Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
A 'culture war' – give it a bloody break FFS.
Ooh, is it you or CR who is Fürst von Bismarck then?
"Launched in July 2008, the group was intended to improve community relations, raise awareness of the Muslim faith and help its young leaders.
However, it was dogged by claims of cronyism because of its many ties to the SNP.
Its first chief executive, Osama Saeed, 32, was a former aide to Mr Salmond and an SNP candidate for the Westminster seat of Glasgow Central.
Despite lacking a track record, SIF was awarded £405,000 in grants from the SNP Government within months of its creation. SIF then over-promised by announcing it would hold the country's biggest ever celebration of Islamic Culture in Glasgow in June 2009.
Mr Salmond predicted IslamFest would be "an enormous event for Glasgow and for Scotland". However, the project collapsed and SIF was forced to repay £128,000, after £72,000 had been spent on development.
SIF turned its attention to holding an Islamic financial event called Etisal, scheduled for November 2009, but that too fell through. Ultimately, half the £400,000 grant was withheld.
Glasgow list MSP Humza Yousaf, 27, was a director of SIF Ltd from May 2008 to September 2009. He was made Minister for External Affairs and International Development last month. He said: "People always criticise organisations. Some of that criticism will be fair, some misplaced."
The entire Scottish government has been led by a bunch of gangsters, idiots, petty criminals, twats, and small time terror-ish people, for a decade or more
Malc has been saying!
Indeed he has
Seldom has a PB-er been vindicated in the style that @malcolmg is being vindicated right now
It was worth all the turnip-laden invective - which could get wearisome - to hear it from him first, before anyone else. This is why PB is great and this is why it is really counter-productive to ban people - permanently - we NEED these various voices, it means we are better informed
Don't make me laugh. He is still an apologist for the man that was described by his own QC as a "bully and a sex pest". Malcolm isn't some kind of visionary; he is a blind cultish follower of Salmond who is the modern font of the whole poisonous hate filled creed that is Scottish Nationalism. 90% of them , like Malcolm and StuartDickson, are driven by a small brained hatred of people that they stupidly believe to be amorphous, known to them through their gritted teeth as "the English" . Fundamentally Scots Nats are racists, and their motivations are the lowest of the low.
Notwithstanding all of that - and I have no skin in your personal feud - @malcolmg has been entirely vindicated in his personal criticisms and predictions vis a vis the SNP leadership. Indeed the whole party. He said it was corrupt from the top down and would eventually be found out
And so it is. As a site dedicated to political predictions, we are obliged to respect his wisdom, here
Lol. The man has the wisdom of Baldrick and probably similar bodily hygiene. His criticism of his erstwhile comrades is driven entirely by his disgust at their rejection of their one time Fuhrer; the object of his love and unquestioning fealty.
No it isn't. He's a wealthy man who could see the corruption, and the way the Nats were using indy as a bauble to distract the kids even as they stole their college funds
I fundamentally disagree with @malcolmg on multiple grounds, not least, he wants to break up Britain, the country I love. I will happily fight him on this matter til my dying breath
But on this occasion his many vivid opinions - on the terminal sleaze and grift in the SNP - have been proven entirely correct. That is worth noting. And I note it
As Churchill once said "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes.” Do you seriously think "Alba" are any better? The repository of the even more extreme Anglophobes and general scum bags?
Sure, but you'd do yourself a PB favour if you just accepted the fact: malcolm got this one right
This site lives and dies by political predictions. @malcolmg predicted a terrible come-uppance for a corrupt SNP, and here we are. You can still hate the dude and yet honour the prediction
Nor was it a stopped clock situation. @malcolmg was quite specific in his allegations of sleaze in particular places, and, again, it seems he was right, on the details
Just give him a surly clap on the back, then go back to reviling him
There is a difference between wanting Scottish Independence and the SNP. When southern posters have tried to pretend that Scottish Green MSPs elected on an explicit mandate for independence don't count, I have always corrected them.
So absolutely Malcolm was right. I'm not sure his preferred party will benefit much, but if they do then it just demonstrates that no one party is the owner of the idea of independence.
Indeed so. It seems to me that Sindy, as a movement, needs a complete clean out of the older generation, and anyone associated with them. Sturgeon as much as Salmond. They have all gotten curiously fat off the project, without ever delivering
A young, clean living, uncorrupted, almost-too-honest leader like Kate Forbes could seriously fight a 2nd referendum in the 2030s, and the Union needs to prepare counter arguments for that moment, which will be testing
But for now, for the good of Scotland more than Britain, Scottish voters need to kick these grifting Nat shits into the gutter. Same goes for London Tories. Take the medicine of Opposition, and STFU
The question of course is *how*. Think about the challenge north of the border. On one hand we have the Scottish National Party, self-indulgent corrupt chancers who have made a hash of government despite winning a 4th term last year. On the other hand we have the Conservative Party, massively more corrupt than the SNP, massively more self-indulgent with local morons like Douglas Ross and the excretable David Duguid.
It doesn't leave voters many options. In much of the central belt I expect a Labour resurgence. But outside the motorway triangle? Labour have a small presence, and regrettably the LibDems are struggling for bodies and presence even in seats held in the last decade.
Before their exposure and growing collapse I would have assumed the SNP would take out chunks of the Tory held seats. Now? We may find Corruption Party MPs holding on as people decide they can't vote SNP because of corruption.
Remember - although the SNP are a sewer of corruption and incompetence, the Tories are off the scale worse. Lets not allow their stench to stay either.
I forsee a significant number of people not voting.
“HYUFD is a commenter on the website politicalbetting.com, known for expressing conservative and right-leaning views on a variety of political topics. The name "HYUFD" is an acronym for "Haven't You Upgraded From Democrat?", indicating the commenter's opposition to the Democratic Party in the United States. However, it's important to note that as an AI language model, I do not have access to specific user information or opinions beyond what is publicly available on the website.”
I once asked HUYFD where he got the name from and he said he just typed five letters at random when asked for a username.
I believe him, rather than ChatGPT.
The letters are very close on the keyboard. I believe him too, although it's mildly amusing inventing retronyms.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Just be wary of anyone who only pays in gold coins.
But it seems he set himself off, by blaming somebody for not using things that hadn't been invented to pay for a bus fare that didn't exist at the time.
To misquote Derby's famously acid putdown of General Peel, 'He is very reasonable on every subject until somebody mentions 'cash,' whereat his eye lights up with insanity.'
I assume you mean me, despite the fact I am not a 'loon', I merely disagree with you. Lots of people agree with me!
I "blamed" Sandpit for nothing of the sort. I merely asked him when the event occurred because buses have taken phone payments for ages. He then replied saying it was in 2005 and I noted his response by liking it.
“HYUFD is a commenter on the website politicalbetting.com, known for expressing conservative and right-leaning views on a variety of political topics. The name "HYUFD" is an acronym for "Haven't You Upgraded From Democrat?", indicating the commenter's opposition to the Democratic Party in the United States. However, it's important to note that as an AI language model, I do not have access to specific user information or opinions beyond what is publicly available on the website.”
I once asked HUYFD where he got the name from and he said he just typed five letters at random when asked for a username.
I believe him, rather than ChatGPT.
The letters are very close on the keyboard. I believe him too, although it's mildly amusing inventing retronyms.
Ishmael's take was 'Hoist Your Union Flag Defiantly', which fits. Bring back Mr X Mr Z.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
I'm not against electronic payments. I'm just in favour of choice. Places that only take cash are annoying as well.
I'm still finding it bizarre that ChatGPT can apparently write PhD theses, but at the same time believes the Conservatives won St Albans at the last general election and that therefore Anne Main is still the MP for the constituency.
Yep, it's crap. A congenital liar. Just makes stuff up.
