politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson’s Tories get their best Opinium voting numbers since b
Options
Comments
-
I'm not at all sure that the great mask edict will make as much difference to people's shopping habits as is being claimed. Firstly, yes, a lot of people don't much like them but will give in anyway (whether through a sense of duty, from social pressure, or just because it's too much trouble not to.) Secondly, we've no idea (given that shops have been told they're not responsible for enforcing these rules) how hard they will try to do so. It may simply be that many or most businesses just let maskless personages wander on and off their premises regardless.RochdalePioneers said:
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.Mortimer said:On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
As far as Aldi specifically is concerned, I do wonder if they've got sloppy based on my experiences with local stores. Queues for Aldi appear to have ended; Tesco and M&S are still spraying the trolleys and counting people in and out.0 -
The Scott Trust has nearly £1bn in reserve. The Guardian, as such, can survive years of falling salesBenpointer said:
@LadyG if you do a google search on "is the Guardian in financial trouble" you'll get results predicting its imminent demise from every year in the past decade.LadyG said:
There aren't millions of TERFS (also a very unpleasant word) but there are clearly millions of women, and many of them are quite angry about the way a justifiable fight for Trans rights has been turned into something more sinister and aggressive, and something which seems to diminish women's rights.dixiedean said:
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right.LadyG said:
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.Pro_Rata said:
Good grief, that really is.LadyG said:Final thought for the day, on the Guardian Battle in the Culture Wars
The Guardian's REAL problem, it seems, is with female readers, who have been enraged by their coverage of Trans issues
The ratio of female anger and loathing beneath this rather lame, apologetic tweet, from a Guardian writer, is astonishing.
https://twitter.com/ben_bt/status/1283704957921894401
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new.
What is it then?
The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1284391390173106178?s=20
In truth, it, like all other print media, is stuggling against a long-term move away from newpaper reading.
Will it survive? Who knows.
If it falls, will its demise be caused by its stance on gender politics? No.
But if the Guardian as a brand become terrifically tarnished, then it could go under very quickly, even if it is profitable (which is isn't).
It sails, by its nature, in the treacherous Oceans of Wokeness, where sudden squalls from unexpected sources can cancel the world in a second.0 -
I assume this is in Penarth, not Camden Town?LadyG said:Corona Anecdote
There's a great big seagull across the road from my study. I think he is hungry because lack of garbage left by people eating burgers, etc, so he has turned to brutal predation.
Every day he hunts down a live pigeon, skewers it, kills it, then eats it, ripping out its warm guts. The pigeons themselves are probably a bit hungry and sleepy, because they also lack normal food, so they are easy to hunt down.
It is horrible yet fascinating to watch0 -
I know. Isn't it insane?TimT said:
Had to look up what TERF and (in the context) Cis- mean. Now wishing I hadn't bothered.LadyG said:
There aren't millions of TERFS (also a very unpleasant word) but there are clearly millions of women, and many of them are quite angry about the way a justifiable fight for Trans rights has been turned into something more sinister and aggressive, and something which seems to diminish women's rights.dixiedean said:
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right.LadyG said:
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.Pro_Rata said:
Good grief, that really is.LadyG said:Final thought for the day, on the Guardian Battle in the Culture Wars
The Guardian's REAL problem, it seems, is with female readers, who have been enraged by their coverage of Trans issues
The ratio of female anger and loathing beneath this rather lame, apologetic tweet, from a Guardian writer, is astonishing.
https://twitter.com/ben_bt/status/1283704957921894401
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new.
What is it then?
The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1284391390173106178?s=20
But it is a real debate. I have so-called TERF friends - who hitherto would have been seen as brave crusading feminists - who have been hounded out of jobs and basically made homeless. Because of this weird argument.0 -
People should be able to decide cash, cheque, card, magic beans or barter so long as BOTH parties are OK with that.Pagan2 said:
And I am arguing that people should have the right to choose cash or card and you are arguing that business should be able to decide despite the fact that authoritarian regimes will lean on them to take card only....I ask for legislation to support liberty you ask for no legislation to support authoritarianism just as you argue the rule of law only applies when it suits people......you aren't a libertarian you are a useful idiot in lenins wordsPhilip_Thompson said:
I am a libertarian because I think people - individuals and businesses - should make their own choices.Pagan2 said:
Don't talk such drivel you claim to be a libertarian. Mandating cash must be accepted protects civil liberties. Is it statist yes it is but the other way lies total government oversight over every penny you spend.....go join the lefties as thats all you seem to argue for these days.Philip_Thompson said:
What draconian statist nonsense.Pagan2 said:
I didn't claim they weren't legally allowed to I said it had to be stamped out and that parliament should legislate that refusing cash should be a no go and patrons should boycott anywhere that refuses case. It is for a start discriminatory as an estimated couple of million people dont have access to a bank accountManchesterKurt said:
Not the case.Pagan2 said:
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be stamped out. Legal tender must always be an option. I shudder when people talk about a cashless society as all that does it put in traceability of every penny you spend to whitehall. I will never give patronage to a place that won't take cash.ManchesterKurt said:
Loads of bars in Manchester only take card payment and have been since pre C-19, they just don't have anything to store cash in.MikeSmithson said:
As I recall this has something to do with Truck actsRobD said:
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.Pagan2 said:
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.rottenborough said:
They all have card payment only on the front doors.
Inevitably a cashless society ends up in your friend saying can I borrow 20£ off you I forgot my wallet and HMRC sending him a tax bill for what he owes as they count it as income.
