@CovidJusticeUK But in all honesty, many of us have been wondering why a Health Secretary who presided over one of the worst Covid-19 death tolls in the world needed a personal scandal to resign.
One of the worst tolls is the wrong critical path to go down. By that measure (on current figures at any rate, since we know some places are better than others) the UK would be only just above Italy and France, and only a few above Germany, who would also have one of the worst tolls in the world, and I suspect when they make the argument they are they wouldn't want to suggest Germany's response was only marginally worse.
They don't care about accuracy.
All they supposedly wanted was a public inquiry. There is going to be one, but they are still attacking the government.
A group of political partisans seeking to exploit tragedy for party political gains aren't being straight with the truth and are seeking to get party political gains instead?
Could Corbyn even vote for her given that he's currently suspended as a Labour MP?
I had this discussion earlier with someone.
They reckon Corbyn would have the vote in this election because Theresa May gave Charlie Elphicke a vote in the 2018 vote of confidence despite him being whipless due facing several allegations of sexual assault.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Well I don't know - why do you think it is time for such a law?
Off the top of my head I cannot see the grounds for changing the law to that simply because some people think it should be the law. What purpose would it serve, what ill does it prevent, and is it such a large ill that legislation is a necessary remedy?
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There is an argument that all businesses should accept legal tender, and that it is in the interest of the state (and society as a whole) that they do.
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Well I don't know - why do you think it is time for such a law?
Off the top of my head I cannot see the grounds for changing the law to that simply because some people think it should be the law. What purpose would it serve, what ill does it prevent, and is it such a large ill that legislation is a necessary remedy?
Consumers Association think the refusal to accept cash is a major problem for a lot of people.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There are all sorts of areas where the state mandates businesses preventing them from discriminating on who they can and cannot accept as customers.
Might also point out that the use of cash is one way that individuals can still operate in a way to try and avoid state authoritarianism. Because paying for things with cash leaves no trace. A world without cash, is a world where the power of the state grows immeasurably.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There is an argument that all businesses should accept legal tender, and that it is in the interest of the state (and society as a whole) that they do.
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
A company that chooses to accept cash but not cards is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards but not cash is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards and cash is accepting legal tender.
Some people seem for some bizarre reason to think the second of those three should be illegal. Why? Its the companies choice what method they wish to accept legal tender.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Spent a few hours phone canvassing in Batley and Spen this weekend, finding a lot of people answering this time (unlike last, when the footie was on). I was being steered by the system to the don't knows/won't says/undecideds/ who tend to be a tough gig. Some notes:
* Kim Leadbeater has a genuine personal following. Nobody mentioned her being the sister of Jo Cox, but I I got nearly a dozen voters saying they knew her, knew her family, etc. One said he usually voted Tory but was probably going for her, as she'd "really represent the area", and an ex-Kipper was giving her a personal vote. But the Tory candidate Ryan Stephenson is respected too and I encountered people weighing up personal preference.
* Interest in Galloway remains undetectable to my eyes (and I've been doing this stuff for 50 years), and people who mentioned him did it with contempt. One voter with a Pakistani name said, "He is an imposter, he is no more interested in Muslims than I am the Pope." He's definitely not going to win, or outpoll Labour, and I'm scaling back my guesstimate from 9% to 6%. I did get one voter who was switching from Labour to "Green Socialist".
* There's a LOT of interest. Nobody told me not to bother them, mind my own business, etc. Don't knows still exist but mostly in the sense of genuinely wavering, not non-voters in disguise. Quite a few wanted to discuss it, which is unusual in my phone canvassing experience.
* Nobody mentioned Hancock etc., though one said "Some of these blokes who were on TV this week for the Government maybe need taking down a peg or two."
* Some of the media reports from journalists visiting from London suggest that Batley is a grim area full of bigoted WWC and radical Muslims. That's not my impression at all. Going by the people I talked to, it sounds a nice place.
Overall - all anecdotal, too varied to say. But my impression is that Labour is narrowing the gap a bit - probably not quite enough, though. If we do win it'll be much more to do with Kim than the national scene.