“HYUFD is a commenter on the website politicalbetting.com, known for expressing conservative and right-leaning views on a variety of political topics. The name "HYUFD" is an acronym for "Haven't You Upgraded From Democrat?", indicating the commenter's opposition to the Democratic Party in the United States. However, it's important to note that as an AI language model, I do not have access to specific user information or opinions beyond what is publicly available on the website.”
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Just be wary of anyone who only pays in gold coins.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
I still think there ought to be a law saying businesses must accept cash, like there is in France. If that makes life difficult for some people, bad luck. And we shouldn't be allowing the Covid lockdown to change anything about life IMO.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
There is also an in principle objection to surveillance, which is the obvious next step with a digital only currency, the government can monitor what everyone is doing, and eventually get control of all money. To me this step - which would inevitably be desirable to those in government - becomes more difficult if it is still possible to carry out transactions in cash, so it is a freedom that is worth defending.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Electronic transactions for small amounts was growing pre-Covid but still a bit niche. Then suddenly, if you touch cash, You Could Die. Occasionally I have cash, but I forget what I have and how long it has been sat in a wallet that only gets brought with me if I need a card that I need a phys version of. Otherwise its phone tap for everything everywhere.
Remember that Sterling is fiat. It is made up. Spurious. The £10 note (whomever issues it) has a physical value of a few pence, its only £10 because I Promise to Pay the Bearer.
So what does it matter if everything goes electronic - its all made up money anyway. I could pull out a bullion coin and take it to the shop but (a) they probably won't accept it and (b) I don't want them to apply the £1 face value of my £415 Gold Sovereign.
“HYUFD is a commenter on the website politicalbetting.com, known for expressing conservative and right-leaning views on a variety of political topics. The name "HYUFD" is an acronym for "Haven't You Upgraded From Democrat?", indicating the commenter's opposition to the Democratic Party in the United States. However, it's important to note that as an AI language model, I do not have access to specific user information or opinions beyond what is publicly available on the website.”
I once asked HUYFD where he got the name from and he said he just typed five letters at random when asked for a username.
I believe him, rather than ChatGPT.
The letters are very close on the keyboard. I believe him too, although it's mildly amusing inventing retronyms.
Ishmael's take was 'Hoist Your Union Flag Defiantly', which fits. Bring back Mr X Mr Z.
"Launched in July 2008, the group was intended to improve community relations, raise awareness of the Muslim faith and help its young leaders.
However, it was dogged by claims of cronyism because of its many ties to the SNP.
Its first chief executive, Osama Saeed, 32, was a former aide to Mr Salmond and an SNP candidate for the Westminster seat of Glasgow Central.
Despite lacking a track record, SIF was awarded £405,000 in grants from the SNP Government within months of its creation. SIF then over-promised by announcing it would hold the country's biggest ever celebration of Islamic Culture in Glasgow in June 2009.
Mr Salmond predicted IslamFest would be "an enormous event for Glasgow and for Scotland". However, the project collapsed and SIF was forced to repay £128,000, after £72,000 had been spent on development.
SIF turned its attention to holding an Islamic financial event called Etisal, scheduled for November 2009, but that too fell through. Ultimately, half the £400,000 grant was withheld.
Glasgow list MSP Humza Yousaf, 27, was a director of SIF Ltd from May 2008 to September 2009. He was made Minister for External Affairs and International Development last month. He said: "People always criticise organisations. Some of that criticism will be fair, some misplaced."
The entire Scottish government has been led by a bunch of gangsters, idiots, petty criminals, twats, and small time terror-ish people, for a decade or more
Malc has been saying!
Indeed he has
Seldom has a PB-er been vindicated in the style that @malcolmg is being vindicated right now
It was worth all the turnip-laden invective - which could get wearisome - to hear it from him first, before anyone else. This is why PB is great and this is why it is really counter-productive to ban people - permanently - we NEED these various voices, it means we are better informed
Don't make me laugh. He is still an apologist for the man that was described by his own QC as a "bully and a sex pest". Malcolm isn't some kind of visionary; he is a blind cultish follower of Salmond who is the modern font of the whole poisonous hate filled creed that is Scottish Nationalism. 90% of them , like Malcolm and StuartDickson, are driven by a small brained hatred of people that they stupidly believe to be amorphous, known to them through their gritted teeth as "the English" . Fundamentally Scots Nats are racists, and their motivations are the lowest of the low.
Notwithstanding all of that - and I have no skin in your personal feud - @malcolmg has been entirely vindicated in his personal criticisms and predictions vis a vis the SNP leadership. Indeed the whole party. He said it was corrupt from the top down and would eventually be found out
And so it is. As a site dedicated to political predictions, we are obliged to respect his wisdom, here
Agree with this. Each time Malc has said something incendiary about Sturgeon/SNP I've thought: "Nah. Can't be. Just old Malc doing his stuff." And then, blimey, he was right. Respect.
It's been the SNP that's boosted my interest on PB. We don't get much to laugh about on PB but the SNP has provided more schadenfreude in a week than in years. You have to go back to the incompetent and Bonkers " I saved the world." Gordon McDoom for equivalent entertainment.
In the US, one still sees, from time to time, kids learning about business, by selling lemonade on hot days, from their yards.
Although this is rarer, one still occasionally sees -- in peaceful rural areas -- a stand with vegetables and fruit, and a jar in which to put your payments, with no one watching the stand.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Just be wary of anyone who only pays in gold coins.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
I still think there ought to be a law saying businesses must accept cash, like there is in France. If that makes life difficult for some people, bad luck. And we shouldn't be allowing the Covid lockdown to change anything about life IMO.
Sure. Losing cash will be really hard on the poorest and least able people - a situation in which all of us may end up one day.
Trouble is, how is (for instance) RP to pay in his cash [edit] in his small town? The way things are going there'll soon be more food banks than money banks. Which is part of hte same wider problem.
In the US, one still sees, from time to time, kids learning about business, by selling lemonade on hot days, from their yards.
Although this is rarer, one still occasionally sees -- in peaceful rural areas -- a stand with vegetables and fruit, and a jar in which to put your payments, with no one watching the stand.
In the US, one still sees, from time to time, kids learning about business, by selling lemonade on hot days, from their yards.
Although this is rarer, one still occasionally sees -- in peaceful rural areas -- a stand with vegetables and fruit, and a jar in which to put your payments, with no one watching the stand.
Cash is appropriate everywhere.
It really isn't. It's a waste of time and money for lots of businesses – hence why they quite reasonably don't have a cash-handling function.
In the US, one still sees, from time to time, kids learning about business, by selling lemonade on hot days, from their yards.
Although this is rarer, one still occasionally sees -- in peaceful rural areas -- a stand with vegetables and fruit, and a jar in which to put your payments, with no one watching the stand.
Cash is appropriate everywhere.
When buying a house, for example.
Or making donations to charitable funds patronised by the high and mighty. If it is good enough for them ...
I'm still finding it bizarre that ChatGPT can apparently write PhD theses, but at the same time believes the Conservatives won St Albans at the last general election and that therefore Anne Main is still the MP for the constituency.
Yep, it's crap. A congenital liar. Just makes stuff up.
Vote ChatGPT. It has a great career ahead in politics....
“HYUFD is a commenter on the website politicalbetting.com, known for expressing conservative and right-leaning views on a variety of political topics. The name "HYUFD" is an acronym for "Haven't You Upgraded From Democrat?", indicating the commenter's opposition to the Democratic Party in the United States. However, it's important to note that as an AI language model, I do not have access to specific user information or opinions beyond what is publicly available on the website.”
I once asked HUYFD where he got the name from and he said he just typed five letters at random when asked for a username.
I believe him, rather than ChatGPT.
I remember that. Also HYUFD has said previously he would likely be a democrat voter in the US so he isn't in opposition to it generally. I wonder when ChatGPT is going to get sued 😮
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Just be wary of anyone who only pays in gold coins.
Doesn’t that only happen in a sovereign state?