I worked in bars in the early 90s, we could refuse service to anyone we wished back then without having to justify why, it's the only sector that this is the case.
It's just an extension of that, dozens and dozens of bars in Manchester are cashless given the types of customers they serve and the way they operate.
Its up to businesses what they want to accept. If they don't want to handle cash - and there are a plethora of good reasons why they wouldn't want to - then why should Big Brother in Parliament dictate that companies must accept cash when they don't want to?
You think its "libertarian" to have Big Brother dictate to business what they must and must not take?
I am not saying to compel people to take cards. Nor am I saying to compel people to take cash. People should take what they want to take and refuse what they want to refuse. That is right wing and liberal, you are the bleeding lefty wanting the state interfering in business operations.
The essence of libertarianism which you seem to neglect is not no state intervention, but the minimum state intervention to ensure a free society. You are arguing against that
I do not think businesses can force you to pay by card: No business can force you to pay by card since no business can force you to shop there. If you don't like a business then shop elsewhere.0 -
They do in the US, so only a matter of time.Benpointer said:
Do Amazon take your cash? Just asking.Pagan2 said:
Why would I want to use Occado when I can use amazon its not only overpriced but pays tax. I object to the ruling therefore I will revolt and cause as much loss of income to hmrc as I can. Plus occado is pretty crapHYUFD said:
You could easily use Occado and better to enforce safe shopping with compulsory facemasks than increase the chance of a second peak and second lockdown and most shops being closed againPagan2 said:
Already pointed out the imposition of masks if enforced by shops will stop me shopping there and I will move my food shopping to amazon, already tested it and thats 100£ a week from the local economy and into amazons coffers who as we keep getting told pay no tax so a loss for hmrc too.RochdalePioneers said:
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.Mortimer said:On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.0 -
oh ffs do are you not able to read? Where did I talk about who issues or controls money....I talked about tracking transactions....if I pay by card its on a database who I paid and what I paid for. If I pay hard currency its not what do you find difficult to understand?MaxPB said:
Paper money controlled by the very government you're afraid of? What's to stop them from invalidating it?Pagan2 said:
I do it as a personal stand on principle because I think the continuing use of physical money is a safe guard against an over mighty state. I am not claiming we have one currently but I cannot predict the elections of the next 100 years. Already your movements are tracked and recorded by anpr, who you converse with is stored for state inspection, you movements on foot tracked by cctv.....do we really want to be in a position where every transaction can likewise be tallied?Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
I prefer a world where governments are not able to monitor every penny we spend. I didn't say I was afraid of this government necessarily I said I couldn't predict what future governments would do with that info. I am sure in 30's germany people said the same about religion questions on the population census.0 -
Hampstead, darling. Hampstead.Andy_JS said:
I assume this is in Penarth, not Camden Town?LadyG said:Corona Anecdote
There's a great big seagull across the road from my study. I think he is hungry because lack of garbage left by people eating burgers, etc, so he has turned to brutal predation.
Every day he hunts down a live pigeon, skewers it, kills it, then eats it, ripping out its warm guts. The pigeons themselves are probably a bit hungry and sleepy, because they also lack normal food, so they are easy to hunt down.
It is horrible yet fascinating to watch0 -
I like being able to choose between cash and card. Just the choice itself. I don't want those options to be closed off.Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
0 -
And when all business are card only your choice is where? It is no different to a libertarian society ensuring one person doesn't control all sources of potable water. I can only assume you got your idea's of libertarianism from the idiot girl Ayn Rand rather than proper libertarian philosophers. There is a reason she is held in contempt by most libertariansPhilip_Thompson said:
People should be able to decide cash, cheque, card, magic beans or barter so long as BOTH parties are OK with that.Pagan2 said:
And I am arguing that people should have the right to choose cash or card and you are arguing that business should be able to decide despite the fact that authoritarian regimes will lean on them to take card only....I ask for legislation to support liberty you ask for no legislation to support authoritarianism just as you argue the rule of law only applies when it suits people......you aren't a libertarian you are a useful idiot in lenins wordsPhilip_Thompson said:
I am a libertarian because I think people - individuals and businesses - should make their own choices.Pagan2 said:
Don't talk such drivel you claim to be a libertarian. Mandating cash must be accepted protects civil liberties. Is it statist yes it is but the other way lies total government oversight over every penny you spend.....go join the lefties as thats all you seem to argue for these days.Philip_Thompson said:
What draconian statist nonsense.Pagan2 said:
I didn't claim they weren't legally allowed to I said it had to be stamped out and that parliament should legislate that refusing cash should be a no go and patrons should boycott anywhere that refuses case. It is for a start discriminatory as an estimated couple of million people dont have access to a bank accountManchesterKurt said:
Not the case.Pagan2 said:
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be stamped out. Legal tender must always be an option. I shudder when people talk about a cashless society as all that does it put in traceability of every penny you spend to whitehall. I will never give patronage to a place that won't take cash.ManchesterKurt said:
Loads of bars in Manchester only take card payment and have been since pre C-19, they just don't have anything to store cash in.MikeSmithson said:
As I recall this has something to do with Truck actsRobD said:
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.Pagan2 said:
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.rottenborough said:
They all have card payment only on the front doors.
Inevitably a cashless society ends up in your friend saying can I borrow 20£ off you I forgot my wallet and HMRC sending him a tax bill for what he owes as they count it as income.
I worked in bars in the early 90s, we could refuse service to anyone we wished back then without having to justify why, it's the only sector that this is the case.