Interesting stuff, Nick. Hope you're right about Galloway. I don't really care whether Lab or Con wins, so long as he gets minced.
How do you define minced?
Lab + Gallows = more than Tory, Galloway has the last and biggest laugh of all. Mission successful.
Has Galloway brought any solutions, unity, hope? Or merely divided our society further and wallowed in the division?
Galloway will deliver a Tory victory breakfast this week. And being the lost valueless party they now are, they will enjoy it.
Brexit = death of Conservative Britain. Brexit = death of fiscal responsibility. Brexit = sow division and wallow in it. Brexit = having cake and eating it. Global Britain = putting Britain First winning in B&S this week.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There is an argument that all businesses should accept legal tender, and that it is in the interest of the state (and society as a whole) that they do.
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
A company that chooses to accept cash but not cards is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards but not cash is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards and cash is accepting legal tender.
Some people seem for some bizarre reason to think the second of those three should be illegal. Why? Its the companies choice what method they wish to accept legal tender.
EDIT: Double-checking, this is wrong.
Payments by card have nothing to do with the concept of legal tender.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Cash should be required to be accepted where it is reasonable to do so. For ordinary everyday transactions there needs to be a universal medium of exchange otherwise confusion and illiquidity reigns, with some risk of indirect discrimination.
I am not suggesting that cash should be compulsory or permitted for paying for a nuclear power station or buying Canary Wharf. But say for small transactions of up to £100 or £200 it should be that 'legal tender' actually is what people thought it was.
Unless the law steps in there will be inequality of bargaining power. The big people will be controlling the decisions of ordinary people, perhaps to their inconvenience.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There are all sorts of areas where the state mandates businesses preventing them from discriminating on who they can and cannot accept as customers.
Might also point out that the use of cash is one way that individuals can still operate in a way to try and avoid state authoritarianism. Because paying for things with cash leaves no trace. A world without cash, is a world where the power of the state grows immeasurably.
If you wish to use cash to avoid the state that's your prerogative, but why should a business be obliged by law to facilitate that if they don't wish to do so?
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There is an argument that all businesses should accept legal tender, and that it is in the interest of the state (and society as a whole) that they do.
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
A company that chooses to accept cash but not cards is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards but not cash is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards and cash is accepting legal tender.
Some people seem for some bizarre reason to think the second of those three should be illegal. Why? Its the companies choice what method they wish to accept legal tender.
EDIT: Double-checking, this is wrong.
Payments by card have nothing to do with the concept of legal tender.
Indeed, I realised I'd got that wrong as soon as I hit post; actually legal tender doesn't mean what its commonly used to mean.
There is no obligation in the law to accept legal tender and there never has been.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There is an argument that all businesses should accept legal tender, and that it is in the interest of the state (and society as a whole) that they do.
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
A company that chooses to accept cash but not cards is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards but not cash is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards and cash is accepting legal tender.
Some people seem for some bizarre reason to think the second of those three should be illegal. Why? Its the companies choice what method they wish to accept legal tender.
EDIT: Double-checking, this is wrong.
"Legal tender" does not include card payments or bank transfers. However it is only obligatory to accept legal tender for an existing debt - not a transaction for goods or services.
Spent a few hours phone canvassing in Batley and Spen this weekend, finding a lot of people answering this time (unlike last, when the footie was on). I was being steered by the system to the don't knows/won't says/undecideds/ who tend to be a tough gig. Some notes:
* Kim Leadbeater has a genuine personal following. Nobody mentioned her being the sister of Jo Cox, but I I got nearly a dozen voters saying they knew her, knew her family, etc. One said he usually voted Tory but was probably going for her, as she'd "really represent the area", and an ex-Kipper was giving her a personal vote. But the Tory candidate Ryan Stephenson is respected too and I encountered people weighing up personal preference.