According to a documentary I watched, for a gold coin you can get a
- body disposed of - A stay in a high end hotel - A suit with a bulletproof lining - A pile of expensive firearms - a drink in a bar Etc
In the US, one still sees, from time to time, kids learning about business, by selling lemonade on hot days, from their yards.
Although this is rarer, one still occasionally sees -- in peaceful rural areas -- a stand with vegetables and fruit, and a jar in which to put your payments, with no one watching the stand.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
I still think there ought to be a law saying businesses must accept cash, like there is in France. If that makes life difficult for some people, bad luck. And we shouldn't be allowing the Covid lockdown to change anything about life IMO.
Sure. Losing cash will be really hard on the poorest and least able people - a situation in which all of us may end up one day.
Trouble is, how is (for instance) RP to pay in his cash [edit] in his small town? The way things are going there'll soon be more food banks than money banks. Which is part of hte same wider problem.
Post apocalypse… In the land of canned goods, the man with a can opener will be king.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Electronic transactions for small amounts was growing pre-Covid but still a bit niche. Then suddenly, if you touch cash, You Could Die. Occasionally I have cash, but I forget what I have and how long it has been sat in a wallet that only gets brought with me if I need a card that I need a phys version of. Otherwise its phone tap for everything everywhere.
Remember that Sterling is fiat. It is made up. Spurious. The £10 note (whomever issues it) has a physical value of a few pence, its only £10 because I Promise to Pay the Bearer.
So what does it matter if everything goes electronic - its all made up money anyway. I could pull out a bullion coin and take it to the shop but (a) they probably won't accept it and (b) I don't want them to apply the £1 face value of my £415 Gold Sovereign.
Unless its bullion, its worth very little.
Indeed. Cash is a fiction.
In many ways, cashless businesses are calling out that fiction:
"What, you want me to take a bit of useless plastic and copper to give you a coffee, then store the scraps of paper and metal somewhere under lock and key, then collect it all up and drive it to a lady in a stripy blouse and knee-length skirt who sits at a desk three miles away, just so she can turn it into electronic money that you could have just transferred directly to me. Really? Are you absolutely out of your tiny mind?"
In the US, a paper bill has this notice printed on the face: THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE". (On the back is: "IN GOD WE TRUST".)
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Electronic transactions for small amounts was growing pre-Covid but still a bit niche. Then suddenly, if you touch cash, You Could Die. Occasionally I have cash, but I forget what I have and how long it has been sat in a wallet that only gets brought with me if I need a card that I need a phys version of. Otherwise its phone tap for everything everywhere.
Remember that Sterling is fiat. It is made up. Spurious. The £10 note (whomever issues it) has a physical value of a few pence, its only £10 because I Promise to Pay the Bearer.
So what does it matter if everything goes electronic - its all made up money anyway. I could pull out a bullion coin and take it to the shop but (a) they probably won't accept it and (b) I don't want them to apply the £1 face value of my £415 Gold Sovereign.
Unless its bullion, its worth very little.
Indeed. Cash is a fiction. In many ways, cashless businesses are calling out that fiction: what, you want me to take a bit of useless plastic and copper and give you a coffee, then store it somewhere, then collect it and give it to a lady in a stripy blouse and knee-length
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
I still think there ought to be a law saying businesses must accept cash, like there is in France. If that makes life difficult for some people, bad luck. And we shouldn't be allowing the Covid lockdown to change anything about life IMO.
Sure. Losing cash will be really hard on the poorest and least able people - a situation in which all of us may end up one day.
Trouble is, how is (for instance) RP to pay in his cash [edit] in his small town? The way things are going there'll soon be more food banks than money banks. Which is part of hte same wider problem.
Again, this is not inevitable – like any other technological advance the thing to do is to prepare for it to ensure all are included. Liken it to the move from analogue to digital TV (for which the arguments against were very similar in nature).
For example, an anonymous ready-cash electronic card/wallet is perfectly possible, indeed I believe several models already exist.
Good on him - that's quite brave for the Police Federation chair, and, as he acknowledges, there will be a backlash. Interesting that he's more accepting of the full Casey Report than Rowley or Braverman.
“HYUFD is a commenter on the website politicalbetting.com, known for expressing conservative and right-leaning views on a variety of political topics. The name "HYUFD" is an acronym for "Haven't You Upgraded From Democrat?", indicating the commenter's opposition to the Democratic Party in the United States. However, it's important to note that as an AI language model, I do not have access to specific user information or opinions beyond what is publicly available on the website.”
I once asked HUYFD where he got the name from and he said he just typed five letters at random when asked for a username.
I believe him, rather than ChatGPT.
I remember that. Also HYUFD has said previously he would likely be a democrat voter in the US so he isn't in opposition to it generally. I wonder when ChatGPT is going to get sued 😮
Indeed he has. Actually the fact that it is making stuff up about him is scary, and saddening.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Electronic transactions for small amounts was growing pre-Covid but still a bit niche. Then suddenly, if you touch cash, You Could Die. Occasionally I have cash, but I forget what I have and how long it has been sat in a wallet that only gets brought with me if I need a card that I need a phys version of. Otherwise its phone tap for everything everywhere.
Remember that Sterling is fiat. It is made up. Spurious. The £10 note (whomever issues it) has a physical value of a few pence, its only £10 because I Promise to Pay the Bearer.
So what does it matter if everything goes electronic - its all made up money anyway. I could pull out a bullion coin and take it to the shop but (a) they probably won't accept it and (b) I don't want them to apply the £1 face value of my £415 Gold Sovereign.
Unless its bullion, its worth very little.
Indeed. Cash is a fiction. In many ways, cashless businesses are calling out that fiction: what, you want me to take a bit of useless plastic and copper and give you a coffee, then store it somewhere, then collect it and give it to a lady in a stripy blouse and knee-length
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
I still think there ought to be a law saying businesses must accept cash, like there is in France. If that makes life difficult for some people, bad luck. And we shouldn't be allowing the Covid lockdown to change anything about life IMO.
Sure. Losing cash will be really hard on the poorest and least able people - a situation in which all of us may end up one day.
Trouble is, how is (for instance) RP to pay in his cash [edit] in his small town? The way things are going there'll soon be more food banks than money banks. Which is part of hte same wider problem.
Again, this is not inevitable – like any other technological advance the thing to do is to prepare for it to ensure all are included. Liken it to the move from analogue to digital TV (for which the arguments against were very similar in nature).
For example, an anonymous ready-cash electronic card/wallet is perfectly possible, indeed I believe several models already exist.
Analogue to digital TV is not a correct comparison. The TV change is more like the change from paper to plastic banknotes. A more correct comparison to your demands to lose cash would be the loss of all broadcast TV, for instance. No skin off my nose, but it would hit a lot of people very hard as they lack the financial or mental resources to cope. Just don't pretend you aren't dumping them.
And ready cash wallerts may be possible - but where are they now? Just glorified bitcoin.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Electronic transactions for small amounts was growing pre-Covid but still a bit niche. Then suddenly, if you touch cash, You Could Die. Occasionally I have cash, but I forget what I have and how long it has been sat in a wallet that only gets brought with me if I need a card that I need a phys version of. Otherwise its phone tap for everything everywhere.
Remember that Sterling is fiat. It is made up. Spurious. The £10 note (whomever issues it) has a physical value of a few pence, its only £10 because I Promise to Pay the Bearer.
So what does it matter if everything goes electronic - its all made up money anyway. I could pull out a bullion coin and take it to the shop but (a) they probably won't accept it and (b) I don't want them to apply the £1 face value of my £415 Gold Sovereign.
Unless its bullion, its worth very little.
Indeed. Cash is a fiction. In many ways, cashless businesses are calling out that fiction: what, you want me to take a bit of useless plastic and copper and give you a coffee, then store it somewhere, then collect it and give it to a lady in a stripy blouse and knee-length
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
I still think there ought to be a law saying businesses must accept cash, like there is in France. If that makes life difficult for some people, bad luck. And we shouldn't be allowing the Covid lockdown to change anything about life IMO.
