How tomorrow’s vote is shaping up – politicalbetting.com

System

How tomorrow’s vote is shaping up – politicalbetting.com

NEW: Latest on Assisted Dying bill– Wind in pro-camp's favour but many undecideds may vote against– If bill passes on Friday Health Secretary Wes Streeting set to make it more robust by getting officials to help with amendments 1/https://t.co/Xhz0bLcu1k

Read the full story here

Morris_Dancer

I'm not against the idea necessarily but the lack of detail and debating time is deeply concerning given the importance of the legislation.

Scott_xP

I commend Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times to PBers on this topic

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/my-mothers-ms-has-shaped-my-view-on-dying-3pwjd2xtl

TheScreamingEagles

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Taz

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

boulay

Trying to work out if Radio 4 think everyone is an idiot or lots of idiots have started listening to R4. Just had Nick Robinson refer to “GPs” in a segment on assisted dying and thank god he told the listeners after saying”GPs”, “General Practioners”.

I’m a bit confused by the reference to NATO earlier as no idea what he meant and god knows what this USA is they keep referring to.

Foxy

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

In my mind the key issue with moral concerns is whether we enforce our morals on other people.

I wouldn't want euthanasia for myself or my loved ones, but others clearly do, and not just a tiny minority. Should my moral concerns be imposed on them?

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

I do this for my day job, I have to plan for situations like this.

Shops will close because i) they won't want to have that much cash on site, ii) the end user might have some cash but how do you go paying the supply chains before it gets to the shop. iii) There's things in the background setup for bad things to happen.

Anabobazina

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

bondegezou

Morris_Dancer said:

I'm not against the idea necessarily but the lack of detail and debating time is deeply concerning given the importance of the legislation.

Then one s hound be cheered by the news that “Wes Streeting set to make it more robust by getting officials to help with amendments”.

Barnesian

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

Richard_Tyndall

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

I do this for my day job, I have to plan for situations like this.

Shops will close because i) they won't want to have that much cash on site, ii) the end user might have some cash but how do you go paying the supply chains before it gets to the shop. iii) There's things in the background setup for bad things to happen.

So TSE is right and Norway and Sweden are wrong. That is some arrogance there.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.

Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.

Stuartinromford

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

Nothing in themselves. Though, as others have suggested, there is a question of how far my moral concerns should constrain someone else's actions.

But if the concerns are about morals, better to say them out loud than to hide behind procedural objections.

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

I do this for my day job, I have to plan for situations like this.

Shops will close because i) they won't want to have that much cash on site, ii) the end user might have some cash but how do you go paying the supply chains before it gets to the shop. iii) There's things in the background setup for bad things to happen.

So TSE is right and Norway and Sweden are wrong. That is some arrogance there.

They are following the French, that policy will not survive first contact with a major assault by a foreign state hack.

Scott_xP

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

Not really.

Cash might allow you to pay for a pint of milk in a shop, but how does the shopkeeper pay the distributor, or bank the cash now that there are no branches anywhere any more?

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.

Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.

So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.

Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?

StillWaters

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

Morris, I don’t often agree with @Anabobazina

But he’s right on this.

It’s not some cute affectation not to use the “Quote” button to reply. It’s a pain in the arse for everyone else.

You’re a decent guy from what I can tell. So don’t be an arse and just adopt the same approach as everyone else

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, having some flexibility with cash is infinitely better than zero flexibility without.

And that's without considering my arguments on the previous thread regarding data collection and potential for loss of information/abuse that way.

Anyway, I've made my position clear and this thread is meant to be about something interesting and timely, so I' going to leave it there.

Mexicanpete

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

biggles said:

geoffw said:

Telegraph
David Lammy has said he would seek an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu if he visited the UK.

The Foreign Secretary said he would be obliged by law to go to the courts seeking permission for the arrest, saying he had no “discretion” over the issue.

The position is a stark contrast to France, which became the latest Western country to say it would not arrest the Israeli prime minister, leaving Britain isolated among its G7 allies.

Do Heads of Government and foreign ministers not travel with diplomatic immunity?

Can you even imagine the scenario where UK arrested Netanyahu on a visit to the UK ?

I know some of you PB Tories believe Netanyah to be a great guy, but he really is not a nice man. Even Tory grandee Max Hastings believes him to be a very unpleasant chap.

(Snip)

I need to pull you up on that. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of one poster who has said Netanyahu is a great guy, let alone PB Tories. Many posters were saying he was a shit before October 6th.

I specifically suggested "some" and I'm not going to embarrass the guilty, although there is a particular mindset here which would have "right wing good" everything else very bad. @DecrepiterJohnL mentioned Pinochet earlier. There we have an example of that mindset. Although rounding up left wingers and moderates and taking them to a convenient stadium might find some merits of itself here anyway.

Surely tacit support for Netanyahu on here is a given when several posters have justified the flattening of Gaza, the West Bank and South and Central Beirut as a proportionate reaction to October 7?