* Interest in Galloway remains undetectable to my eyes (and I've been doing this stuff for 50 years), and people who mentioned him did it with contempt. One voter with a Pakistani name said, "He is an imposter, he is no more interested in Muslims than I am the Pope." He's definitely not going to win, or outpoll Labour, and I'm scaling back my guesstimate from 9% to 6%. I did get one voter who was switching from Labour to "Green Socialist".
* There's a LOT of interest. Nobody told me not to bother them, mind my own business, etc. Don't knows still exist but mostly in the sense of genuinely wavering, not non-voters in disguise. Quite a few wanted to discuss it, which is unusual in my phone canvassing experience.
* Nobody mentioned Hancock etc., though one said "Some of these blokes who were on TV this week for the Government maybe need taking down a peg or two."
* Some of the media reports from journalists visiting from London suggest that Batley is a grim area full of bigoted WWC and radical Muslims. That's not my impression at all. Going by the people I talked to, it sounds a nice place.
Overall - all anecdotal, too varied to say. But my impression is that Labour is narrowing the gap a bit - probably not quite enough, though. If we do win it'll be much more to do with Kim than the national scene.
Great news, especially if Galloway and his poisonous brand of divisive politics come nowhere.
Spent a few hours phone canvassing in Batley and Spen this weekend, finding a lot of people answering this time (unlike last, when the footie was on). I was being steered by the system to the don't knows/won't says/undecideds/ who tend to be a tough gig. Some notes:
* Kim Leadbeater has a genuine personal following. Nobody mentioned her being the sister of Jo Cox, but I I got nearly a dozen voters saying they knew her, knew her family, etc. One said he usually voted Tory but was probably going for her, as she'd "really represent the area", and an ex-Kipper was giving her a personal vote. But the Tory candidate Ryan Stephenson is respected too and I encountered people weighing up personal preference.
* Interest in Galloway remains undetectable to my eyes (and I've been doing this stuff for 50 years), and people who mentioned him did it with contempt. One voter with a Pakistani name said, "He is an imposter, he is no more interested in Muslims than I am the Pope." He's definitely not going to win, or outpoll Labour, and I'm scaling back my guesstimate from 9% to 6%. I did get one voter who was switching from Labour to "Green Socialist".
* There's a LOT of interest. Nobody told me not to bother them, mind my own business, etc. Don't knows still exist but mostly in the sense of genuinely wavering, not non-voters in disguise. Quite a few wanted to discuss it, which is unusual in my phone canvassing experience.
* Nobody mentioned Hancock etc., though one said "Some of these blokes who were on TV this week for the Government maybe need taking down a peg or two."
* Some of the media reports from journalists visiting from London suggest that Batley is a grim area full of bigoted WWC and radical Muslims. That's not my impression at all. Going by the people I talked to, it sounds a nice place.
Overall - all anecdotal, too varied to say. But my impression is that Labour is narrowing the gap a bit - probably not quite enough, though. If we do win it'll be much more to do with Kim than the national scene.
Thanks for the field report. Do you think turnout will be above 50%? (Chesham was 52%, in a totally different type of constituency).
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There are all sorts of areas where the state mandates businesses preventing them from discriminating on who they can and cannot accept as customers.
Might also point out that the use of cash is one way that individuals can still operate in a way to try and avoid state authoritarianism. Because paying for things with cash leaves no trace. A world without cash, is a world where the power of the state grows immeasurably.
If you wish to use cash to avoid the state that's your prerogative, but why should a business be obliged by law to facilitate that if they don't wish to do so?
I was simply making reference to your claim that it was "disgustingly authoritarian". I was just pointing out that it could actually be an example of the state acting against its authoritarian instincts - by legislating against its ability to track people.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Spent a few hours phone canvassing in Batley and Spen this weekend, finding a lot of people answering this time (unlike last, when the footie was on). I was being steered by the system to the don't knows/won't says/undecideds/ who tend to be a tough gig. Some notes:
* Kim Leadbeater has a genuine personal following. Nobody mentioned her being the sister of Jo Cox, but I I got nearly a dozen voters saying they knew her, knew her family, etc. One said he usually voted Tory but was probably going for her, as she'd "really represent the area", and an ex-Kipper was giving her a personal vote. But the Tory candidate Ryan Stephenson is respected too and I encountered people weighing up personal preference.