It's just an extension of that, dozens and dozens of bars in Manchester are cashless given the types of customers they serve and the way they operate.
Its up to businesses what they want to accept. If they don't want to handle cash - and there are a plethora of good reasons why they wouldn't want to - then why should Big Brother in Parliament dictate that companies must accept cash when they don't want to?
You think its "libertarian" to have Big Brother dictate to business what they must and must not take?
I am not saying to compel people to take cards. Nor am I saying to compel people to take cash. People should take what they want to take and refuse what they want to refuse. That is right wing and liberal, you are the bleeding lefty wanting the state interfering in business operations.
The essence of libertarianism which you seem to neglect is not no state intervention, but the minimum state intervention to ensure a free society. You are arguing against that
I do not think businesses can force you to pay by card: No business can force you to pay by card since no business can force you to shop there. If you don't like a business then shop elsewhere.1 -
No as I just said several times I can get food from Amazon just fine and there is no risk in shops if pubs are safe so shove it.HYUFD said:
If the only way you will shop is without a facemask thus increasing the risk of spreading the virus probably best you stay shopping online permanentlyPagan2 said:
Why would I want to use Occado when I can use amazon its not only overpriced but pays tax. I object to the ruling therefore I will revolt and cause as much loss of income to hmrc as I can. Plus occado is pretty crapHYUFD said:
You could easily use Occado and better to enforce safe shopping with compulsory facemasks than increase the chance of a second peak and second lockdown and most shops being closed againPagan2 said:
Already pointed out the imposition of masks if enforced by shops will stop me shopping there and I will move my food shopping to amazon, already tested it and thats 100£ a week from the local economy and into amazons coffers who as we keep getting told pay no tax so a loss for hmrc too.RochdalePioneers said:
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.Mortimer said:On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.0 -
It's a passing issue which few will remember in a year or so's time.LadyG said:
The Scott Trust has nearly £1bn in reserve. The Guardian, as such, can survive years of falling salesBenpointer said:
@LadyG if you do a google search on "is the Guardian in financial trouble" you'll get results predicting its imminent demise from every year in the past decade.LadyG said:
There aren't millions of TERFS (also a very unpleasant word) but there are clearly millions of women, and many of them are quite angry about the way a justifiable fight for Trans rights has been turned into something more sinister and aggressive, and something which seems to diminish women's rights.dixiedean said:
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right.LadyG said:
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.Pro_Rata said:
Good grief, that really is.LadyG said:Final thought for the day, on the Guardian Battle in the Culture Wars
The Guardian's REAL problem, it seems, is with female readers, who have been enraged by their coverage of Trans issues
The ratio of female anger and loathing beneath this rather lame, apologetic tweet, from a Guardian writer, is astonishing.
https://twitter.com/ben_bt/status/1283704957921894401
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new.
What is it then?
The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1284391390173106178?s=20
In truth, it, like all other print media, is stuggling against a long-term move away from newpaper reading.
Will it survive? Who knows.
If it falls, will its demise be caused by its stance on gender politics? No.
But if the Guardian as a brand become terrifically tarnished, then it could go under very quickly, even if it is profitable (which is isn't).
It sails, by its nature, in the treacherous Oceans of Wokeness, where sudden squalls from unexpected sources can cancel the world in a second.
However, I suspect the Guardian will eventually give up on the print version because of falling demand. We have a full print subscription becaue Mrs P likes to read the paper but these days I tend to read the online site more than the paper as it hads the same articles (usually before they are in the paper) plus extras like blogs and podcasts.
Guardian online and BBC news are my go to online news sources - both happen to be free.
What sites do others use for news?0 -
And that is all I have argued for that is should be a choice....who knew that would be such a radical ideaAndy_JS said:
I like being able to choose between cash and card. Just the choice itself. I don't want those options to be closed off.Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
1 -
Currencies will be of great relevance for so long as sovereign states exist. Consider what has become of people in countries like Greece as the consequence of no longer having one.Foxy said:
When I was in Stockholm a couple of years ago, I struggled to find places, bars, restaurants, hotels, museums to take cash. Everything was electronic. That is the future of money.RochdalePioneers said:
I've used minimal amounts of currency since this blew up. Most small places insist on contactless for any value however small. A couple of takeaways that don't do plastic but all bar one can be ordered and paid for online.Andy_JS said:Cash vs card is probably going to be the next cultural divide. All the pubs in places like Richmond and Barnes will be card only, whereas a lot of the pubs in Burnley and Redcar will continue to take cash (and most of their customers will be happy with that state of affairs).
There will be some resistance from people who like to use our pretend money in physical form. Me, happy to use contactless on everything if possible. By Google Pay preferably
Indeed it reaches the point that the currency that the transaction takes place in becomes irrelevant. The pound Sterling will vanish not with a bang, but with a whimper.