Sure. Losing cash will be really hard on the poorest and least able people - a situation in which all of us may end up one day.
Trouble is, how is (for instance) RP to pay in his cash [edit] in his small town? The way things are going there'll soon be more food banks than money banks. Which is part of hte same wider problem.
Again, this is not inevitable – like any other technological advance the thing to do is to prepare for it to ensure all are included. Liken it to the move from analogue to digital TV (for which the arguments against were very similar in nature).
For example, an anonymous ready-cash electronic card/wallet is perfectly possible, indeed I believe several models already exist.
Analogue to digital TV is not a correct comparison. The TV change is more like the change from paper to plastic banknotes. A more correct comparison to your demands to lose cash would be the loss of all broadcast TV, for instance. No skin off my nose, but it would hit a lot of people very hard as they lack the financial or mental resources to cope. Just don't pretend you aren't dumping them.
And ready cash wallerts may be possible - but where are they now? Just glorified bitcoin.
The end of broadcast TV is already being planned for. Just as the Digital TV changeover was planned for years.
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
I still think there ought to be a law saying businesses must accept cash, like there is in France. If that makes life difficult for some people, bad luck. And we shouldn't be allowing the Covid lockdown to change anything about life IMO.
Sure. Losing cash will be really hard on the poorest and least able people - a situation in which all of us may end up one day.
Trouble is, how is (for instance) RP to pay in his cash [edit] in his small town? The way things are going there'll soon be more food banks than money banks. Which is part of hte same wider problem.
Post apocalypse… In the land of canned goods, the man with a can opener will be king.
Except for the preppers. Who had two years of stashed can food. But, during a prolonged power cut, only had plug in tin openers.
A powerful trifecta. I'm sure they can add a few more though. Incompetent for a start.
I am reminded of a good friend who announced that he admitted he was an alcoholic.
The slight problem was that he thought acceptance of the problem was, itself, the solution.
As opposed to not drinking himself unconscious all the fucking time.
It isn't. But it is a necessary, if not sufficient, first step.
True, but I think it's right to be wary of a 'lessons have been learned' kind of revelation, which then doesn't actually lead to anything - particularly in politics and institutional failures I am sure it is easy to find examples of repeat offenders who 'accepted' a situation and its unacceptability, then did so again later.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Legal tender (in the UK) means you have to accept cash (I think only English cash technically) when someone wants to pay off a loan. The law has never required shops or businesses to accept cash for goods or services.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Legal tender (in the UK) means you have to accept cash (I think only English cash technically) when someone wants to pay off a loan. The law has never required shops or businesses to accept cash for goods or services.
That is surprising to me, and I would not be, er, surprised if it was surprising to many others too - which might well feed into the sense of outrage about things.
Good on him - that's quite brave for the Police Federation chair, and, as he acknowledges, there will be a backlash. Interesting that he's more accepting of the full Casey Report than Rowley or Braverman.
It's not really brave. It's pretty much obligatory in the public sector to declare your institutuon racist, sexist and homophobic. Brave would be declaring the Met institutionally incompetent.
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
Good on him - that's quite brave for the Police Federation chair, and, as he acknowledges, there will be a backlash. Interesting that he's more accepting of the full Casey Report than Rowley or Braverman.
It doesn't strike me as particularly brave. The verbal diarrhea being spouted by this particular functionary on this issue is highly fashionable, and likely to benefit his career of spouting more verbal diarrhea significantly. The real career killer would be to say anything that offended or failed to get sufficiently on board with the trend.
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
The quote from the executive producer suggests that such trivialities were the whole point: "We don't often get to see or hear stories about black queens, and that was really important for me, as well as for my daughter, and just for my community to be able to know those stories because there are tons of them!"
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Electronic transactions for small amounts was growing pre-Covid but still a bit niche. Then suddenly, if you touch cash, You Could Die. Occasionally I have cash, but I forget what I have and how long it has been sat in a wallet that only gets brought with me if I need a card that I need a phys version of. Otherwise its phone tap for everything everywhere.
Remember that Sterling is fiat. It is made up. Spurious. The £10 note (whomever issues it) has a physical value of a few pence, its only £10 because I Promise to Pay the Bearer.
So what does it matter if everything goes electronic - its all made up money anyway. I could pull out a bullion coin and take it to the shop but (a) they probably won't accept it and (b) I don't want them to apply the £1 face value of my £415 Gold Sovereign.
Unless its bullion, its worth very little.
Indeed. Cash is a fiction.
In many ways, cashless businesses are calling out that fiction:
"What, you want me to take a bit of useless plastic and copper to give you a coffee, then store the scraps of paper and metal somewhere under lock and key, then collect it all up and drive it to a lady in a stripy blouse and knee-length skirt who sits at a desk three miles away, just so she can turn it into electronic money that you could have just transferred directly to me. Really? Are you absolutely out of your tiny mind?"
Shame you don't care about the waitresses, the buskers and the beggars. Tipping has collapsed with the reduction in the use of cash. Although some buskers use contactless they are few and far between and beggars simply don't have that luxury. The collapse in the use of cash has greatly harmed some of the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
The quote from the executive producer suggests that such trivialities were the whole point: "We don't often get to see or hear stories about black queens, and that was really important for me, as well as for my daughter, and just for my community to be able to know those stories because there are tons of them!"
Exactly. If race is important to the story, get the race right. If it's purely entertainment, and the audience is OK with Shakespeare being played by a black female wheelchair user, have at it.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Electronic transactions for small amounts was growing pre-Covid but still a bit niche. Then suddenly, if you touch cash, You Could Die. Occasionally I have cash, but I forget what I have and how long it has been sat in a wallet that only gets brought with me if I need a card that I need a phys version of. Otherwise its phone tap for everything everywhere.
Remember that Sterling is fiat. It is made up. Spurious. The £10 note (whomever issues it) has a physical value of a few pence, its only £10 because I Promise to Pay the Bearer.
So what does it matter if everything goes electronic - its all made up money anyway. I could pull out a bullion coin and take it to the shop but (a) they probably won't accept it and (b) I don't want them to apply the £1 face value of my £415 Gold Sovereign.
Unless its bullion, its worth very little.
Indeed. Cash is a fiction. In many ways, cashless businesses are calling out that fiction: what, you want me to take a bit of useless plastic and copper and give you a coffee, then store it somewhere, then collect it and give it to a lady in a stripy blouse and knee-length
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
I still think there ought to be a law saying businesses must accept cash, like there is in France. If that makes life difficult for some people, bad luck. And we shouldn't be allowing the Covid lockdown to change anything about life IMO.
Sure. Losing cash will be really hard on the poorest and least able people - a situation in which all of us may end up one day.
Trouble is, how is (for instance) RP to pay in his cash [edit] in his small town? The way things are going there'll soon be more food banks than money banks. Which is part of hte same wider problem.
Again, this is not inevitable – like any other technological advance the thing to do is to prepare for it to ensure all are included. Liken it to the move from analogue to digital TV (for which the arguments against were very similar in nature).
For example, an anonymous ready-cash electronic card/wallet is perfectly possible, indeed I believe several models already exist.
Analogue to digital TV is not a correct comparison. The TV change is more like the change from paper to plastic banknotes. A more correct comparison to your demands to lose cash would be the loss of all broadcast TV, for instance. No skin off my nose, but it would hit a lot of people very hard as they lack the financial or mental resources to cope. Just don't pretend you aren't dumping them.
And ready cash wallerts may be possible - but where are they now? Just glorified bitcoin.
The end of broadcast TV is already being planned for. Just as the Digital TV changeover was planned for years.
Hmm, the problems with landline phones going fibreoptic don't hold out much confidence in similar changes with cash and TV.