* Interest in Galloway remains undetectable to my eyes (and I've been doing this stuff for 50 years), and people who mentioned him did it with contempt. One voter with a Pakistani name said, "He is an imposter, he is no more interested in Muslims than I am the Pope." He's definitely not going to win, or outpoll Labour, and I'm scaling back my guesstimate from 9% to 6%. I did get one voter who was switching from Labour to "Green Socialist".
* There's a LOT of interest. Nobody told me not to bother them, mind my own business, etc. Don't knows still exist but mostly in the sense of genuinely wavering, not non-voters in disguise. Quite a few wanted to discuss it, which is unusual in my phone canvassing experience.
* Nobody mentioned Hancock etc., though one said "Some of these blokes who were on TV this week for the Government maybe need taking down a peg or two."
* Some of the media reports from journalists visiting from London suggest that Batley is a grim area full of bigoted WWC and radical Muslims. That's not my impression at all. Going by the people I talked to, it sounds a nice place.
Overall - all anecdotal, too varied to say. But my impression is that Labour is narrowing the gap a bit - probably not quite enough, though. If we do win it'll be much more to do with Kim than the national scene.
That's really interesting, thanks.
I wonder whether there may be a bit of a backlash against Galloway among some in the Muslim community. Too many people on here treat the 'Muslim vote' as a homogenous bloc, which is at best patronising. I'm not denying that there may be patriarchal influences within some families (as there are in families of most other religions), but there's also lots of rebellion in those same families, and many Muslim voters of independent mind, of course. I reckon some may be sick of being patronised and taken for granted by Galloway, with his oh-so-obvious appeals to 'Palestine, anti-LGBT in schools, Kashmir etc.' I live in hope that B&S may yet say f*** off George.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There is an argument that all businesses should accept legal tender, and that it is in the interest of the state (and society as a whole) that they do.
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
A company that chooses to accept cash but not cards is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards but not cash is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards and cash is accepting legal tender.
Some people seem for some bizarre reason to think the second of those three should be illegal. Why? Its the companies choice what method they wish to accept legal tender.
EDIT: Double-checking, this is wrong.
Payments by card have nothing to do with the concept of legal tender.
Indeed, I realised I'd got that wrong as soon as I hit post; actually legal tender doesn't mean what its commonly used to mean.
There is no obligation in the law to accept legal tender and there never has been.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
For example would you let someone pay a car dealership £16,000 in £50 notes for a car they are purchasing?
There's so many issues with that
1) Dealerships wouldn't like having that much cash on site, plus there'd be additional costs in hiring someone like G4S to take the the cash to the banks
2) There's AML regs that would probably be violated with such a large cash transaction (especially on a regular basis)
3) What happens if the money turns out be fake notes, not everyone can afford the machines that check
Spent a few hours phone canvassing in Batley and Spen this weekend, finding a lot of people answering this time (unlike last, when the footie was on). I was being steered by the system to the don't knows/won't says/undecideds/ who tend to be a tough gig. Some notes:
* Kim Leadbeater has a genuine personal following. Nobody mentioned her being the sister of Jo Cox, but I I got nearly a dozen voters saying they knew her, knew her family, etc. One said he usually voted Tory but was probably going for her, as she'd "really represent the area", and an ex-Kipper was giving her a personal vote. But the Tory candidate Ryan Stephenson is respected too and I encountered people weighing up personal preference.
* Interest in Galloway remains undetectable to my eyes (and I've been doing this stuff for 50 years), and people who mentioned him did it with contempt. One voter with a Pakistani name said, "He is an imposter, he is no more interested in Muslims than I am the Pope." He's definitely not going to win, or outpoll Labour, and I'm scaling back my guesstimate from 9% to 6%. I did get one voter who was switching from Labour to "Green Socialist".
* There's a LOT of interest. Nobody told me not to bother them, mind my own business, etc. Don't knows still exist but mostly in the sense of genuinely wavering, not non-voters in disguise. Quite a few wanted to discuss it, which is unusual in my phone canvassing experience.