As I say, I cannot remember anyone saying "Netanyahu is a great guy". That's different from saying that Israel is in a terrible position due to Palestinian actions, and had to do something. Although most of the 'PB Tories' on here seem to say what they did was wrong/too much, and that Netanyahu is a shit.

As for your comment: I'd argue that's also the case for leftists, on steroids. We even have idiots who praise Stalin, Lenin, and the Soviet Union. And as for tankies...

"Palestinian actions"? Are you suggesting Hamas were acting on behalf of the women and children of Gaza? I would suggest they were operating on behalf of their own sick agenda, nothing more, nothing less.

Good morning

I have never said Netanyahu is a great guy and shame on you for suggesting it

He and Hamas are both heinous but I posed a fair question which you twisted and implied something that I utterly reject

Maybe address the question

What do you think if Netanyahu was arrested in the UK not least as only yesterday France rejected the idea

He's been forewarned not to come to the UK, so I suspect, like Putin, the question of his arrest on British soil is academic. The man is a slam-dunk war criminal due his day in court at the Hague. Such a view is not by the way tacit support for Hamas.

StillWaters

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.

That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen.

To support this bill is grossly illiberal

StillWaters

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

I do this for my day job, I have to plan for situations like this.

Shops will close because i) they won't want to have that much cash on site, ii) the end user might have some cash but how do you go paying the supply chains before it gets to the shop. iii) There's things in the background setup for bad things to happen.

So TSE is right and Norway and Sweden are wrong. That is some arrogance there.

I agree

How dare Norway and Sweden disagree with TSE.

Eabhal

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

But this is a bit like achieving food security in the UK.

You're going to need to need so much cash, and so many reserve emergency staff at supermarkets, banks, the cost would be completely prohibitive.

TheScreamingEagles

StillWaters said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

I do this for my day job, I have to plan for situations like this.

Shops will close because i) they won't want to have that much cash on site, ii) the end user might have some cash but how do you go paying the supply chains before it gets to the shop. iii) There's things in the background setup for bad things to happen.

So TSE is right and Norway and Sweden are wrong. That is some arrogance there.

I agree

How dare Norway and Sweden disagree with TSE.

I've just realised when you add in France (a country with a cash protection law) then the countries in favour of this are Nazi collaborators.

Being pro-cash means you are pro Nazi.

Nigelb

Morris_Dancer said:

I'm not against the idea necessarily but the lack of detail and debating time is deeply concerning given the importance of the legislation.

.. If bill passes on Friday Health Secretary Wes Streeting set to make it more robust by getting officials to help with amendments ..

That's being used as an argument against the bill, which is absurd, as the above quote shows.

If it passes, the government is very likely to provide both time and scrutiny, given the numbers in cabinet who think it's flawed.

Casino_Royale

It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.

FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.

You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.

Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.

So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.

Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?

The real-world problems are not the massive weeks-long state-sponsored hacks that keep the whole payment infrastructure down that the banks plan for, it’s short-term or localised issues caused by natural disasters, power outages, botched software upgrades etc.

Three months’ outgoings in cash by the way.

Mexicanpete

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

Remember the documentary, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome? Cash was not king, in Barter Town they bartered.

LostPassword

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Nigelb

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

What's wrong is the failure to express and rely on them as the case against the bill.
And the use of practical quibbles - which are soluble - as an argument against the bill.

Richard_Tyndall

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Any quick glance though financial advice websites will show many of them mention evidence of gambling as a negative in a mortgage application. Something Anabob was ridiculing on the last thread.

LostPassword

Stuartinromford said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

Nothing in themselves. Though, as others have suggested, there is a question of how far my moral concerns should constrain someone else's actions.

But if the concerns are about morals, better to say them out loud than to hide behind procedural objections.

I think it's really rude to tell people raising concerns on various other grounds that, really, they have a different motivation.

It poisons debate by seeking to invalidate opposition. It's incredibly corrosive.

Malmesbury

Foxy said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

In my mind the key issue with moral concerns is whether we enforce our morals on other people.

I wouldn't want euthanasia for myself or my loved ones, but others clearly do, and not just a tiny minority. Should my moral concerns be imposed on them?

But what if their moral choices have an effect on others?

But you say, dying is a personal choice.

Such as system being abused can effect more people than just those who wish to die.

Anabobazina

Scott_xP said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

Not really.

Cash might allow you to pay for a pint of milk in a shop, but how does the shopkeeper pay the distributor, or bank the cash now that there are no branches anywhere any more?

And the bank needs digital systems to process it, in any case. Slight flaw in the cunning plan…

Malmesbury

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.

Which is grossly illiberal, as well.

boulay

Just had a blast of a dreadful song that the leader of the Lib Dems , Sir Ed Disney, is involved in. I feel there is a frustrated showman in the politician. Next stop “The Masked Singer.

Anabobazina

Eabhal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

But this is a bit like achieving food security in the UK.