I'm pretty confident that most of us won't be being paid in dollars, euros, yuan, krona or rupees, or spending them in the local shops, any time soon.0 -
Presumably a shop can choose not to take cash and you can choose not to shop there - what's the issue?Pagan2 said:
And that is all I have argued for that is should be a choice....who knew that would be such a radical ideaAndy_JS said:
I like being able to choose between cash and card. Just the choice itself. I don't want those options to be closed off.Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
0 -
They could indeed invalidate paper money, but the differences are:MaxPB said:
Paper money controlled by the very government you're afraid of? What's to stop them from invalidating it?Pagan2 said:
I do it as a personal stand on principle because I think the continuing use of physical money is a safe guard against an over mighty state. I am not claiming we have one currently but I cannot predict the elections of the next 100 years. Already your movements are tracked and recorded by anpr, who you converse with is stored for state inspection, you movements on foot tracked by cctv.....do we really want to be in a position where every transaction can likewise be tallied?Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
1) It's hard (although not quite impossible) to *target* invaliding paper money. If you cancel money for Pagan2, you cancel it for everybody. OK, that's not entirely true in that you could tell everybody not to take money from Pagan2, and if you can work out what the serial numbers are you might be able to tell everybody to check their notes in case it's Pagan2's money; Or you could cancel all the money but say if you take it to the bank and somehow prove it's not from Pagan2 then you can have a replacement. But it's generally quite impractical.
2) Paper money doesn't create a trail of data in the same way that database money does. Again, if you try very hard there might be some things you can do; Maybe you can work out the serial numbers of the money somebody gave Pagan2 in change and get people to register if they get those serial numbers. But it's definitely very hard to do that, whereas with database money you literally have a complete list of every transaction attached to some kind of bank-verified identity.
Database money gives a lot of of power to the people controlling it, and worse there isn't much accountability around how they use it. It's definitely not bonkers not want society to be dependent on it. Luckily this is one of the rare cases where people who care about freedom and think about how technology works are on the same side as confused old people, and confused old people vote, so I think this is a fight we can win.2 -
A question for Philip Thompson
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not0 -
And when all shops refuse to take cash where is your choice?Benpointer said:
Presumably a shop can choose not to take cash and you can choose not to shop there - what's the issue?Pagan2 said:
And that is all I have argued for that is should be a choice....who knew that would be such a radical ideaAndy_JS said:
I like being able to choose between cash and card. Just the choice itself. I don't want those options to be closed off.Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
0 -
Thank you what I was trying to explain only you did it far betteredmundintokyo said:
They could indeed invalidate paper money, but the differences are:MaxPB said:
Paper money controlled by the very government you're afraid of? What's to stop them from invalidating it?Pagan2 said:
I do it as a personal stand on principle because I think the continuing use of physical money is a safe guard against an over mighty state. I am not claiming we have one currently but I cannot predict the elections of the next 100 years. Already your movements are tracked and recorded by anpr, who you converse with is stored for state inspection, you movements on foot tracked by cctv.....do we really want to be in a position where every transaction can likewise be tallied?Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
1) It's hard (although not quite impossible) to *target* invaliding paper money. If you cancel money for Pagan2, you cancel it for everybody. OK, that's not entirely true in that you could tell everybody not to take money from Pagan2, and if you can work out what the serial numbers are you might be able to tell everybody to check their notes in case it's Pagan2's money; Or you could cancel all the money but say if you take it to the bank and somehow prove it's not from Pagan2 then you can have a replacement. But it's generally quite impractical.
2) Paper money doesn't create a trail of data in the same way that database money does. Again, if you try very hard there might be some things you can do; Maybe you can work out the serial numbers of the money somebody gave Pagan2 in change and get people to register if they get those serial numbers. But it's definitely very hard to do that, whereas with database money you literally have a complete list of every transaction attached to some kind of bank-verified identity.
Database money gives a lot of of power to the people controlling it, and worse there isn't much accountability around how they use it. It's definitely not bonkers not want society to be dependent on it. Luckily this is one of the rare cases where people who care about freedom and think about how technology works are on the same side as confused old people, and confused old people vote, so I think this is a fight we can win.0 -
You are asking for the government to interfere in the method of settlements between individuals and companies. Sounds pretty statist to me - if one government mandates a choice, another could mandate card. Better off just leaving it to the market.....Pagan2 said:
And that is all I have argued for that is should be a choice....who knew that would be such a radical ideaAndy_JS said:
I like being able to choose between cash and card. Just the choice itself. I don't want those options to be closed off.Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
0 -
On 25-26 June with Opinium Starmer led by 2, in their last poll Boris led by 1. So this is a rather strange way of reporting Boris increasing/doubling that lead to 2
https://twitter.com/msmithsonpb/status/1284566332168646658?s=214 -
I practice we know that any government could mandate a card; Worse, they can do it sneakily, because the government regulates everything to do with retail banking, and it could easily imposes *costs* on receiving cash that would force businesses to give it up.Mortimer said:
You are asking for the government to interfere in the method of settlements between individuals and companies. Sounds pretty statist to me - if one government mandates a choice, another could mandate card. Better off just leaving it to the market.....Pagan2 said:
And that is all I have argued for that is should be a choice....who knew that would be such a radical ideaAndy_JS said:
I like being able to choose between cash and card. Just the choice itself. I don't want those options to be closed off.Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
0 -
As my objection to card only payment being allowed seems surprisingly controversial here are a few reasons I think its a bad idea
Mostly there are two card issuers Mastercard and Visa