* Nobody mentioned Hancock etc., though one said "Some of these blokes who were on TV this week for the Government maybe need taking down a peg or two."
* Some of the media reports from journalists visiting from London suggest that Batley is a grim area full of bigoted WWC and radical Muslims. That's not my impression at all. Going by the people I talked to, it sounds a nice place.
Overall - all anecdotal, too varied to say. But my impression is that Labour is narrowing the gap a bit - probably not quite enough, though. If we do win it'll be much more to do with Kim than the national scene.
That's really interesting, thanks.
I wonder whether there may be a bit of a backlash against Galloway among some in the Muslim community. Too many people on here treat the 'Muslim vote' as a homogenous bloc, which is at best patronising. I'm not denying that there may be patriarchal influences within some families (as there are in families of most other religions), but there's also lots of rebellion in those same families, and many Muslim voters of independent mind, of course. I reckon some may be sick of being patronised and taken for granted by Galloway, with his -oh-so-obvious appeals to 'Palestine, anti-LGBT in schools, Kashmir etc.' I live in hope that B&S may yet say f*** off George.
Galloway's game has worked in the past. It got him elected previously. Which is why he does it.
Hopefully it is a burst ballon. We shall see in polling day.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There are all sorts of areas where the state mandates businesses preventing them from discriminating on who they can and cannot accept as customers.
Might also point out that the use of cash is one way that individuals can still operate in a way to try and avoid state authoritarianism. Because paying for things with cash leaves no trace. A world without cash, is a world where the power of the state grows immeasurably.
If you wish to use cash to avoid the state that's your prerogative, but why should a business be obliged by law to facilitate that if they don't wish to do so?
I was simply making reference to your claim that it was "disgustingly authoritarian". I was just pointing out that it could actually be an example of the state acting against its authoritarian instincts - by limiting its ability to track people.
Except it is authoritarian for the state to tell people what they must do. The state telling people they must accept cash, even when they've decided its against their own interests to do so, is authoritarian.
Just because it goes against the state's authoritarian instincts doesn't stop the state telling people what they can and can't do is authoritarian.
What you're suggesting is like saying "fight fire with fire" but you're still using fire. You're still using authoritarianism.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There is an argument that all businesses should accept legal tender, and that it is in the interest of the state (and society as a whole) that they do.
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
A company that chooses to accept cash but not cards is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards but not cash is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards and cash is accepting legal tender.
Some people seem for some bizarre reason to think the second of those three should be illegal. Why? Its the companies choice what method they wish to accept legal tender.
EDIT: Double-checking, this is wrong.
Payments by card have nothing to do with the concept of legal tender.
Indeed, I realised I'd got that wrong as soon as I hit post; actually legal tender doesn't mean what its commonly used to mean.
There is no obligation in the law to accept legal tender and there never has been.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There is an argument that all businesses should accept legal tender, and that it is in the interest of the state (and society as a whole) that they do.
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
A company that chooses to accept cash but not cards is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards but not cash is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards and cash is accepting legal tender.
Some people seem for some bizarre reason to think the second of those three should be illegal. Why? Its the companies choice what method they wish to accept legal tender.
EDIT: Double-checking, this is wrong.
Why shouldn't the customer's choice be as important as the company's choice? Why should they, in an ordinary case of reasonable everyday transactions, insist on saying "I want to be paid, and will sue you if I am not, but won't take payment as payment, and will still sue you even though you have offered legal tender."
1/22 Dec 2011 "Fears grow over lab-bred flu" "It is a nightmare scenario: a human pandemic caused by the accidental release of a man-made form of the lethal avian influenza virus H5N1.Yet the risk is all too real.""
Why did The Butler serve up the gay giraffes thing anyway?
Was it one of those "look it happens in nature so it's completely natural" things?
If so it's a ludcrously stupid position. I'm sure we can find racist and rapist animals to defend racists and rapists.