You're going to need to need so much cash, and so many reserve emergency staff at supermarkets, banks, the cost would be completely prohibitive.

It’s almost as if there are better ways to foster national financial security than asking people to lug paper vouchers and shards of metal around with them.

Luckyguy1983

StillWaters said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.

That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen.

To support this bill is grossly illiberal

The state constantly imposes its moral concerns on people who don't share them - it's called the law.

RochdalePioneers

You'd think that Assisted Dying would be the ultimate culture wars issue. Nasty wokeys trying to kill your gran.

But no - it would seem that the real issue is the globalist conspiracy against cash.

We truly are adrift as a country...

TheScreamingEagles

RochdalePioneers said:

You'd think that Assisted Dying would be the ultimate culture wars issue. Nasty wokeys trying to kill your gran.

But no - it would seem that the real issue is the globalist conspiracy against cash.

We truly are adrift as a country...

Do Dignitas take cash or are they solely card only ?

Foxy

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Any quick glance though financial advice websites will show many of them mention evidence of gambling as a negative in a mortgage application. Something Anabob was ridiculing on the last thread.

Considering problem drinking and gambling do have financial implications then it is right and proper that mortgage companies look at these.

They should look at how any spending on these fits the general shape of the finances of the applicant. Me putting a tenner on City or buying a box of wine at Majestic should not be a problem. Someone losing £1 000 a week in online casinos should.

LostPassword

RochdalePioneers said:

You'd think that Assisted Dying would be the ultimate culture wars issue. Nasty wokeys trying to kill your gran.

But no - it would seem that the real issue is the globalist conspiracy against cash.

We truly are adrift as a country...

No-one is talking about a conspiracy, but you only die once, whereas making financial transactions, with cash or otherwise, is nearly a daily experience.

It might not be as important in the current of things, but it has more daily impact on more people.

Nigelb

Eabhal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

But this is a bit like achieving food security in the UK.

You're going to need to need so much cash, and so many reserve emergency staff at supermarkets, banks, the cost would be completely prohibitive.

It's a silly argument anyway, as it's just a feeble proxy for the real issue, which is how much the entire world economic system relies on the stability of multiple electronic systems.

I've nothing against using cash, but it provides little or no additional security against civilisational disruption.

Anabobazina

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Then you assume wrongly. Your broker is talking nonsense. Banks are seeking affordability for mortgages, not whether you use your card in the Dog & Duck. My mother is teetotal. She often picks up the whole bill with her card at family pub lunches. She is also partial to a pub breakfast, again paid by card.

Miraculously, she has never struggled to get a mortgage.

Funny old world.

Barnesian

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.

Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.

So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.

Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?

I keep three months worth just in case. My local ATM is often on the blink, even without help from foreign actors.

DavidL

Foxy said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

In my mind the key issue with moral concerns is whether we enforce our morals on other people.

I wouldn't want euthanasia for myself or my loved ones, but others clearly do, and not just a tiny minority. Should my moral concerns be imposed on them?

Yes, the similarities to the abortion debate are very marked. I find abortion morally abhorrent but I am not willing to impose my judgment on others who have very different life experiences and take away their choice.

On this, I look at the last years of my late father in law and the current travails of my mother in law and think I would not want that but I come to that position in as good a state of mind as my limitations allow when it is entirely hypothetical. I think I would be a yes in principle vote for this but the detail will be important.

noneoftheabove

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Any quick glance though financial advice websites will show many of them mention evidence of gambling as a negative in a mortgage application. Something Anabob was ridiculing on the last thread.

Considering problem drinking and gambling do have financial implications then it is right and proper that mortgage companies look at these.

They should look at how any spending on these fits the general shape of the finances of the applicant. Me putting a tenner on City or buying a box of wine at Majestic should not be a problem. Someone losing £1 000 a week in online casinos should.

Given the nature of this site, what about someone betting thousands a week but winning?

They will (generally) get labelled as a higher risk than they are. Perhaps they are even arbing and bonus hunting to build up their mortgage deposit which would suggest the opposite in terms of financial planning to what the raw data tells the bank.

LostPassword

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Then you assume wrongly. Your broker is talking nonsense. Banks are seeking affordability for mortgages, not whether you use your card in the Dog & Duck. My mother is teetotal. She often picks up the whole bill with her card at family pub lunches. She is also partial to a pub breakfast, again paid by card.

Miraculously, she has never struggled to get a mortgage.

Funny old world.

When was the last time your mother applied for a mortgage???

You don't think banks might have changed their procedures since then?

Malmesbury

Luckyguy1983 said:

StillWaters said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.

That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen.

To support this bill is grossly illiberal

The state constantly imposes its moral concerns on people who don't share them - it's called the law.

Tell me about it. Mention you want to buy some plutonium or setup a nuclear reactor and a whole bunch of busybodies are on it…

Malmesbury

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

You'd think that Assisted Dying would be the ultimate culture wars issue. Nasty wokeys trying to kill your gran.