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
I agree entirely, but that's the opposite to what some in the arts think now, and it seems like the producers here still do think that hence the need to grasp for a 'well who knows maybe she was' reason, rather than just - who cares?
I think it has its origins in concerns about historic 'whitecasting' and also concerns about a lack of ethnic minority representation (as it applies to the USA), but those real issues have gotten mixed up a bit with some perceived need for accuracy in portraying roles which is really a bit dumb - so you get acclaimed actors like Samuel Jackson talking about a British actor not being able to connect as well with a role about an American in a mixed race relationship, or Chiwetel Ejiofor getting some blowback(which he rightly ignored) about focusing more on the right actors for roles in a film he directed rather than their familiarity with the Malawian language which was used in it. David Baddiel, naturally, points to this tendency in Jews Don't Count, though I disagree with his seeming solution of applying the same focus on 'correct' casting to Jewish characters, rather than not caring about whether someone matches their character's biography or something.
Even if the point of a film or work is strict accuracy (which it rarely is), someone only needs to look right for the part, not actually be of a particular ethnicity. If no one is claiming accuracy, then it's of no matter.
The occasional Cleopatra spats I like to note mostly because I find it amusing, because producers generally do seem more willing to ignore complaints which is good.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Legal tender (in the UK) means you have to accept cash (I think only English cash technically) when someone wants to pay off a loan. The law has never required shops or businesses to accept cash for goods or services.
That is surprising to me, and I would not be, er, surprised if it was surprising to many others too - which might well feed into the sense of outrage about things.
It seems reasonable to me. Nobody is under any obligation to conduct a trade at all, so it follows that they wouldn't be obliged to accept cash when entering into a trade.
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
The quote from the executive producer suggests that such trivialities were the whole point: "We don't often get to see or hear stories about black queens, and that was really important for me, as well as for my daughter, and just for my community to be able to know those stories because there are tons of them!"
The entire ideology is driven specifically by white American guilt about black Africans, no matter what other culture they are dealing with. It is insane and ridiculous and I can understand why Egyptians might feel deeply insulted
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Legal tender (in the UK) means you have to accept cash (I think only English cash technically) when someone wants to pay off a loan. The law has never required shops or businesses to accept cash for goods or services.
That is surprising to me, and I would not be, er, surprised if it was surprising to many others too - which might well feed into the sense of outrage about things.
It seems reasonable to me. Nobody is under any obligation to conduct a trade at all, so it follows that they wouldn't be obliged to accept cash when entering into a trade.
To my mind it seemed obvious that since the government sets many many rules about how people can trade, where they can trade, and how much tax they have to pay on that trade, that they would also set a rule saying you must accept legal tender as payment for your trade.
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
The quote from the executive producer suggests that such trivialities were the whole point: "We don't often get to see or hear stories about black queens, and that was really important for me, as well as for my daughter, and just for my community to be able to know those stories because there are tons of them!"
The entire ideology is driven specifically by white American guilt about black Africans, no matter what other culture they are dealing with. It is insane and ridiculous and I can understand why Egyptians might feel deeply insulted
Opening a rabbit hole though - now there's going to be discussion of how many of today's Egyptians share common ancestry with ancient forebears. How many true Brits made it through the Anglo-Saxon domination?
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
The quote from the executive producer suggests that such trivialities were the whole point: "We don't often get to see or hear stories about black queens, and that was really important for me, as well as for my daughter, and just for my community to be able to know those stories because there are tons of them!"
"There are tons of them, so we picked this one where I can proudly state she was a mighty woman, and (maybe) partly black. Possibly.".
Just go the Bridgerton route, no one serious minded that one.
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
The quote from the executive producer suggests that such trivialities were the whole point: "We don't often get to see or hear stories about black queens, and that was really important for me, as well as for my daughter, and just for my community to be able to know those stories because there are tons of them!"
Exactly. If race is important to the story, get the race right. If it's purely entertainment, and the audience is OK with Shakespeare being played by a black female wheelchair user, have at it.
Try getting a film made with Nelson Mandela being played by a black female wheelchair user.
I agree with Richard_Tyndall that race shouldn't matter in the choice of actresses -- and I agree with williamglenn that those who are putting on the movie are making it matter.
As for appearances, if they are important to the story, the movies can hire a few good make-up artists.
(And I think "West Side Story" is a good adaption of "Romeo and Juliet".)
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
The quote from the executive producer suggests that such trivialities were the whole point: "We don't often get to see or hear stories about black queens, and that was really important for me, as well as for my daughter, and just for my community to be able to know those stories because there are tons of them!"
Exactly. If race is important to the story, get the race right. If it's purely entertainment, and the audience is OK with Shakespeare being played by a black female wheelchair user, have at it.
Try getting a film made with Nelson Mandela being played by a black female wheelchair user.
And as for her being white...
It would need to be quite the unique take on the story to make that not a distracting bad idea. But the theory remains sound.
I'm sure some director out there has done reverse casting before as a gimmick.
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
The quote from the executive producer suggests that such trivialities were the whole point: "We don't often get to see or hear stories about black queens, and that was really important for me, as well as for my daughter, and just for my community to be able to know those stories because there are tons of them!"
"There are tons of them, so we picked this one where I can proudly state she was a mighty woman, and (maybe) partly black. Possibly.".
Just go the Bridgerton route, no one serious minded that one.
Lots of serious folk minded it. They chose not to watch.
Until recently I wasn't interested in the cash/card/electronic payment debate. The problem is the condescending attitude that some people have suddenly decided to adopt towards anyone who doesn't use their preferred method.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Legal tender (in the UK) means you have to accept cash (I think only English cash technically) when someone wants to pay off a loan. The law has never required shops or businesses to accept cash for goods or services.
I think it's a bit more complex than that. Aiui and ianal but legal tender means that if you try and pay for something with it, the shopkeepers or whatever don't have to accept it but can't accuse you of stealing or come after you for non-payment if they don't.
From a few days ago, the revolution is eating itself somewhat. 'Correct' casting only matters sometimes (I'd say it never matters and do whatever you want so the producer is right people don't have to watch, so long as it works for the type of product you are making - eg a gritty realistic movie probably should not cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
I agree entirely, but that's the opposite to what some in the arts think now, and it seems like the producers here still do think that hence the need to grasp for a 'well who knows maybe she was' reason, rather than just - who cares?
I think it has its origins in concerns about historic 'whitecasting' and also concerns about a lack of ethnic minority representation (as it applies to the USA), but those real issues have gotten mixed up a bit with some perceived need for accuracy in portraying roles which is really a bit dumb - so you get acclaimed actors like Samuel Jackson talking about a British actor not being able to connect as well with a role about an American in a mixed race relationship, or Chiwetel Ejiofor getting some blowback(which he rightly ignored) about focusing more on the right actors for roles in a film he directed rather than their familiarity with the Malawian language which was used in it. David Baddiel, naturally, points to this tendency in Jews Don't Count, though I disagree with his seeming solution of applying the same focus on 'correct' casting to Jewish characters, rather than not caring about whether someone matches their character's biography or something.
Even if the point of a film or work is strict accuracy (which it rarely is), someone only needs to look right for the part, not actually be of a particular ethnicity. If no one is claiming accuracy, then it's of no matter.
The occasional Cleopatra spats I like to note mostly because I find it amusing, because producers generally do seem more willing to ignore complaints which is good.
The end result, of course, is that all roles will be played in the ethnicity YOU prefer, by AI actors, and you will pre-select them the same way you pre-select language subtitles now
I doubt Hollywood will enjoy this, as actual human actors are made redundant, but they are willing their own extinction
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Legal tender (in the UK) means you have to accept cash (I think only English cash technically) when someone wants to pay off a loan. The law has never required shops or businesses to accept cash for goods or services.
That is surprising to me, and I would not be, er, surprised if it was surprising to many others too - which might well feed into the sense of outrage about things.
