learned that some, including the one just installed there, only takes debit and credit cards. So, when I pick up a copy of the New York Times this morning -- I like the Tuesday science section, though it is not as good as it was years ago -- I won't be able to pay cash for it at one of the automated stations. (I now usually pay cash for purchases costing less than 20 dollars, even though Chase gives me a little back for every purchase made with their credit card.)

    In contrast, the next nearest supermarket (QFC), part of the immense Kroger chain, has automated checking stations that do take cash.

    Yours truly also purchase NYT, esp. on Tuesday (despite fact I have online subscription) to imbibe with my morning coffee.

    And also use cash (though could card it instead) via agency of human behind the cash register at local convenience story. Mainly because it's an opportunity to "purchase" quarters (for doing my laundry) more conveniently than having to find a bank branch that's actually open.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    On the centreparcs thing I can imagine some families refusing to comply and just staying put. They really have not thought this through.

    At a random guess - they were finding that staff were holding out for a substantial bump in pay for working the unexpected Bank Holiday.

    This triggered a cascade of "I can't authorise this"* in management.

    *Not having the power to do something is common tactic in management. On one occasion, in a bank, I was asked to work on weekend to do a deployment**. I said that I would, once the overtime was approved. The manager did a double take, then reminded me that overtime wasn't paid to people on my grade - it was the system and he couldn't change it. I smiled and said that at soon as he got the overtime agreed, I would work the weekend. It took a few rounds until he realised I wasn't shifting.

    ** I've actually done plenty of weekend deployments. But the manager in question was someone who you'd never, ever do a favour for. Or show any flexibility to.
    But to keep the accommodation only open probably requires 10-20% of their staff, maybe less, I don't see why they would have any difficulty finding that level of staffing.

    Offering their normal service may well have been beyond them, but kicking out guests who have paid long in advance when their are reasonable alternatives is a no-no.
    Especially ones who on a Friday to Friday stay, not beginning of ending on the Monday.
    We may be dealing with people with minds where the “learn” switch is set to off.

    Think jobsworth - presented with a situation where they would have to go to Corporate to ask for a higher rate of pay for the day. In MiniNapoleon world they think this would make them look weak to Corporate…

    The Office was simple truth, much of the time.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited September 2022
    Charles and pens in public is clearly not a good mixture. His media staff should now be working on a multimedia, cross-platform strategy to keep him away from any pens in public for the next twenty years.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    Carnyx said:

    Still hasn't taken off yet.

    EDIT - FlightRadar24 website crashed! (not the aircraft, thankfully!)


    They have very sensibly provided a special youtube link. It's been through UFO country and is over Ayrshire at present.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uBNoG914jI
    The rolling subtitle says more than 600k were trying to track the flight.
  • Another Eric Berger hit-piece ...

    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?

    Vulcan isn't going to launch before Q1 2023

    Oh, and this - https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1382378135757332490
    I've never said he isn't mostly factually correct. Bias can be shown by what you're not reporting, or the emphasis you put on facts. I know you disagree about the problems SpaceX are having with Raptor 2, or the fact they've had to move to Raptor 2 from the first design. What would it take for you to feel they *do* have problems, because you (or Berger) sadly don't seem to give BO the same consideration.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704

    Taz said:

    People should cut Charles some slack. He’s just lost his Mum and the whole spectacle is being played out in the public eye. It’s a test for anyone.

    Yes, but that’s the job.
    As noted above, it’s a ghastly thing, but that’s the bargain.
    A bargain he had imposed on him. In other walks of life you get time off for a paternal or maternal bereavement.

    He has no such luxury.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,853

    Carnyx said:

    Still hasn't taken off yet.

    EDIT - FlightRadar24 website crashed! (not the aircraft, thankfully!)


    They have very sensibly provided a special youtube link. It's been through UFO country and is over Ayrshire at present.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uBNoG914jI
    The rolling subtitle says more than 600k were trying to track the flight.
    I wonder if they'll give it an escort into land? There's a Typhoon just gone out over North Yorkshire.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149

    Carnyx said:

    Still hasn't taken off yet.

    EDIT - FlightRadar24 website crashed! (not the aircraft, thankfully!)