Gee, there's quite a lot going on here. We get a dig at Butler's (lack of) intellect, a little noddy logic demo, and a hint of homophobia thrown in. Hats off.
For example would you let someone pay a car dealership £16,000 in £50 notes for a car they are purchasing?
There's so many issues with that
1) Dealerships wouldn't like having that much cash on site, plus there'd be additional costs in hiring someone like G4S to take the the cash to the banks
2) There's AML regs that would probably be violated with such a large cash transaction
3) What happens if the money turns out be fake notes, not everyone can afford the machines that check
There is an urban legend that a British gangster bought a Rolls Royce for cash after the banks closed on a Friday. Then sent his mob into to burgle the dealership on the weekend.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There are all sorts of areas where the state mandates businesses preventing them from discriminating on who they can and cannot accept as customers.
Might also point out that the use of cash is one way that individuals can still operate in a way to try and avoid state authoritarianism. Because paying for things with cash leaves no trace. A world without cash, is a world where the power of the state grows immeasurably.
If you wish to use cash to avoid the state that's your prerogative, but why should a business be obliged by law to facilitate that if they don't wish to do so?
I was simply making reference to your claim that it was "disgustingly authoritarian". I was just pointing out that it could actually be an example of the state acting against its authoritarian instincts - by limiting its ability to track people.
Except it is authoritarian for the state to tell people what they must do. The state telling people they must accept cash, even when they've decided its against their own interests to do so, is authoritarian.
Just because it goes against the state's authoritarian instincts doesn't stop the state telling people what they can and can't do is authoritarian.
What you're suggesting is like saying "fight fire with fire" but you're still using fire. You're still using authoritarianism.
Do you believe it is authoritarian for the state to say that businesses should not be able to say that they won't serve women? Or black people? Or other prescribed groups?
I think on your definition it is. But it is still justified.
So maybe forcing businesses to accept cash is "authoritarian". Whether it is "disgustingly" so is i think a matter for debate - if a widespread move from businesses to refuse to accept charge actively disadvantages a sizeable (or even not so sizeable) section of society.
More than seven million consumers registered to use phones and smart watches to make payments last year, new figures from Britain's banking industry show.
Mobile payments - unlike the wider use of contactless cards - are notably more popular among young people with just over 50% of 16 to 34 year olds registered compared to 11% of over-65s.
The figures from industry body UK Finance showed that overall 17.3 million people, or 32% of the adult population were using them by the end of last year, up by 7.4 million from 2019.
They also showed that lockdowns had resulted in the overall number of payments made in the UK falling last year for the first time in six years, by 11% to 35.6 billion.
In 2020, contactless represented 27% of all payments, up from 7% just four years earlier, the figures showed, with 83% of people now using this method - popular across all age groups and regions.
The increase was encouraged by the upper limit on the value of such transactions being increased from £30 to £45.
Meanwhile there was a sharp fall in the use of cash, which was used for only 17% of payments in the UK, while there were 13.7 million people who used cash only once a month or not at all.
For example would you let someone pay a car dealership £16,000 in £50 notes for a car they are purchasing?
There's so many issues with that
1) Dealerships wouldn't like having that much cash on site, plus there'd be additional costs in hiring someone like G4S to take the the cash to the banks
2) There's AML regs that would probably be violated with such a large cash transaction (especially on a regular basis)
3) What happens if the money turns out be fake notes, not everyone can afford the machines that check
With that sort of large transaction they'd probably require the purchaser to pay the money to a third party, who bears the risk of fake notes, who would then transfer the balance minus a small commission over to the dealership. Hmmm, wonder what you could call that industry.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There is an argument that all businesses should accept legal tender, and that it is in the interest of the state (and society as a whole) that they do.
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
A company that chooses to accept cash but not cards is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards but not cash is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards and cash is accepting legal tender.
Some people seem for some bizarre reason to think the second of those three should be illegal. Why? Its the companies choice what method they wish to accept legal tender.
EDIT: Double-checking, this is wrong.