Makes sense given shops can refuse to sell you anything anyway. Theorectically Tesco could refuse to sell you a bottle of lemonade for no reason whatsoever.
Until recently I wasn't interested in the cash/card/electronic payment debate. The problem is the condescending attitude that some people have suddenly decided to adopt towards anyone who doesn't use their preferred method.
Yes, it’s a big problem with cashophiles, as we see on here.
“HYUFD is a commenter on the website politicalbetting.com, known for expressing conservative and right-leaning views on a variety of political topics. The name "HYUFD" is an acronym for "Haven't You Upgraded From Democrat?", indicating the commenter's opposition to the Democratic Party in the United States. However, it's important to note that as an AI language model, I do not have access to specific user information or opinions beyond what is publicly available on the website.”
I once asked HUYFD where he got the name from and he said he just typed five letters at random when asked for a username.
I believe him, rather than ChatGPT.
Indeed, ChatGPT is too clever by half, only the first sentence about me is vaguely true
kle4 asked: "How many true Brits made it through the Anglo-Saxon domination?"
From John McWhorter's Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue:
"By tracing mutations in mitochondrial DNA in women and on the Y chromosome in men, we can reconstruct the migrations of of human populations since the emergence f homo sapiens. It turns out that only about 4 percent or British men's genetic material is traceable to a migration from across the North Sea. Moreover, essentially none of British women's DNA traces back to such a migration, meaning that the invaders were not couples with children, such that women and young'uns would bulk up the total. Rather the invaders were just a bunch of guys." (pp. 12-13)
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Legal tender (in the UK) means you have to accept cash (I think only English cash technically) when someone wants to pay off a loan. The law has never required shops or businesses to accept cash for goods or services.
I think it's a bit more complex than that. Aiui and ianal but legal tender means that if you try and pay for something with it, the shopkeepers or whatever don't have to accept it but can't accuse you of stealing or come after you for non-payment if they don't.
Can’t be true otherwise you could try to pay for a London bus fare in quid coins, be refused, and walk straight on.
Good on him - that's quite brave for the Police Federation chair, and, as he acknowledges, there will be a backlash. Interesting that he's more accepting of the full Casey Report than Rowley or Braverman.
It doesn't strike me as particularly brave. The verbal diarrhea being spouted by this particular functionary on this issue is highly fashionable, and likely to benefit his career of spouting more verbal diarrhea significantly. The real career killer would be to say anything that offended or failed to get sufficiently on board with the trend.
Yes.
The Macpherson report was in 1999
Since then, on multiple occasions, the Senior Management Team have stated that there are problems with racism etc in the rank and file of the force. Note that they (The SMT) are, themselves, pristine.
How many times has a new chief been appointed? How many times have they promised to sort out the problems with the troublesome police officers at the bottom of the hierarchy. Who are, apparently, the entirety of the problem.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
Good post.
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
Electronic transactions for small amounts was growing pre-Covid but still a bit niche. Then suddenly, if you touch cash, You Could Die. Occasionally I have cash, but I forget what I have and how long it has been sat in a wallet that only gets brought with me if I need a card that I need a phys version of. Otherwise its phone tap for everything everywhere.
Remember that Sterling is fiat. It is made up. Spurious. The £10 note (whomever issues it) has a physical value of a few pence, its only £10 because I Promise to Pay the Bearer.
So what does it matter if everything goes electronic - its all made up money anyway. I could pull out a bullion coin and take it to the shop but (a) they probably won't accept it and (b) I don't want them to apply the £1 face value of my £415 Gold Sovereign.
Unless its bullion, its worth very little.
Indeed. Cash is a fiction. In many ways, cashless businesses are calling out that fiction: what, you want me to take a bit of useless plastic and copper and give you a coffee, then store it somewhere, then collect it and give it to a lady in a stripy blouse and knee-length
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
I still think there ought to be a law saying businesses must accept cash, like there is in France. If that makes life difficult for some people, bad luck. And we shouldn't be allowing the Covid lockdown to change anything about life IMO.
Sure. Losing cash will be really hard on the poorest and least able people - a situation in which all of us may end up one day.
Trouble is, how is (for instance) RP to pay in his cash [edit] in his small town? The way things are going there'll soon be more food banks than money banks. Which is part of hte same wider problem.
Again, this is not inevitable – like any other technological advance the thing to do is to prepare for it to ensure all are included. Liken it to the move from analogue to digital TV (for which the arguments against were very similar in nature).
For example, an anonymous ready-cash electronic card/wallet is perfectly possible, indeed I believe several models already exist.
Analogue to digital TV is not a correct comparison. The TV change is more like the change from paper to plastic banknotes. A more correct comparison to your demands to lose cash would be the loss of all broadcast TV, for instance. No skin off my nose, but it would hit a lot of people very hard as they lack the financial or mental resources to cope. Just don't pretend you aren't dumping them.
And ready cash wallerts may be possible - but where are they now? Just glorified bitcoin.
The end of broadcast TV is already being planned for. Just as the Digital TV changeover was planned for years.
Hmm, the problems with landline phones going fibreoptic don't hold out much confidence in similar changes with cash and TV.
At the beginning of the Easter Recess if you had asked me how long Humza Yousaf would last as SNP leader and FM, I would have predicted that he would make it until the next GE and be forced to stand down due to a really poor election result, and with Kate Forbes waiting in the wings to take over. We are now preparing for a GE sometime next year, but could the SNP be facing the perfect political storm right now? Its one thing to be facing possible future by-elections or for one or even a handful of MSPs or MPs to defect to another party/parties due to the events unfolding, we saw that happen between the 2017-19 GEs due to the Brexit chaos and gridlock at Westminster.
But aside from any future outcome of the on going Police Scotland investgation, what happens if the Electoral Commission has to step in with their own financial team due to the SNP being unable to submit audited accounts which could have serious implications for the future of the current SNP groups at Holyrood and Westminster? If the whole SNP group at both Holyrood or Westminster are forced to form a new party with or without a new Leader, surely that would make the current SNP/SGreen position in coalition at Holyrood untenable as a functioning government?
We could end up with the Holyrood parties scrabbling around trying to form a new minority administration, and even if they did manage it, I think it would be a temporary sticking plaster and would not last beyond weeks/months never mind a full term. Is there now a real risk we could face the prospect of the current SNP/SGreen government collapsing and leading to a chaotic snap Holyrood election before the next GE?
Question: "Who was the Liberal Democrat candidate in the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross constituency at the 2019 UK general election?"
Answer: "The Liberal Democrat candidate for the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross constituency at the 2019 UK general election was Jamie Stone. He was the incumbent MP at the time, having won the seat in the 2017 election. However, he lost the seat to the Scottish National Party (SNP) candidate, Joanne Cherry, in the 2019 election."
At the beginning of the Easter Recess if you had asked me how long Humza Yousaf would last as SNP leader and FM, I would have predicted that he would make it until the next GE and be forced to stand down due to a really poor election result, and with Kate Forbes waiting in the wings to take over. We are now preparing for a GE sometime next year, but could the SNP be facing the perfect political storm right now? Its one thing to be facing possible future by-elections or for one or even a handful of MSPs or MPs to defect to another party/parties due to the events unfolding, we saw that happen between the 2017-19 GEs due to the Brexit chaos and gridlock at Westminster.
But aside from any future outcome of the on going Police Scotland investgation, what happens if the Electoral Commission has to step in with their own financial team due to the SNP being unable to submit audited accounts which could have serious implications for the future of the current SNP groups at Holyrood and Westminster? If the whole SNP group at both Holyrood or Westminster are forced to form a new party with or without a new Leader, surely that would make the current SNP/SGreen position in coalition at Holyrood untenable as a functioning government?