    They have very sensibly provided a special youtube link. It's been through UFO country and is over Ayrshire at present.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uBNoG914jI
    The rolling subtitle says more than 600k were trying to track the flight.
    Yep, planespotting was never this popular since the Observer Corps stood down in WW2. Now over the Solway Viaduct area, heading between Silloth and Maryport. Wonder if @Cyclefree will see it?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,746
    Carnyx said:

    Omnium said:

    Globemaster now on Flight Radar:

    https://fr24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f

    Northolt doesn't have a long runway. There was a story that a 707 landed there accidently many years ago mistaking it for Heathrow. The story goes that they had to tear out all the seats to get it back out again and that's why there was a big sign saying 'NO' (for Northolt) on the gas-storage in South Harrow.

    (No idea if it's in any way true)
    More than one, it seems:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Northolt

    Hard evidence for one here:

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1960/dec/12/aircraft-landing-northolt
    Not Northolt, but there was a Ryanair flight that landed in 2006 at an airfield outside Derry, mistaking it for the passenger airport. So it isn't that unusual.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/mar/30/theairlineindustry.travelnews
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    probably done for tax reasons - hard to hide electronic money from the taxman
    I think in many cases it's actually done because they have so many very small payments the banks were charging them a fortune in transaction fees.

    Remember, prices are quite low round here. 85p out of £50 is literally a rounding error. Out of £12 it's a significant chunk.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    darkage said:

    Carnyx said:

    Omnium said:

    Globemaster now on Flight Radar:

    https://fr24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f

    Northolt doesn't have a long runway. There was a story that a 707 landed there accidently many years ago mistaking it for Heathrow. The story goes that they had to tear out all the seats to get it back out again and that's why there was a big sign saying 'NO' (for Northolt) on the gas-storage in South Harrow.

    (No idea if it's in any way true)
    More than one, it seems:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Northolt

    Hard evidence for one here:

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1960/dec/12/aircraft-landing-northolt
    Not Northolt, but there was a Ryanair flight that landed in 2006 at an airfield outside Derry, mistaking it for the passenger airport. So it isn't that unusual.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/mar/30/theairlineindustry.travelnews
    Wonder if it was actually more convenient?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Charles and pens in public is clearly not a good mixture. His media staff should now be working on a multimedia, cross-platform strategy to keep him away from any pens in public for the next twenty years.

    He's all about technical innovation, and his plummy voice is probably good for voice to text anyway.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Still hasn't taken off yet.

    EDIT - FlightRadar24 website crashed! (not the aircraft, thankfully!)


    They have very sensibly provided a special youtube link. It's been through UFO country and is over Ayrshire at present.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uBNoG914jI
    The rolling subtitle says more than 600k were trying to track the flight.
    Yep, planespotting was never this popular since the Observer Corps stood down in WW2. Now over the Solway Viaduct area, heading between Silloth and Maryport. Wonder if @Cyclefree will see it?
    Looks like she wanted one last look at Glasgow. That could just be the standard route of course.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Carnyx said:

    Omnium said:

    Globemaster now on Flight Radar:

    https://fr24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f

    Northolt doesn't have a long runway. There was a story that a 707 landed there accidently many years ago mistaking it for Heathrow. The story goes that they had to tear out all the seats to get it back out again and that's why there was a big sign saying 'NO' (for Northolt) on the gas-storage in South Harrow.

    (No idea if it's in any way true)
    More than one, it seems:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Northolt

    Hard evidence for one here:

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1960/dec/12/aircraft-landing-northolt
    Just an internet search, or did you know about this? (I didn't do an internet search because I was trying not to cloud my memories of the tale)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.

    Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.

    Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
    An Eastern Eden?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Still hasn't taken off yet.

    EDIT - FlightRadar24 website crashed! (not the aircraft, thankfully!)


    They have very sensibly provided a special youtube link. It's been through UFO country and is over Ayrshire at present.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uBNoG914jI
    The rolling subtitle says more than 600k were trying to track the flight.
    Yep, planespotting was never this popular since the Observer Corps stood down in WW2. Now over the Solway Viaduct area, heading between Silloth and Maryport. Wonder if @Cyclefree will see it?
    Looks like she wanted one last look at Glasgow. That could just be the standard route of course.
    It's not far off, from memory. Head straight out over the Pyramids and hang a port to fly over Solway Viaduct.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    Omnium said:

    Carnyx said:

    Omnium said:

    Globemaster now on Flight Radar:

    https://fr24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f

    Northolt doesn't have a long runway. There was a story that a 707 landed there accidently many years ago mistaking it for Heathrow. The story goes that they had to tear out all the seats to get it back out again and that's why there was a big sign saying 'NO' (for Northolt) on the gas-storage in South Harrow.