Why shouldn't the customer's choice be as important as the company's choice? Why should they, in an ordinary case of reasonable everyday transactions, insist on saying "I want to be paid, and will sue you if I am not, but won't take payment as payment, and will still sue you even though you have offered legal tender."
Wouldn't any judge think this was crazy?
It's not the customers company, it's the owners company.
A customer gets to choose whether to shop with a company or not, they don't get to choose how the company operates.
They are taking payment as payment but it's up to them what form that payment takes. If they quite reasonably view electronic transactions as safer, more secure and more efficient then that's their choice.
Spent a few hours phone canvassing in Batley and Spen this weekend, finding a lot of people answering this time (unlike last, when the footie was on). I was being steered by the system to the don't knows/won't says/undecideds/ who tend to be a tough gig. Some notes:
* Kim Leadbeater has a genuine personal following. Nobody mentioned her being the sister of Jo Cox, but I I got nearly a dozen voters saying they knew her, knew her family, etc. One said he usually voted Tory but was probably going for her, as she'd "really represent the area", and an ex-Kipper was giving her a personal vote. But the Tory candidate Ryan Stephenson is respected too and I encountered people weighing up personal preference.
* Interest in Galloway remains undetectable to my eyes (and I've been doing this stuff for 50 years), and people who mentioned him did it with contempt. One voter with a Pakistani name said, "He is an imposter, he is no more interested in Muslims than I am the Pope." He's definitely not going to win, or outpoll Labour, and I'm scaling back my guesstimate from 9% to 6%. I did get one voter who was switching from Labour to "Green Socialist".
* There's a LOT of interest. Nobody told me not to bother them, mind my own business, etc. Don't knows still exist but mostly in the sense of genuinely wavering, not non-voters in disguise. Quite a few wanted to discuss it, which is unusual in my phone canvassing experience.
* Nobody mentioned Hancock etc., though one said "Some of these blokes who were on TV this week for the Government maybe need taking down a peg or two."
* Some of the media reports from journalists visiting from London suggest that Batley is a grim area full of bigoted WWC and radical Muslims. That's not my impression at all. Going by the people I talked to, it sounds a nice place.
Overall - all anecdotal, too varied to say. But my impression is that Labour is narrowing the gap a bit - probably not quite enough, though. If we do win it'll be much more to do with Kim than the national scene.
That's really interesting, thanks.
I wonder whether there may be a bit of a backlash against Galloway among some in the Muslim community. Too many people on here treat the 'Muslim vote' as a homogenous bloc, which is at best patronising. I'm not denying that there may be patriarchal influences within some families (as there are in families of most other religions), but there's also lots of rebellion in those same families, and many Muslim voters of independent mind, of course. I reckon some may be sick of being patronised and taken for granted by Galloway, with his -oh-so-obvious appeals to 'Palestine, anti-LGBT in schools, Kashmir etc.' I live in hope that B&S may yet say f*** off George.
Galloway's game has worked in the past. It got him elected previously. Which is why he does it.
Hopefully it is a burst ballon. We shall see in polling day.
Yes, I know, but it is 9 years (I think) since he was last elected. And he got a mere 1.4% of the votes in the 2016 London mayoral election, and only 1.5% in Scotland recently. So it hasn't worked recently. Yesterday's man (I hope).
For example would you let someone pay a car dealership £16,000 in £50 notes for a car they are purchasing?
There's so many issues with that
1) Dealerships wouldn't like having that much cash on site, plus there'd be additional costs in hiring someone like G4S to take the the cash to the banks
2) There's AML regs that would probably be violated with such a large cash transaction
3) What happens if the money turns out be fake notes, not everyone can afford the machines that check
There is an urban legend that a British gangster bought a Rolls Royce for cash after the banks closed on a Friday. Then sent his mob into to burgle the dealership on the weekend.
Similar case I heard about but involved some Albanians buying several luxury watches with cash on a Saturday afternoon then robbing the shop they bought the watches from on Saturday night.
More than seven million consumers registered to use phones and smart watches to make payments last year, new figures from Britain's banking industry show.
Mobile payments - unlike the wider use of contactless cards - are notably more popular among young people with just over 50% of 16 to 34 year olds registered compared to 11% of over-65s.