We could end up with the Holyrood parties scrabbling around trying to form a new minority administration, and even if they did manage it, I think it would be a temporary sticking plaster and would not last beyond weeks/months never mind a full term. Is there now a real risk we could face the prospect of the current SNP/SGreen government collapsing and leading to a chaotic snap Holyrood election before the next GE?
I believe @malcolmg always predicted that the SNP would rapidly splinter after independence was achieved, but perhaps the collapse of the prospect of independence will have the same effect and the party will break up into different groups based on ideological lines.
AfD won 3 constituency seats at the 2017 German election.
I decided to verify this with ChatGPT.
Question: "How many constituency seats did the Alternative For Germany party win at the 2017 German general election?"
Answer: "In the 2017 German federal election, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) won 92 constituency seats out of a total of 299 constituencies. The party also received an additional 94 seats through the proportional representation system, bringing their total to 186 seats in the Bundestag, which is the German federal parliament. This made the AfD the third-largest party in the Bundestag, after the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD)."
Good on him - that's quite brave for the Police Federation chair, and, as he acknowledges, there will be a backlash. Interesting that he's more accepting of the full Casey Report than Rowley or Braverman.
It doesn't strike me as particularly brave. The verbal diarrhea being spouted by this particular functionary on this issue is highly fashionable, and likely to benefit his career of spouting more verbal diarrhea significantly. The real career killer would be to say anything that offended or failed to get sufficiently on board with the trend.
Yes.
The Macpherson report was in 1999
Since then, on multiple occasions, the Senior Management Team have stated that there are problems with racism etc in the rank and file of the force. Note that they (The SMT) are, themselves, pristine.
How many times has a new chief been appointed? How many times have they promised to sort out the problems with the troublesome police officers at the bottom of the hierarchy. Who are, apparently, the entirety of the problem.
The Met (and policing in general in the UK) needs a Royal Commission rather than this merry go round of swipes by Home Secretaries, London Mayors and occasional intervention from No 10 (normally at the behest of the Daily Mail), sadly its become so politicised to mean we will never have an adult conversation about what UK policings should be.
I thought maybe ChatGPT was just bad at elections in countries other than the United States, so I asked a question about an American election.
Q: "How many votes did Ross Perot receive in Mississippi at the 1992 USA presidential election?"
A: "In the 1992 US presidential election, Ross Perot was an independent candidate. In Mississippi, he received 13.6% of the vote, which translated to 145,229 votes. It's worth noting that Perot performed well in many states across the country in that election, and he was able to secure a significant percentage of the popular vote nationwide, even though he did not win any states or earn any electoral votes."
In fact Perot only got 8.7% of the vote in Mississippi in 1992, (85,626 votes).
But it seems he set himself off, by blaming somebody for not using things that hadn't been invented to pay for a bus fare that didn't exist at the time.
To misquote Derby's famously acid putdown of General Peel, 'He is very reasonable on every subject until somebody mentions 'cash,' whereat his eye lights up with insanity.'
I assume you mean me, despite the fact I am not a 'loon', I merely disagree with you. Lots of people agree with me!
I "blamed" Sandpit for nothing of the sort. I merely asked him when the event occurred because buses have taken phone payments for ages. He then replied saying it was in 2005 and I noted his response by liking it.
Yes, I do mean you, and you do not ‘merely’ disagree. You make wilfully false statements in an obsessive and frequently rude way on this subject, and when it is demonstrated to you that you are wrong or at the very least, seriously mistaken become unpleasant to the point of being abusive.
It never seems to occur to you to simply accept what information you’re given and learn from it. Which makes you come across as ‘a loon.’ You even take criticisms aimed at you as aimed at others.
I have no idea why you behave in such a peculiar way on this subject, but to give you some idea of how you come across compared to your behaviour on this Farage’s discourse on the EU appears positively reasonable.
Anyway, I will spend the rest of the evening with my family.
Five years ago I got annoyed that London cabbies still only took cash and refused cards. I'm just arguing for choice.
Deeply odd how cash v. card has become such a fervent culture war issue. It's possibly fuelled by whichever group is detected to be largely on one side of it or not.
Sign of the times perhaps.
Cash is being defended by three groups: 1. Dodgy Traders who love cash as they don't pay tax on it. Have been quoted different amounts for work if I want an invoice for my company to pay vs cash. "Err, really?" 2. Nostalgia merchants who are still living pre-covid. My MIL who at Easter got arsey with wife because she wasn't carrying cash for a restaurant tip 3. People who want to withdraw lovely anonymous cash before buying something they don't want on a credit card statement.
As I understand it the old legal tender arguments went out with Covid. Its now legal not to take cash. When we get our shop open later in he summer I'm only planning to take cash because there are some elderly people and small kids who may want to use it.
For a business like ours cash is an absolute arse.
The only thing worse than cash is being given a cheque.
I'm still finding it bizarre that ChatGPT can apparently write PhD theses, but at the same time believes the Conservatives won St Albans at the last general election and that therefore Anne Main is still the MP for the constituency.
Yep, it's crap. A congenital liar. Just makes stuff up.
I thought maybe ChatGPT was just bad at elections in countries other than the United States, so I asked a question about an American election.
Q: "How many votes did Ross Perot receive in Mississippi at the 1992 USA presidential election?"
A: "In the 1992 US presidential election, Ross Perot was an independent candidate. In Mississippi, he received 13.6% of the vote, which translated to 145,229 votes. It's worth noting that Perot performed well in many states across the country in that election, and he was able to secure a significant percentage of the popular vote nationwide, even though he did not win any states or earn any electoral votes."
In fact Perot only got 8.7% of the vote in Mississippi in 1992, (85,626 votes).
I'm still finding it bizarre that ChatGPT can apparently write PhD theses, but at the same time believes the Conservatives won St Albans at the last general election and that therefore Anne Main is still the MP for the constituency.
Yep, it's crap. A congenital liar. Just makes stuff up.
The plan to disrupt the marathon is stupid. There must be significant crossover between long distance runners and people who care about the environment.
These also tend to be the middle class, social media and data savvy individuals who can effectively lobby politicians for change. Don't piss them off.
The plan to disrupt the marathon is stupid. There must be significant crossover between long distance runners and people who care about the environment.
Yet the amount of CO2 a human produces rises by up to eight times during exercise.
And a lot of these marathons are on bus routes.
It would be far better for the environment if they all took the bus.
If a government had long NHS waiting lists, much of it requiring anaesthesia for surgery, you would think it would want to train as many as it could. If it had a cohort of 350 doctors applying with 5 years postgraduate experience, 3 in the speciality who met the milestones for progression you would think it would jump at the chance to appoint. Not this government:
Comments
But there were lots of cashless traders before covid, including TfL, which is a public body, and this is hardly likely to be breaking the law. So I assume it has always been legal to not accept cash, or at least has been legal for a long time – buses went cashless here about a decade ago.
There are a fair few places around me that don't accept Scottish banknotes either – is that illegal practice? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that question)
I "blamed" Sandpit for nothing of the sort. I merely asked him when the event occurred because buses have taken phone payments for ages. He then replied saying it was in 2005 and I noted his response by liking it.
Remember that Sterling is fiat. It is made up. Spurious. The £10 note (whomever issues it) has a physical value of a few pence, its only £10 because I Promise to Pay the Bearer.
So what does it matter if everything goes electronic - its all made up money anyway. I could pull out a bullion coin and take it to the shop but (a) they probably won't accept it and (b) I don't want them to apply the £1 face value of my £415 Gold Sovereign.
Unless its bullion, its worth very little.
Trouble is, how is (for instance) RP to pay in his cash [edit] in his small town? The way things are going there'll soon be more food banks than money banks. Which is part of hte same wider problem.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mathematicians-discovered-einstein-tile
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/19/police-federation-chair-accepts-met-is-institutionally-racist-sexist-and-homophobic
- body disposed of
- A stay in a high end hotel
- A suit with a bulletproof lining
- A pile of expensive firearms
- a drink in a bar
Etc
Plutonium
In many ways, cashless businesses are calling out that fiction:
"What, you want me to take a bit of useless plastic and copper to give you a coffee, then store the scraps of paper and metal somewhere under lock and key, then collect it all up and drive it to a lady in a stripy blouse and knee-length skirt who sits at a desk three miles away, just so she can turn it into electronic money that you could have just transferred directly to me. Really? Are you absolutely out of your tiny mind?"