But no - it would seem that the real issue is the globalist conspiracy against cash.

We truly are adrift as a country...

Do Dignitas take cash or are they solely card only ?

No, they will only take title to land. Old school.

noneoftheabove

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

You'd think that Assisted Dying would be the ultimate culture wars issue. Nasty wokeys trying to kill your gran.

But no - it would seem that the real issue is the globalist conspiracy against cash.

We truly are adrift as a country...

Do Dignitas take cash or are they solely card only ?

Either but you have to be very franc with them on source of funds.

IanB2

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

It doesn't actually mean morality, but religious concerns.

Anabobazina

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Then you assume wrongly. Your broker is talking nonsense. Banks are seeking affordability for mortgages, not whether you use your card in the Dog & Duck. My mother is teetotal. She often picks up the whole bill with her card at family pub lunches. She is also partial to a pub breakfast, again paid by card.

Miraculously, she has never struggled to get a mortgage.

Funny old world.

When was the last time your mother applied for a mortgage???

You don't think banks might have changed their procedures since then?

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Any quick glance though financial advice websites will show many of them mention evidence of gambling as a negative in a mortgage application. Something Anabob was ridiculing on the last thread.

Fake news.

My post re: mortgages was to do with using a bank card in pubs. Sod all to do with gambling sites.

Nigelb

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

Nothing in themselves. Though, as others have suggested, there is a question of how far my moral concerns should constrain someone else's actions.

But if the concerns are about morals, better to say them out loud than to hide behind procedural objections.

I think it's really rude to tell people raising concerns on various other grounds that, really, they have a different motivation.

It poisons debate by seeking to invalidate opposition. It's incredibly corrosive.

I think that misunderstands the argument.

The objection is against those MPs and ministers raising procedural objections, when those procedures are entirely within their remit.

partypoliticalorphan

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.

Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.

So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.

Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?

I keep a week's worth of cash in emergency supply plus a week in the wallet and we have a stash of non perishable food and drink in the loft.

Foxy

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

In my mind the key issue with moral concerns is whether we enforce our morals on other people.

I wouldn't want euthanasia for myself or my loved ones, but others clearly do, and not just a tiny minority. Should my moral concerns be imposed on them?

But what if their moral choices have an effect on others?

But you say, dying is a personal choice.

Such as system being abused can effect more people than just those who wish to die.

I suppose that the difference is how extensive support is. I would anticipate that less than 1% of the population would want murder legalised, but with "Assisted Dying" we see a much larger percentage of the population, indeed a majority in favour.

Incidentally this is not the state killing individuals (as I understand it health care professionals are not allowed to administer the fatal cocktail) but rather individuals killing themselves or their loved ones without the state stopping them. It is the opposite of state control.

I still have concerns about coercive and budding Dr Shipmans, but on balance in favour of permitting it.

Anabobazina

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Then you assume wrongly. Your broker is talking nonsense. Banks are seeking affordability for mortgages, not whether you use your card in the Dog & Duck. My mother is teetotal. She often picks up the whole bill with her card at family pub lunches. She is also partial to a pub breakfast, again paid by card.

Miraculously, she has never struggled to get a mortgage.

Funny old world.

When was the last time your mother applied for a mortgage???

You don't think banks might have changed their procedures since then?

I’ll just have to use the corpus of information from all my thirty- and fortysomething friends then, none of whom use cash, all of whom visit pubs regularly and all of whom have mortgages.

noneoftheabove

Barnesian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.

Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.

So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.

Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?

I keep three months worth just in case. My local ATM is often on the blink, even without help from foreign actors.

We should really arrest the likes of Clooney, Cruise and Roberts next time they come over here for all the trouble they cause.

Taz

boulay said:

Just had a blast of a dreadful song that the leader of the Lib Dems , Sir Ed Disney, is involved in. I feel there is a frustrated showman in the politician. Next stop “The Masked Singer.

The new series is already in the can. Filmed in the Summer, August IIRC. He may have been in it, you never know. Starts over Xmas.

Alan Johnson appeared in it, so their is precedent for a politician going on and Rudy Giuliani was on the one in the States.

Malmesbury

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Any quick glance though financial advice websites will show many of them mention evidence of gambling as a negative in a mortgage application. Something Anabob was ridiculing on the last thread.

Considering problem drinking and gambling do have financial implications then it is right and proper that mortgage companies look at these.

They should look at how any spending on these fits the general shape of the finances of the applicant. Me putting a tenner on City or buying a box of wine at Majestic should not be a problem. Someone losing £1 000 a week in online casinos should.

So you want rationality and proportionality in decision making?

Interesting idea.

Anabobazina

Barnesian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.

Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.

So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.

Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?

I keep three months worth just in case. My local ATM is often on the blink, even without help from foreign actors.

Lol! Do you find much need for an ATM in Barnes?

Anabobazina

Casino_Royale said:

It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.

FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.

You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.

Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?

Barnesian

StillWaters said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.

That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen.