    (No idea if it's in any way true)
    More than one, it seems:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Northolt

    Hard evidence for one here:

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1960/dec/12/aircraft-landing-northolt
    Just an internet search, or did you know about this? (I didn't do an internet search because I was trying not to cloud my memories of the tale)
    I had to check my memory as iti s such a generic problem. I think it happened on a Heathrow taxiway vs runway, and also in North America.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    edited September 2022

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Still hasn't taken off yet.

    EDIT - FlightRadar24 website crashed! (not the aircraft, thankfully!)


    They have very sensibly provided a special youtube link. It's been through UFO country and is over Ayrshire at present.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uBNoG914jI
    The rolling subtitle says more than 600k were trying to track the flight.
    Yep, planespotting was never this popular since the Observer Corps stood down in WW2. Now over the Solway Viaduct area, heading between Silloth and Maryport. Wonder if @Cyclefree will see it?
    Looks like she wanted one last look at Glasgow. That could just be the standard route of course.
    My first ever flight was Air France Edinburgh-Glasgow. Half the distance was turning from a takeoff to the east and a landing from the west.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,089
    edited September 2022
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    People should cut Charles some slack. He’s just lost his Mum and the whole spectacle is being played out in the public eye. It’s a test for anyone.

    Yes, but that’s the job.
    As noted above, it’s a ghastly thing, but that’s the bargain.
    A bargain he had imposed on him. In other walks of life you get time off for a paternal or maternal bereavement.

    He has no such luxury.
    I reckon the first sign that something was going wrong was "Show us you care, Ma'am." That was 1997.

    Some of it is the pace of nonstop news media, but there's also a mawkishness (see poppy fetishism) that kicked in well before woke.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.

    Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.

    Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
    Didn't take long did it for the UK to come to terms with reality and bounce back with a more realistic appreciation of its place in the world?
    Should we be kind and call it a work-in-progress?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Carnyx said:

    Omnium said:

    Carnyx said:

    Omnium said:

    Globemaster now on Flight Radar:

    https://fr24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f

    Northolt doesn't have a long runway. There was a story that a 707 landed there accidently many years ago mistaking it for Heathrow. The story goes that they had to tear out all the seats to get it back out again and that's why there was a big sign saying 'NO' (for Northolt) on the gas-storage in South Harrow.

    (No idea if it's in any way true)
    More than one, it seems:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Northolt

    Hard evidence for one here:

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1960/dec/12/aircraft-landing-northolt
    Just an internet search, or did you know about this? (I didn't do an internet search because I was trying not to cloud my memories of the tale)
    I had to check my memory as iti s such a generic problem. I think it happened on a Heathrow taxiway vs runway, and also in North America.
    If you run out of runway at Northolt given the usual landing direction you'll find yourself on the A40 (which is almost a motorway).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.

    Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.

    Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
    An Eastern Eden?
    Suez - maybe. This feels worse, since it is about the diminution of the extent of The Motherland….
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.

    Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.

    Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
    An Eastern Eden?
    Image of James Dean appears for me there.

    Definitely one of his top 3 movies imo.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Still hasn't taken off yet.

    EDIT - FlightRadar24 website crashed! (not the aircraft, thankfully!)


    They have very sensibly provided a special youtube link. It's been through UFO country and is over Ayrshire at present.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uBNoG914jI
    The rolling subtitle says more than 600k were trying to track the flight.
    Yep, planespotting was never this popular since the Observer Corps stood down in WW2. Now over the Solway Viaduct area, heading between Silloth and Maryport. Wonder if @Cyclefree will see it?
    Looks like she wanted one last look at Glasgow. That could just be the standard route of course.
    It's not far off, from memory. Head straight out over the Pyramids and hang a port to fly over Solway Viaduct.
    Thanks. Saying almost 6m tried to track it now. No idea what the record is.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited September 2022
    Interesting, better make sure the others get their own hangers on. Also, don't book your own holiday on commercial flights this weekend.

    Russia, Belarus and Myanmar will not be invited to the Queen’s state funeral, while Iran will only be represented by an ambassador, according to reports.

    Around 500 dignitaries and world leaders are expected to come to London to pay their respects, including US President Joe Biden...