Whether you get a card or not is dependent on non accountable algorithms providing scores by such people as experian
Stopping your access to services such as food when most shops are card only is therefore easy for both governments and hackers they only have to get into the credit rating computers which are protected far less than the banks computers
Money as in hard currency isn't easily trackable cards are
Card companies and banks are in bed with each other it is easy force businesses into going card only whether they want to or not by upping banking fees for hard currency
The poor or socially excluded or merely those that government or hackers decide in society end up having to buy from shops that hold out and will probably be charged inflated prices as their numbers fall
Given all that and despite being a libertarian and against state interference unless neccessary I think a state mandating cash must always be accepted does more to protect civil liberties than the harm it does
2 -
isam said:
On 25-26 June with Opinium Starmer led by 2, in their last poll Boris led by 1. So this is a rather strange way of reporting Boris increasing/doubling that lead to 2
https://twitter.com/msmithsonpb/status/1284566332168646658?s=21
3 -
yes I am and yes it is statist see my post at 12:01 where I think while statist it is betterMortimer said:
You are asking for the government to interfere in the method of settlements between individuals and companies. Sounds pretty statist to me - if one government mandates a choice, another could mandate card. Better off just leaving it to the market.....Pagan2 said:
And that is all I have argued for that is should be a choice....who knew that would be such a radical ideaAndy_JS said:
I like being able to choose between cash and card. Just the choice itself. I don't want those options to be closed off.Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
0 -
A libertarian like myself assumes the state is wrong apart from when its necessary to bring about an increase in civil liberties. In the case of money against cards there are pressures that can be bought to bear such as banking fees that override the idea of the free market so that has to be countered. If we had a true free market with no external pressures apart from sellers deciding and buyers deciding then I would be less opposed.Pagan2 said:
yes I am and yes it is statist see my post at 12:01 where I think while statist it is betterMortimer said:
You are asking for the government to interfere in the method of settlements between individuals and companies. Sounds pretty statist to me - if one government mandates a choice, another could mandate card. Better off just leaving it to the market.....Pagan2 said:
And that is all I have argued for that is should be a choice....who knew that would be such a radical ideaAndy_JS said:
I like being able to choose between cash and card. Just the choice itself. I don't want those options to be closed off.Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
0 -
Cummings has found a new way to whip up opposition to the civil service.
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1284625189121273856?s=210 -
In pubs you still have to socially distance with limited numbers inside and sit at tables unlike shops where you are much more likely to be moving in close proximity in the aisles but if you wish to behave like a petulant oik that is your affairPagan2 said:
No as I just said several times I can get food from Amazon just fine and there is no risk in shops if pubs are safe so shove it.HYUFD said:
If the only way you will shop is without a facemask thus increasing the risk of spreading the virus probably best you stay shopping online permanentlyPagan2 said:
Why would I want to use Occado when I can use amazon its not only overpriced but pays tax. I object to the ruling therefore I will revolt and cause as much loss of income to hmrc as I can. Plus occado is pretty crapHYUFD said:
You could easily use Occado and better to enforce safe shopping with compulsory facemasks than increase the chance of a second peak and second lockdown and most shops being closed againPagan2 said:
Already pointed out the imposition of masks if enforced by shops will stop me shopping there and I will move my food shopping to amazon, already tested it and thats 100£ a week from the local economy and into amazons coffers who as we keep getting told pay no tax so a loss for hmrc too.RochdalePioneers said:
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.Mortimer said:On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.0 -
I've only made in-person purchases at supermarkets since the lockdown began. I have always paid in cash except a couple of times when I had forgotten to take cash out of the machine beforehand.Foxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
0 -
Ah, you must be in favour of the EU then.Pagan2 said:
A libertarian like myself assumes the state is wrong apart from when its necessary to bring about an increase in civil liberties.Pagan2 said:
yes I am and yes it is statist see my post at 12:01 where I think while statist it is betterMortimer said:
You are asking for the government to interfere in the method of settlements between individuals and companies. Sounds pretty statist to me - if one government mandates a choice, another could mandate card. Better off just leaving it to the market.....Pagan2 said:
And that is all I have argued for that is should be a choice....who knew that would be such a radical ideaAndy_JS said:
I like being able to choose between cash and card. Just the choice itself. I don't want those options to be closed off.Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
1 -
The only thing I pay for in cash now is takeout from the chinese. I could choose not to give them my custom, as I'd prefer to pay in cash but they don't provide me with that option. The food is good though so I pay cash.1
-
I've not paid cash for anything for over a decade. I don't carry any cash. I live on my AmEx Platinum card.initforthemoney said:
I've only made in-person purchases at supermarkets since the lockdown began. I have always paid in cash except a couple of times when I had forgotten to take cash out of the machine beforehand.Foxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
0 -
I would have as much contact with people in pubs as I would have in tesco's so take your petulant child and shove it where the sun doesnt shineHYUFD said:
In pubs you still have to socially distance with limited numbers inside and sit at tables unlike shops where you are much more likely to be moving in close proximity in the aisles but if you wish to behave like a petulant oik that is your affairPagan2 said:
No as I just said several times I can get food from Amazon just fine and there is no risk in shops if pubs are safe so shove it.HYUFD said:
If the only way you will shop is without a facemask thus increasing the risk of spreading the virus probably best you stay shopping online permanentlyPagan2 said:
Why would I want to use Occado when I can use amazon its not only overpriced but pays tax. I object to the ruling therefore I will revolt and cause as much loss of income to hmrc as I can. Plus occado is pretty crapHYUFD said:
You could easily use Occado and better to enforce safe shopping with compulsory facemasks than increase the chance of a second peak and second lockdown and most shops being closed againPagan2 said:
Already pointed out the imposition of masks if enforced by shops will stop me shopping there and I will move my food shopping to amazon, already tested it and thats 100£ a week from the local economy and into amazons coffers who as we keep getting told pay no tax so a loss for hmrc too.RochdalePioneers said:
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.Mortimer said:On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.0 -
No the eu is the biggest power grab against individual liberty ever invented by man kind I am particularly glad we are have also veto'd for the uk the latest eu idocy on copyrightPulpstar said:
Ah, you must be in favour of the EU then.Pagan2 said:
A libertarian like myself assumes the state is wrong apart from when its necessary to bring about an increase in civil liberties.Pagan2 said:
yes I am and yes it is statist see my post at 12:01 where I think while statist it is betterMortimer said:
You are asking for the government to interfere in the method of settlements between individuals and companies. Sounds pretty statist to me - if one government mandates a choice, another could mandate card. Better off just leaving it to the market.....Pagan2 said:
And that is all I have argued for that is should be a choice....who knew that would be such a radical ideaAndy_JS said:
I like being able to choose between cash and card. Just the choice itself. I don't want those options to be closed off.Benpointer said:
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?Pagan2 said:
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been acceptedFoxy said:The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
0 -
Interview with Oxford epidemiologists Prof Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA0 -
Who is the true Tory, one of the 9% voting Tory at the Euro election or one who uses that vote to send a message and then returns to the fold at the general election having helped to secure a Brexit policy which helps the Tories to a landslide?HYUFD said:
I did not start the argument, I was just refuting the point by pointing out it is a bit rich to not be called a Tory by people who do not always even vote ToryBig_G_NorthWales said:
I do not give a fig what you consider.HYUFD said:
A few like Philip Thompson, who voted for New Labour at least once and is a libertarian not a conservative and BigG, who voted for New Labour twice may have said that but I do not consider either of them true Tories as they do not always vote for the partyRochdalePioneers said:
You aren't a Tory though. I think the mass of PB Tories have been very clear on that front...HYUFD said:CorrectHorseBattery said:
That user is very good on polling but anything else is like talking to a Tory bot, a bit of a waste of time in my viewRochdalePioneers said:
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on themHYUFD said:
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms BrexitRochdalePioneers said:
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?HYUFD said:As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch backfor their own goodfor the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
Yes such a waste of time listening to a Tory, they are a tiny fraction of irrelevance, just 44% of the electorate after all (though thanks for the polling comments)
More often than not you embarrass the party on this forum and by the way your membership is no more valid than mine
Put a sock in it0 -
The folk of Greenock have gone from around 15% to 95+% wearing masks in the supermarket cos Ms Bossy Boots told us we have to do so. I have complied but shop less often.Black_Rook said:
I'm not at all sure that the great mask edict will make as much difference to people's shopping habits as is being claimed. Firstly, yes, a lot of people don't much like them but will give in anyway (whether through a sense of duty, from social pressure, or just because it's too much trouble not to.) Secondly, we've no idea (given that shops have been told they're not responsible for enforcing these rules) how hard they will try to do so. It may simply be that many or most businesses just let maskless personages wander on and off their premises regardless.RochdalePioneers said:
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.Mortimer said:On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
As far as Aldi specifically is concerned, I do wonder if they've got sloppy based on my experiences with local stores. Queues for Aldi appear to have ended; Tesco and M&S are still spraying the trolleys and counting people in and out.0 -
One good thing about this: maybe the days of train companies charging commuters thousands of pounds for the privilege of being squashed into a toilet compartment for hours every day are coming to an end.1
-
Why are HSBC, Standard Chartered, McKinsey etc still having major headquarters in Hong Kong, when there is a genocide going on in China?
https://www.haaretz.com/amp/world-news/.premium.highlight.MAGAZINE-a-million-people-are-jailed-at-china-s-gulags-i-escaped-here-s-what-goes-on-inside-1.7994216
“One day, the police told us they were going to check to see whether our reeducation was succeeding, whether we were developing properly. They took 200 inmates outside, men and women, and told one of the women to confess her sins. She stood before us and declared that she had been a bad person, but now that she had learned Chinese she had become a better person. When she was done speaking, the policemen ordered her to disrobe and simply raped her one after the other, in front of everyone. While they were raping her they checked to see how we were reacting. People who turned their head or closed their eyes, and those who looked angry or shocked, were taken away and we never saw them again. It was awful. I will never forget the feeling of helplessness, of not being able to help her. After that happened, it was hard for me to sleep at night.”1 -
US Dem Veep pick -- more money for Susan Rice overnight. Now 3.95 on Betfair (or a shade under 3/1 against, expressed as traditional odds). Favourite Kamala Harris continues to drift.0
-
Two Republican members of Congress have posted tributes to the late civil rights pioneer and US Representative John Lewis (D-GA). Tributes featuring photos of - a different dead Black congressman, the late Elijah Cummings (D-MD).
Touching, Little Marco, very touching. Would be even MORE touching, if
a) you gave a damn; and
b) you had a brain.0 -
Cash != CurrencyBlack_Rook said:
Currencies will be of great relevance for so long as sovereign states exist. Consider what has become of people in countries like Greece as the consequence of no longer having one.Foxy said:
When I was in Stockholm a couple of years ago, I struggled to find places, bars, restaurants, hotels, museums to take cash. Everything was electronic. That is the future of money.RochdalePioneers said:
I've used minimal amounts of currency since this blew up. Most small places insist on contactless for any value however small. A couple of takeaways that don't do plastic but all bar one can be ordered and paid for online.Andy_JS said:Cash vs card is probably going to be the next cultural divide. All the pubs in places like Richmond and Barnes will be card only, whereas a lot of the pubs in Burnley and Redcar will continue to take cash (and most of their customers will be happy with that state of affairs).