To support this bill is grossly illiberal

This bill is analogous to the 1967 Abortion Act introduced by David Steel under a private member's bill. It gave permission to women to have help with abortion within safeguards. It supported personal autonomy of women. This bill is similar.

80% of abortions take place in the private sector. I assume assisted dying would be similar - a bit like a local Dignitas.

The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.
That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen. is portentous hyperbole.

Richard_Tyndall

Anabobazina said:

Casino_Royale said:

It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.

FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.

You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.

Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?

This is an utterly stupid argument for obvious reasons. But then 'reason' has never really featured in your insane attitude to denying cash to those who want to use it.

Nigelb

StillWaters said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.

That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen.

To support this bill is grossly illiberal

Since personal autonomy is at the heart of the bill, to describe what is being proposed as the state "putting citizens to death" is more than a slight mischaracterisation.

turbotubbs

StillWaters said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.

That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen.

To support this bill is grossly illiberal

You seem to be arguing against capital punishment, rather than allowing very ill people to legally access drugs to end their suffering.

Theuniondivvie

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

biggles said:

geoffw said:

Telegraph
David Lammy has said he would seek an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu if he visited the UK.

The Foreign Secretary said he would be obliged by law to go to the courts seeking permission for the arrest, saying he had no “discretion” over the issue.

The position is a stark contrast to France, which became the latest Western country to say it would not arrest the Israeli prime minister, leaving Britain isolated among its G7 allies.

Do Heads of Government and foreign ministers not travel with diplomatic immunity?

Can you even imagine the scenario where UK arrested Netanyahu on a visit to the UK ?

I know some of you PB Tories believe Netanyah to be a great guy, but he really is not a nice man. Even Tory grandee Max Hastings believes him to be a very unpleasant chap.

(Snip)

I need to pull you up on that. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of one poster who has said Netanyahu is a great guy, let alone PB Tories. Many posters were saying he was a shit before October 6th.

I specifically suggested "some" and I'm not going to embarrass the guilty, although there is a particular mindset here which would have "right wing good" everything else very bad. @DecrepiterJohnL mentioned Pinochet earlier. There we have an example of that mindset. Although rounding up left wingers and moderates and taking them to a convenient stadium might find some merits of itself here anyway.

Surely tacit support for Netanyahu on here is a given when several posters have justified the flattening of Gaza, the West Bank and South and Central Beirut as a proportionate reaction to October 7?

As I say, I cannot remember anyone saying "Netanyahu is a great guy". That's different from saying that Israel is in a terrible position due to Palestinian actions, and had to do something. Although most of the 'PB Tories' on here seem to say what they did was wrong/too much, and that Netanyahu is a shit.

As for your comment: I'd argue that's also the case for leftists, on steroids. We even have idiots who praise Stalin, Lenin, and the Soviet Union. And as for tankies...

"Palestinian actions"? Are you suggesting Hamas were acting on behalf of the women and children of Gaza? I would suggest they were operating on behalf of their own sick agenda, nothing more, nothing less.

Good morning

I have never said Netanyahu is a great guy and shame on you for suggesting it

He and Hamas are both heinous but I posed a fair question which you twisted and implied something that I utterly reject

Maybe address the question

What do you think if Netanyahu was arrested in the UK not least as only yesterday France rejected the idea

He's been forewarned not to come to the UK, so I suspect, like Putin, the question of his arrest on British soil is academic. The man is a slam-dunk war criminal due his day in court at the Hague. Such a view is not by the way tacit support for Hamas.

I wonder what sanctions the ‘I’m no fan of Bibi but’-ers think should be applied to the crooked, murderous shit?

I agree it’s mostly academic but what have things come to if the UK can’t make empty, symbolic gestures? I’d like to think the combover king would see serious jail time in Israel but history suggests otherwise.

Anabobazina

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Any quick glance though financial advice websites will show many of them mention evidence of gambling as a negative in a mortgage application. Something Anabob was ridiculing on the last thread.

Considering problem drinking and gambling do have financial implications then it is right and proper that mortgage companies look at these.

They should look at how any spending on these fits the general shape of the finances of the applicant. Me putting a tenner on City or buying a box of wine at Majestic should not be a problem. Someone losing £1 000 a week in online casinos should.

Putting a tenner on City at the moment is a bit problematic TBF. It rather reveals a financial naivety any sensible lender would be wary of.

Sandpit

Barnesian said:

StillWaters said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.

That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen.

To support this bill is grossly illiberal

This bill is analogous to the 1967 Abortion Act introduced by David Steel under a private member's bill. It gave permission to women to have help with abortion within safeguards. It supported personal autonomy of women. This bill is similar.

80% of abortions take place in the private sector. I assume assisted dying would be similar - a bit like a local Dignitas.

The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.
That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen. is portentous hyperbole.

Now we have a record high 250,000 abortions in the UK every year, a number that’s been steadily rising over time since 1967 and seen as totally normal by a lot of the population. Many of the resources given to people taking the ‘other’ option, such as women’s shelters and adoption agencies, have closed over time.