    Mr Albanese said he would not be travelling alone and that the Palace had invited him to bring along “10 Australians who have made extraordinary contributions to their communities"...

    Downing Street on Monday refused to comment on reports that world leaders visiting London for the Queen's state funeral have been asked to travel on commercial flights and will be bussed to Westminster Abbey.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/queen-funeral-russia-myanmar-westminster-abbey-b1025305.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1663068528-2
  • There's a hybrid system in the nearest grocery store to me (Metropolitan): Supermarkets in the Seattle area are adding automated checkout stations, and recently I learned that some, including the one just installed there, only takes debit and credit cards. So, when I pick up a copy of the New York Times this morning -- I like the Tuesday science section, though it is not as good as it was years ago -- I won't be able to pay cash for it at one of the automated stations. (I now usually pay cash for purchases costing less than 20 dollars, even though Chase gives me a little back for every purchase made with their credit card.)

    In contrast, the next nearest supermarket (QFC), part of the immense Kroger chain, has automated checking stations that do take cash.

    Its interesting doing research on this that (unsurprisingly I suppose) the US is facing these issues sooner than we are. New York, Washington, Philadelphia and San Francisco have all passed laws banning businesses from refusing cash. As has Colorado. Massachusetts passed such a law as long ago as 1978. Again citing the fact that it is discriminatory against the poorest in society.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    Why on Earth is Charles so damn touchy?

    Because he is. This was known before he ascended to the throne.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.

    Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.

    Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
    An Eastern Eden?
    Image of James Dean appears for me there.

    Definitely one of his top 3 movies imo.
    Not difficult given no. 4 was a car crash.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Carnyx said:

    Omnium said:

    Carnyx said:

    Omnium said:

    Globemaster now on Flight Radar:

    https://fr24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f

    Northolt doesn't have a long runway. There was a story that a 707 landed there accidently many years ago mistaking it for Heathrow. The story goes that they had to tear out all the seats to get it back out again and that's why there was a big sign saying 'NO' (for Northolt) on the gas-storage in South Harrow.

    (No idea if it's in any way true)
    More than one, it seems:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Northolt

    Hard evidence for one here:

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1960/dec/12/aircraft-landing-northolt
    Just an internet search, or did you know about this? (I didn't do an internet search because I was trying not to cloud my memories of the tale)
    I had to check my memory as iti s such a generic problem. I think it happened on a Heathrow taxiway vs runway, and also in North America.
    There was a long thread on pprune about planes landing on the wrong runway/taxiway/airport IIRC
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,746
    I would rather keep cash, for the same reason as I would rather not have facial recognition CCTV.
    It is about preserving the right to go about doing your business without being under surveillance.
    You never know when you may need this type of freedom.
    Of course lots of people will throw it away in the name of convenience or security, and will be exploited by politicians for short term advantage; but that has always been the way.
    Fortunately these changes tend to happen very slowly as 'lefty lawyers' find ways of stopping them.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    edited September 2022

    Why on Earth is Charles so damn touchy?

    At a guess because he just lost his Mum and has not been given a minute of privacy since. All his grieving has had to happen in public. Once reason why I would not do his job no matter what the money.
    "Oh, you're MY wife King now!"
  • Why on Earth is Charles so damn touchy?

    Because he is. This was known before he ascended to the throne.
    Not many people start a new career in their early 70s
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Peter Hitchens
    @ClarkeMicah

    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"

    https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

    We absolutely should not.

    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.
    probably done for tax reasons - hard to hide electronic money from the taxman
    I think in many cases it's actually done because they have so many very small payments the banks were charging them a fortune in transaction fees.

    Remember, prices are quite low round here. 85p out of £50 is literally a rounding error. Out of £12 it's a significant chunk.
    Anyone being charged 85p per transaction is getting well and truly ripped off.

    Its possible to get transaction fees at a penny per transaction nowadays.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    At Oldham, overflying Manchester Airport in a minute or two.
  • Hello from Bucharest. Two big subjects on breakfast TV earlier - the Queen and Ukraine. I saw the Globemaster land in Edinburgh airport yesterday afternoon, and the city itself was chocka.

    Comment above about the King being touchy. Is anyone surprised? The man has been heir apparent his entire conscious life. The weight of the world has just landed on his shoulder, he has to grieve and function and carry out very serious tasks all at the same time.

    Regardless of your views on the monarchy or on Charles himself, that is not something I would wish upon anyone.
This discussion has been closed.