There will be some resistance from people who like to use our pretend money in physical form. Me, happy to use contactless on everything if possible. By Google Pay preferably
Indeed it reaches the point that the currency that the transaction takes place in becomes irrelevant. The pound Sterling will vanish not with a bang, but with a whimper.
I'm pretty confident that most of us won't be being paid in dollars, euros, yuan, krona or rupees, or spending them in the local shops, any time soon.
They may not have taken cash in Stockholm, but transactions were still in Swedish Krona.0 -
Yes, but it no longer matters which currency is used. Electronic transactions will gradually erode national currencies.rcs1000 said:
Cash != CurrencyBlack_Rook said:
Currencies will be of great relevance for so long as sovereign states exist. Consider what has become of people in countries like Greece as the consequence of no longer having one.Foxy said:
When I was in Stockholm a couple of years ago, I struggled to find places, bars, restaurants, hotels, museums to take cash. Everything was electronic. That is the future of money.RochdalePioneers said:
I've used minimal amounts of currency since this blew up. Most small places insist on contactless for any value however small. A couple of takeaways that don't do plastic but all bar one can be ordered and paid for online.Andy_JS said:Cash vs card is probably going to be the next cultural divide. All the pubs in places like Richmond and Barnes will be card only, whereas a lot of the pubs in Burnley and Redcar will continue to take cash (and most of their customers will be happy with that state of affairs).
There will be some resistance from people who like to use our pretend money in physical form. Me, happy to use contactless on everything if possible. By Google Pay preferably
Indeed it reaches the point that the currency that the transaction takes place in becomes irrelevant. The pound Sterling will vanish not with a bang, but with a whimper.
I'm pretty confident that most of us won't be being paid in dollars, euros, yuan, krona or rupees, or spending them in the local shops, any time soon.
They may not have taken cash in Stockholm, but transactions were still in Swedish Krona.0 -
Of course you are , cash is not legal tender anywhere and you can chose how you take payment for your goods.RobD said:
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.Pagan2 said:
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.rottenborough said:0 -
Plenty of dumb thickos out there @kle4kle4 said:
It made half a billion dollars, that's the only popularity that matters.Sunil_Prasannan said:
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[182] Metacritic gave the film a score of 46 out of 100, based on reviews from 46 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."LadyG said:
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movieCharles said:
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interestedLadyG said:
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after allCharles said:
This one?CatMan said:
Yes, but it has a certain scene in it with Honor Blackman which is a bit....erm..."dodgy".Sunil_Prasannan said:
"The film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a "Certified Fresh" score of 98% and an average score of 8.6/10 based on 61 reviews."CatMan said:OT: ITV are showing Thunderball tonight. They showed From Russia With Love last week, so are skipping Goldfinger. I think I know why...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfinger_(film)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1pUXH1Bye88
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)0 -
@pagan2 you can just as easily shop at Tesco or similar online and have it delivered at time and day of choice , so no need to use Amazon and keep the taxes flowing.Pagan2 said:
Already pointed out the imposition of masks if enforced by shops will stop me shopping there and I will move my food shopping to amazon, already tested it and thats 100£ a week from the local economy and into amazons coffers who as we keep getting told pay no tax so a loss for hmrc too.RochdalePioneers said:
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.Mortimer said:On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.0 -
@ladyg just a bunch of sad losers who need to get a life / job etc and get over themselves.LadyG said:
I know. Isn't it insane?TimT said:
Had to look up what TERF and (in the context) Cis- mean. Now wishing I hadn't bothered.LadyG said:
There aren't millions of TERFS (also a very unpleasant word) but there are clearly millions of women, and many of them are quite angry about the way a justifiable fight for Trans rights has been turned into something more sinister and aggressive, and something which seems to diminish women's rights.dixiedean said:
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right.LadyG said:
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.Pro_Rata said:
Good grief, that really is.LadyG said:Final thought for the day, on the Guardian Battle in the Culture Wars
The Guardian's REAL problem, it seems, is with female readers, who have been enraged by their coverage of Trans issues
The ratio of female anger and loathing beneath this rather lame, apologetic tweet, from a Guardian writer, is astonishing.
https://twitter.com/ben_bt/status/1283704957921894401
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new.
What is it then?
The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1284391390173106178?s=20
But it is a real debate. I have so-called TERF friends - who hitherto would have been seen as brave crusading feminists - who have been hounded out of jobs and basically made homeless. Because of this weird argument.0 -
@initforthemoney peed off that people are responsibly following a responsible and sensible government. Unionists just cannot accept Sturgeon is doing a decent job.initforthemoney said:
The folk of Greenock have gone from around 15% to 95+% wearing masks in the supermarket cos Ms Bossy Boots told us we have to do so. I have complied but shop less often.Black_Rook said:
I'm not at all sure that the great mask edict will make as much difference to people's shopping habits as is being claimed. Firstly, yes, a lot of people don't much like them but will give in anyway (whether through a sense of duty, from social pressure, or just because it's too much trouble not to.) Secondly, we've no idea (given that shops have been told they're not responsible for enforcing these rules) how hard they will try to do so. It may simply be that many or most businesses just let maskless personages wander on and off their premises regardless.RochdalePioneers said:
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.Mortimer said:On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
As far as Aldi specifically is concerned, I do wonder if they've got sloppy based on my experiences with local stores. Queues for Aldi appear to have ended; Tesco and M&S are still spraying the trolleys and counting people in and out.0 -
Both Guardian and BBC are crap. BBC is the worst possible place to go if you want balanced opinions on news topics and anything outside their London bubble or USA.Benpointer said:
It's a passing issue which few will remember in a year or so's time.LadyG said:
The Scott Trust has nearly £1bn in reserve. The Guardian, as such, can survive years of falling salesBenpointer said:
@LadyG if you do a google search on "is the Guardian in financial trouble" you'll get results predicting its imminent demise from every year in the past decade.LadyG said:
There aren't millions of TERFS (also a very unpleasant word) but there are clearly millions of women, and many of them are quite angry about the way a justifiable fight for Trans rights has been turned into something more sinister and aggressive, and something which seems to diminish women's rights.dixiedean said:
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right.LadyG said:
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.Pro_Rata said:
Good grief, that really is.LadyG said:Final thought for the day, on the Guardian Battle in the Culture Wars
The Guardian's REAL problem, it seems, is with female readers, who have been enraged by their coverage of Trans issues
The ratio of female anger and loathing beneath this rather lame, apologetic tweet, from a Guardian writer, is astonishing.