Many will argue that this isn’t a good thing.

Richard_Tyndall

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Then you assume wrongly. Your broker is talking nonsense. Banks are seeking affordability for mortgages, not whether you use your card in the Dog & Duck. My mother is teetotal. She often picks up the whole bill with her card at family pub lunches. She is also partial to a pub breakfast, again paid by card.

Miraculously, she has never struggled to get a mortgage.

Funny old world.

When was the last time your mother applied for a mortgage???

You don't think banks might have changed their procedures since then?

I’ll just have to use the corpus of information from all my thirty- and fortysomething friends then, none of whom use cash, all of whom visit pubs regularly and all of whom have mortgages.

So you accuse someone of using hearsay and then justify that with.... hearsay.

noneoftheabove

partypoliticalorphan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.

Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.

So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.

Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?

I keep a week's worth of cash in emergency supply plus a week in the wallet and we have a stash of non perishable food and drink in the loft.

I still have 3,286 bog rolls left over from covid. Proven to be better than gold or cash in a crisis.

LostPassword

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Then you assume wrongly. Your broker is talking nonsense. Banks are seeking affordability for mortgages, not whether you use your card in the Dog & Duck. My mother is teetotal. She often picks up the whole bill with her card at family pub lunches. She is also partial to a pub breakfast, again paid by card.

Miraculously, she has never struggled to get a mortgage.

Funny old world.

When was the last time your mother applied for a mortgage???

You don't think banks might have changed their procedures since then?

I’ll just have to use the corpus of information from all my thirty- and fortysomething friends then, none of whom use cash, all of whom visit pubs regularly and all of whom have mortgages.

I suppose this could be a difference between the Irish and British banking markets. I have come across a few other differences and oddities. I had assumed it was simply a change that had occurred since the decline in cash transactions.

Barnesian

Malmesbury said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.

Which is grossly illiberal, as well.

How about abortion?

Richard_Tyndall

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Any quick glance though financial advice websites will show many of them mention evidence of gambling as a negative in a mortgage application. Something Anabob was ridiculing on the last thread.

Fake news.

My post re: mortgages was to do with using a bank card in pubs. Sod all to do with gambling sites.

Stop lying Anabob, especially when we can all see your posting on the previous page. You specifically referenced Betfair in one of your derisory replies.

Nigelb

Taz said:

boulay said:

Just had a blast of a dreadful song that the leader of the Lib Dems , Sir Ed Disney, is involved in. I feel there is a frustrated showman in the politician. Next stop “The Masked Singer.

The new series is already in the can. Filmed in the Summer, August IIRC. He may have been in it, you never know. Starts over Xmas.

Alan Johnson appeared in it, so their is precedent for a politician going on and Rudy Giuliani was on the one in the States.

Rudy is no great precedent.
Are you suggesting Sir Ed is about to attract the attentions of law enforcement??

Barnesian

Malmesbury said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.

Which is grossly illiberal, as well.

It doesn't have consequences for "society". Many personal choices have some consequences for other people, but I wouldn't necessarily ban them.

Anabobazina

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Casino_Royale said:

It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.

FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.

You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.

Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?

This is an utterly stupid argument for obvious reasons. But then 'reason' has never really featured in your insane attitude to denying cash to those who want to use it.

More fake news from you Richard, tut tut! I would not ban cash, as I’ve said on here as infinitum.

It is pointless and archaic, but if people really want to use it, for reasons best known to themselves, let them crack on.

Yet I oppose forcing businesses to accept it - which is a horribly illiberal piece of red tape that the high street can ill afford.

Casino_Royale

Anabobazina said:

Casino_Royale said:

It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.

FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.

You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.

Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?

Bore off, you sad fanatic.

Eabhal

Nigelb said:

Eabhal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

But this is a bit like achieving food security in the UK.

You're going to need to need so much cash, and so many reserve emergency staff at supermarkets, banks, the cost would be completely prohibitive.

It's a silly argument anyway, as it's just a feeble proxy for the real issue, which is how much the entire world economic system relies on the stability of multiple electronic systems.

I've nothing against using cash, but it provides little or no additional security against civilisational disruption.

I think it's linked to the Brexit/autarky/laissez-faire pipe dream. These are regular themes here on PB, and internally inconsistent given the level of state meddling that would be required to achieve it.

I know it's very boring and woke, but the UK ultimately depends on cooperation with trade partners (particularly in Europe), diplomacy to ensure our food imports don't get disrupted, robust cyber security, an energy system that isn't vulnerable to market interventions by bad actors, and a rules-based international order.

In the last few years, Putin has been able to disrupt all of these.

Nigelb

.

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

boulay said:

Just had a blast of a dreadful song that the leader of the Lib Dems , Sir Ed Disney, is involved in. I feel there is a frustrated showman in the politician. Next stop “The Masked Singer.