Again, this is not inevitable – like any other technological advance the thing to do is to prepare for it to ensure all are included. Liken it to the move from analogue to digital TV (for which the arguments against were very similar in nature).
For example, an anonymous ready-cash electronic card/wallet is perfectly possible, indeed I believe several models already exist.
The slight problem was that he thought acceptance of the problem was, itself, the solution.
As opposed to not drinking himself unconscious all the fucking time.
And ready cash wallerts may be possible - but where are they now? Just glorified bitcoin.
But it is a necessary, if not sufficient, first step.
Recognise, reduce, abandon.
You can't do owt at all in any other order.
A Netflix docudrama series that depicts Queen Cleopatra VII as a black African has sparked controversy in Egypt.
A lawyer has filed a complaint that accuses African Queens: Queen Cleopatra of violating media laws and aiming to "erase the Egyptian identity".
A top archaeologist insisted Cleopatra was "light-skinned, not black".
But the producer said "her heritage is highly debated" and the actress playing her told critics: "If you don't like the casting, don't watch the show."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-65322821
Who had two years of stashed can food.
But, during a prolonged power cut, only had plug in tin openers.
Brave would be declaring the Met institutionally incompetent.
Firstly the archaeologist is right to the extent that Cleopatra was light skinned. She was a descendent of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were derived from the Macedonian companions of Alexander the Great. Given they practiced inbreeding it is extremely unlikely their heritage had been much changed. Moreover we have contemporary depictions of her which show she was of Mediterranean rather than African ancestry. Indeed even before the Ptolemaic period, the only notably African Pharaohs were the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
But the other point is that the archaeologist is subsequently wrong to criticise her depiction by a black actress. What matter is the quality of the actress, not the colour of her skin. I thought we were supposed to be moving beyond such trivialities.
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/bt-set-to-expand-rollout-of-digital-voice-a5O9P6z4Ap1T
I think it has its origins in concerns about historic 'whitecasting' and also concerns about a lack of ethnic minority representation (as it applies to the USA), but those real issues have gotten mixed up a bit with some perceived need for accuracy in portraying roles which is really a bit dumb - so you get acclaimed actors like Samuel Jackson talking about a British actor not being able to connect as well with a role about an American in a mixed race relationship, or Chiwetel Ejiofor getting some blowback(which he rightly ignored) about focusing more on the right actors for roles in a film he directed rather than their familiarity with the Malawian language which was used in it. David Baddiel, naturally, points to this tendency in Jews Don't Count, though I disagree with his seeming solution of applying the same focus on 'correct' casting to Jewish characters, rather than not caring about whether someone matches their character's biography or something.
Even if the point of a film or work is strict accuracy (which it rarely is), someone only needs to look right for the part, not actually be of a particular ethnicity. If no one is claiming accuracy, then it's of no matter.
The occasional Cleopatra spats I like to note mostly because I find it amusing, because producers generally do seem more willing to ignore complaints which is good.
Just go the Bridgerton route, no one serious minded that one.
And as for her being white...
As for appearances, if they are important to the story, the movies can hire a few good make-up artists.
(And I think "West Side Story" is a good adaption of "Romeo and Juliet".)
I'm sure some director out there has done reverse casting before as a gimmick.
I doubt Hollywood will enjoy this, as actual human actors are made redundant, but they are willing their own extinction
From John McWhorter's Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue:
"By tracing mutations in mitochondrial DNA in women and on the Y chromosome in men, we can reconstruct the migrations of of human populations since the emergence f homo sapiens. It turns out that only about 4 percent or British men's genetic material is traceable to a migration from across the North Sea. Moreover, essentially none of British women's DNA traces back to such a migration, meaning that the invaders were not couples with children, such that women and young'uns would bulk up the total. Rather the invaders were just a bunch of guys." (pp. 12-13)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McWhorter
The Congress is also fairly interesting piece on synthetic avatars of actors.
The Macpherson report was in 1999
Since then, on multiple occasions, the Senior Management Team have stated that there are problems with racism etc in the rank and file of the force. Note that they (The SMT) are, themselves, pristine.
How many times has a new chief been appointed? How many times have they promised to sort out the problems with the troublesome police officers at the bottom of the hierarchy. Who are, apparently, the entirety of the problem.
Anyone remember the prognostications about the digital TV switchover?
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1648760250298712065
But aside from any future outcome of the on going Police Scotland investgation, what happens if the Electoral Commission has to step in with their own financial team due to the SNP being unable to submit audited accounts which could have serious implications for the future of the current SNP groups at Holyrood and Westminster? If the whole SNP group at both Holyrood or Westminster are forced to form a new party with or without a new Leader, surely that would make the current SNP/SGreen position in coalition at Holyrood untenable as a functioning government?
We could end up with the Holyrood parties scrabbling around trying to form a new minority administration, and even if they did manage it, I think it would be a temporary sticking plaster and would not last beyond weeks/months never mind a full term. Is there now a real risk we could face the prospect of the current SNP/SGreen government collapsing and leading to a chaotic snap Holyrood election before the next GE?
Question: "Who was the Liberal Democrat candidate in the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross constituency at the 2019 UK general election?"
Answer: "The Liberal Democrat candidate for the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross constituency at the 2019 UK general election was Jamie Stone. He was the incumbent MP at the time, having won the seat in the 2017 election. However, he lost the seat to the Scottish National Party (SNP) candidate, Joanne Cherry, in the 2019 election."
I decided to verify this with ChatGPT.
Question: "How many constituency seats did the Alternative For Germany party win at the 2017 German general election?"
Answer: "In the 2017 German federal election, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) won 92 constituency seats out of a total of 299 constituencies. The party also received an additional 94 seats through the proportional representation system, bringing their total to 186 seats in the Bundestag, which is the German federal parliament. This made the AfD the third-largest party in the Bundestag, after the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD)."
Q: "How many votes did Ross Perot receive in Mississippi at the 1992 USA presidential election?"
A: "In the 1992 US presidential election, Ross Perot was an independent candidate. In Mississippi, he received 13.6% of the vote, which translated to 145,229 votes. It's worth noting that Perot performed well in many states across the country in that election, and he was able to secure a significant percentage of the popular vote nationwide, even though he did not win any states or earn any electoral votes."
In fact Perot only got 8.7% of the vote in Mississippi in 1992, (85,626 votes).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election#Results
https://www.theguardian.com/weather/2023/apr/19/severe-heatwave-asia-deaths-schools-close-india-china
Though this sounds promising for the longer term.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/19/volcanic-microbe-eats-co2-astonishingly-quickly-say-scientists
It never seems to occur to you to simply accept what information you’re given and learn from it. Which makes you come across as ‘a loon.’ You even take criticisms aimed at you as aimed at others.
I have no idea why you behave in such a peculiar way on this subject, but to give you some idea of how you come across compared to your behaviour on this Farage’s discourse on the EU appears positively reasonable.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f68744d2-defb-11ed-9cc2-0f7e26ed83eb?shareToken=fce21d8d1c7d5462f93d28d2acb6fe6f
"He had turned into Neil Kinnock"
These also tend to be the middle class, social media and data savvy individuals who can effectively lobby politicians for change. Don't piss them off.
And a lot of these marathons are on bus routes.
It would be far better for the environment if they all took the bus.
https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1648724433035567104?t=TWwTWxr9PEkZ-lOZUEwmoA&s=19
(Not unique to anaesthesia incidentally, and at least as important as pay in keeping these doctors in the country).