https://twitter.com/ben_bt/status/1283704957921894401
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new.
What is it then?
The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1284391390173106178?s=20
In truth, it, like all other print media, is stuggling against a long-term move away from newpaper reading.
Will it survive? Who knows.
If it falls, will its demise be caused by its stance on gender politics? No.
But if the Guardian as a brand become terrifically tarnished, then it could go under very quickly, even if it is profitable (which is isn't).
It sails, by its nature, in the treacherous Oceans of Wokeness, where sudden squalls from unexpected sources can cancel the world in a second.
However, I suspect the Guardian will eventually give up on the print version because of falling demand. We have a full print subscription becaue Mrs P likes to read the paper but these days I tend to read the online site more than the paper as it hads the same articles (usually before they are in the paper) plus extras like blogs and podcasts.
Guardian online and BBC news are my go to online news sources - both happen to be free.
What sites do others use for news?
They are a state propaganda unit. RT and Al Jazeera offer a far more varied output
and are more likely nearer truth than BBC versions.
@Benpointer0 -
InterestingBenpointer said:
It's a passing issue which few will remember in a year or so's time.LadyG said:
The Scott Trust has nearly £1bn in reserve. The Guardian, as such, can survive years of falling salesBenpointer said:
@LadyG if you do a google search on "is the Guardian in financial trouble" you'll get results predicting its imminent demise from every year in the past decade.LadyG said:
There aren't millions of TERFS (also a very unpleasant word) but there are clearly millions of women, and many of them are quite angry about the way a justifiable fight for Trans rights has been turned into something more sinister and aggressive, and something which seems to diminish women's rights.dixiedean said:
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right.LadyG said:
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.Pro_Rata said:
Good grief, that really is.LadyG said:Final thought for the day, on the Guardian Battle in the Culture Wars
The Guardian's REAL problem, it seems, is with female readers, who have been enraged by their coverage of Trans issues
The ratio of female anger and loathing beneath this rather lame, apologetic tweet, from a Guardian writer, is astonishing.
https://twitter.com/ben_bt/status/1283704957921894401
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new.
What is it then?
The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1284391390173106178?s=20
In truth, it, like all other print media, is stuggling against a long-term move away from newpaper reading.
Will it survive? Who knows.
If it falls, will its demise be caused by its stance on gender politics? No.
But if the Guardian as a brand become terrifically tarnished, then it could go under very quickly, even if it is profitable (which is isn't).
It sails, by its nature, in the treacherous Oceans of Wokeness, where sudden squalls from unexpected sources can cancel the world in a second.
However, I suspect the Guardian will eventually give up on the print version because of falling demand. We have a full print subscription becaue Mrs P likes to read the paper but these days I tend to read the online site more than the paper as it hads the same articles (usually before they are in the paper) plus extras like blogs and podcasts.
Guardian online and BBC news are my go to online news sources - both happen to be free.
What sites do others use for news?
If it performs as it has for the last 20 years - losses every year since the late 1990s iirc mainly in the range 10s of millions pa, and one of £70m - then 1bn can be pissed away very quickly.
Nor is The Scott Trust stellar in its performance.0 -
AIUI TERF is just the boo-word du jour thrown at whoever happens to disagree with the particular transgenderist campaigner who wants to exclude an individual from a debate.LadyG said:
I know. Isn't it insane?TimT said:
Had to look up what TERF and (in the context) Cis- mean. Now wishing I hadn't bothered.LadyG said:
There aren't millions of TERFS (also a very unpleasant word) but there are clearly millions of women, and many of them are quite angry about the way a justifiable fight for Trans rights has been turned into something more sinister and aggressive, and something which seems to diminish women's rights.dixiedean said:
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right.LadyG said:
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.Pro_Rata said:
Good grief, that really is.LadyG said:Final thought for the day, on the Guardian Battle in the Culture Wars
The Guardian's REAL problem, it seems, is with female readers, who have been enraged by their coverage of Trans issues
The ratio of female anger and loathing beneath this rather lame, apologetic tweet, from a Guardian writer, is astonishing.
https://twitter.com/ben_bt/status/1283704957921894401
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new.
What is it then?
The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1284391390173106178?s=20
But it is a real debate. I have so-called TERF friends - who hitherto would have been seen as brave crusading feminists - who have been hounded out of jobs and basically made homeless. Because of this weird argument.
It's like Corbynistas used to use "Tory" (while Corbynistas were still a thing).
As we know the word is thrown at JK Rowling, who is anything but a "Radical Feminist".0
This discussion has been closed.