The new series is already in the can. Filmed in the Summer, August IIRC. He may have been in it, you never know. Starts over Xmas.

Alan Johnson appeared in it, so their is precedent for a politician going on and Rudy Giuliani was on the one in the States.

Rudy is no great precedent.
Are you suggesting Sir Ed is about to attract the attentions of law enforcement??

Actually, having had a quick peek, that is criminal.

Barnesian

Malmesbury said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

StillWaters said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.

That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen.

To support this bill is grossly illiberal

The state constantly imposes its moral concerns on people who don't share them - it's called the law.

Tell me about it. Mention you want to buy some plutonium or setup a nuclear reactor and a whole bunch of busybodies are on it…

Is this from personal experience?

Anabobazina

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Any quick glance though financial advice websites will show many of them mention evidence of gambling as a negative in a mortgage application. Something Anabob was ridiculing on the last thread.

Fake news.

My post re: mortgages was to do with using a bank card in pubs. Sod all to do with gambling sites.

Stop lying Anabob, especially when we can all see your posting on the previous page. You specifically referenced Betfair in one of your derisory replies.

I did. But the post was referring to state surveillance, nothing to do with mortgage lenders.

Richard_Tyndall

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Casino_Royale said:

It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.

FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.

You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.

Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?

This is an utterly stupid argument for obvious reasons. But then 'reason' has never really featured in your insane attitude to denying cash to those who want to use it.

More fake news from you Richard, tut tut! I would not ban cash, as I’ve said on here as infinitum.

It is pointless and archaic, but if people really want to use it, for reasons best known to themselves, let them crack on.

Yet I oppose forcing businesses to accept it - which is a horribly illiberal piece of red tape that the high street can ill afford.

Listen, we already know you lie to try and win an argument - as evidenced by your previous denial about gambling. So perhaps you should lay off the 'fake news' claims until you have cleaned up your own act.

Malmesbury

Casino_Royale said:

Anabobazina said:

Casino_Royale said:

It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.

FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.

You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.

Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?

Bore off, you sad fanatic.

If you are suggesting that sad fanatics shouldn’t post here, it’s going to become awfully quiet.

And then @rcs1000 plans to monetise PB as a Quantum Crypto NFT, Novel Space Launch, Bridge/Tidal Real Estate selling platform will fall through.

Anabobazina

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.

If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.

It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.

The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.

Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.

Only on PB.

Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.

All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.

Then you assume wrongly. Your broker is talking nonsense. Banks are seeking affordability for mortgages, not whether you use your card in the Dog & Duck. My mother is teetotal. She often picks up the whole bill with her card at family pub lunches. She is also partial to a pub breakfast, again paid by card.

Miraculously, she has never struggled to get a mortgage.

Funny old world.

When was the last time your mother applied for a mortgage???

You don't think banks might have changed their procedures since then?

I’ll just have to use the corpus of information from all my thirty- and fortysomething friends then, none of whom use cash, all of whom visit pubs regularly and all of whom have mortgages.

So you accuse someone of using hearsay and then justify that with.... hearsay.

My inference was that Mr Password was seeking more examples, so I supplied him with some. For what it’s worth I was unaware he was in Ireland, which I suppose could be a factor here.

Cookie

Barnesian said:

Malmesbury said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.

Which is grossly illiberal, as well.

How about abortion?

It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.

That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.

Barnesian

Anabobazina said:

Barnesian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.

Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.

So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.

Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?

I keep three months worth just in case. My local ATM is often on the blink, even without help from foreign actors.

Lol! Do you find much need for an ATM in Barnes?

I pay my cleaner in cash and my grandchildren get cash presents.

Anabobazina

Barnesian said:

Anabobazina said:

Barnesian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.

Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.

So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.

Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?

I keep three months worth just in case. My local ATM is often on the blink, even without help from foreign actors.

Lol! Do you find much need for an ATM in Barnes?

I pay my cleaner in cash and my grandchildren get cash presents.

Why?

Barnesian

Anabobazina said:

Barnesian said:

Anabobazina said:

Barnesian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.

And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.

Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.

So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.

Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?

I keep three months worth just in case. My local ATM is often on the blink, even without help from foreign actors.

Lol! Do you find much need for an ATM in Barnes?

I pay my cleaner in cash and my grandchildren get cash presents.

Why?

They don't have card machines.

Eabhal

Nigelb said:

.

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

boulay said:

Just had a blast of a dreadful song that the leader of the Lib Dems , Sir Ed Disney, is involved in. I feel there is a frustrated showman in the politician. Next stop “The Masked Singer.

The new series is already in the can. Filmed in the Summer, August IIRC. He may have been in it, you never know. Starts over Xmas.

Alan Johnson appeared in it, so their is precedent for a politician going on and Rudy Giuliani was on the one in the States.

Rudy is no great precedent.
Are you suggesting Sir Ed is about to attract the attentions of law enforcement??

Actually, having had a quick peek, that is criminal.

I think it would depend on whether Sir Ed intended to cause distress. If so, he's bang to rights on the Public Order Act.

LostPassword

Barnesian said:

Malmesbury said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.

Which is grossly illiberal, as well.

How about abortion?

Abortion is the precedent that worries me.

I'm in favour of women having control of their bodies and being free to choose, and for medical professionals to be able to do what is best for the health of the mother in the case of complications late in pregnancy, without fear of prosecution.

But the legislation passed in the Commons is being applied in a more liberal way than intended. It would have been better if it had been amended. This gives me concern about the safeguards included in the current Bill, and question how they might be eroded over time.

We also see how much pressure there often is on a pregnant woman to have an abortion and that makes me worry. In particular, a person potentially being pressured to go through with an assisted death won't be able to testify to that coercion after the event.

NickPalmer

Anabobazina said:

Casino_Royale said:

It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.

FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.

You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.

Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?

Er, Anabob, it's quite something when I prefer Casino's arguments to yours. We get that you favour giving up cash, and think its use is silly. Some firms refuse to accept cash, and go without our custom some of the time. I don't think you favour making it illegal, and some of us find it sometimes convenient. Why not leave it there?

Casino_Royale

On topic, I expect the bill to pass easily.

MPs will vote for it but don't want to be seen to be enthusiastic about it.

Anabobazina

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Casino_Royale said:

It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.

FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.

You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.

Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?

This is an utterly stupid argument for obvious reasons. But then 'reason' has never really featured in your insane attitude to denying cash to those who want to use it.

More fake news from you Richard, tut tut! I would not ban cash, as I’ve said on here as infinitum.

It is pointless and archaic, but if people really want to use it, for reasons best known to themselves, let them crack on.

Yet I oppose forcing businesses to accept it - which is a horribly illiberal piece of red tape that the high street can ill afford.

Listen, we already know you lie to try and win an argument - as evidenced by your previous denial about gambling. So perhaps you should lay off the 'fake news' claims until you have cleaned up your own act.

What’s on Earth has got into you this morning? I’ve already replied to you about the gambling claim. You can simply read my posts on the last thread Richard!

Anabobazina

Casino_Royale said:

Anabobazina said:

Casino_Royale said:

It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.

FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.

You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.

Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?

Bore off, you sad fanatic.

Oh dear. Go back to bed.

Carnyx

Nigelb said:

Eabhal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

But this is a bit like achieving food security in the UK.

You're going to need to need so much cash, and so many reserve emergency staff at supermarkets, banks, the cost would be completely prohibitive.

It's a silly argument anyway, as it's just a feeble proxy for the real issue, which is how much the entire world economic system relies on the stability of multiple electronic systems.

I've nothing against using cash, but it provides little or no additional security against civilisational disruption.

Even on a lower and m ore immediate level, Anabob basically thinks we ought to spend £££ on a new phone andor watch every two years or so (given the current life of the batteries which are often glued in etc., even if the security updates last longer).

My new wallet = £5 special offer from the Tank Museum, zero running cost over 10-20 years.

The new phone I'm *forced* to buy for basic security = £££ I dread to think.

Sean_F

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

What is equality or human rights legislation, or funding the armed forces, or criminal justice legislation, other than imposing one’s own moral values upon others who do not share them?

Scott_xP

Taz said:

The new series is already in the can.

Another phrase that is completely anachronistic in this day and age. There is no can...

Like hang up the phone.

Sean_F

Cookie said:

Barnesian said:

Malmesbury said:

Barnesian said:

Taz said:

"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."

What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?

You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.

You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.

Which is grossly illiberal, as well.

How about abortion?

It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.

That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.

The notion that somehow, legislation can be detached from the moral values of the legislators, does not survive a moment ‘s scrutiny.

Anabobazina

Carnyx said:

Nigelb said:

Eabhal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles,

This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites. If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine. It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it. The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash. Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.

It's almost as if the system has a weakness and should be made more rather than less resilient. Removing cash makes the system 100% vulnerable to hacking attacks. A contingency plan for if electronic transfers are unavailable for hours or days is sensible planning. And for that, you need cash.

But this is a bit like achieving food security in the UK.

You're going to need to need so much cash, and so many reserve emergency staff at supermarkets, banks, the cost would be completely prohibitive.

It's a silly argument anyway, as it's just a feeble proxy for the real issue, which is how much the entire world economic system relies on the stability of multiple electronic systems.

I've nothing against using cash, but it provides little or no additional security against civilisational disruption.

Even on a lower and m ore immediate level, Anabob basically thinks we ought to spend £££ on a new phone andor watch every two years or so (given the current life of the batteries which are often glued in etc., even if the security updates last longer).

My new wallet = £5 special offer from the Tank Museum, zero running cost over 10-20 years.

The new phone I'm *forced* to buy for basic security = £££ I dread to think.

Yet more fake news. I’ve got an old iPhone and I just change the battery when it dies. I haven’t bought a ‘new’ phone for years.

Next.