The figures from industry body UK Finance showed that overall 17.3 million people, or 32% of the adult population were using them by the end of last year, up by 7.4 million from 2019.
They also showed that lockdowns had resulted in the overall number of payments made in the UK falling last year for the first time in six years, by 11% to 35.6 billion.
In 2020, contactless represented 27% of all payments, up from 7% just four years earlier, the figures showed, with 83% of people now using this method - popular across all age groups and regions.
The increase was encouraged by the upper limit on the value of such transactions being increased from £30 to £45.
Meanwhile there was a sharp fall in the use of cash, which was used for only 17% of payments in the UK, while there were 13.7 million people who used cash only once a month or not at all.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There is an argument that all businesses should accept legal tender, and that it is in the interest of the state (and society as a whole) that they do.
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
A company that chooses to accept cash but not cards is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards but not cash is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards and cash is accepting legal tender.
Some people seem for some bizarre reason to think the second of those three should be illegal. Why? Its the companies choice what method they wish to accept legal tender.
EDIT: Double-checking, this is wrong.
Payments by card have nothing to do with the concept of legal tender.
Indeed, I realised I'd got that wrong as soon as I hit post; actually legal tender doesn't mean what its commonly used to mean.
There is no obligation in the law to accept legal tender and there never has been.
There is for the payment of a debt.
Which isn't what shops are doing.
Well no of course not. If they were then there would already be a right in law to pay in cash and the question of further legislation wouldn't arise.
More than seven million consumers registered to use phones and smart watches to make payments last year, new figures from Britain's banking industry show.
Mobile payments - unlike the wider use of contactless cards - are notably more popular among young people with just over 50% of 16 to 34 year olds registered compared to 11% of over-65s.
The figures from industry body UK Finance showed that overall 17.3 million people, or 32% of the adult population were using them by the end of last year, up by 7.4 million from 2019.
They also showed that lockdowns had resulted in the overall number of payments made in the UK falling last year for the first time in six years, by 11% to 35.6 billion.
In 2020, contactless represented 27% of all payments, up from 7% just four years earlier, the figures showed, with 83% of people now using this method - popular across all age groups and regions.
The increase was encouraged by the upper limit on the value of such transactions being increased from £30 to £45.
Meanwhile there was a sharp fall in the use of cash, which was used for only 17% of payments in the UK, while there were 13.7 million people who used cash only once a month or not at all.
I'd like to stress my father loves paying for stuff on his watch, so it just isn't the youff that use their smartphones and smartwatches.
I am very suspicious of anybody voluntarily using cash for a purchase of any size. As somebody who on occasion would have to carry very large amounts in cash, it is a total nightmare, especially if you try and deposit it in the bank. Stacks of associated scrunched up notes go down with the bank about as well as Matt Hancock visiting his house to get clean clothes.
More than seven million consumers registered to use phones and smart watches to make payments last year, new figures from Britain's banking industry show.
Mobile payments - unlike the wider use of contactless cards - are notably more popular among young people with just over 50% of 16 to 34 year olds registered compared to 11% of over-65s.
The figures from industry body UK Finance showed that overall 17.3 million people, or 32% of the adult population were using them by the end of last year, up by 7.4 million from 2019.
They also showed that lockdowns had resulted in the overall number of payments made in the UK falling last year for the first time in six years, by 11% to 35.6 billion.
In 2020, contactless represented 27% of all payments, up from 7% just four years earlier, the figures showed, with 83% of people now using this method - popular across all age groups and regions.
The increase was encouraged by the upper limit on the value of such transactions being increased from £30 to £45.
Meanwhile there was a sharp fall in the use of cash, which was used for only 17% of payments in the UK, while there were 13.7 million people who used cash only once a month or not at all.
I'd like to stress my father loves paying for stuff on his watch, so it just isn't the youff that use their smartphones and smartwatches.
Most ordinary people don't want to see the end of cash. It's another elite project which leaves most people cold.
This is interesting:
"£125 BILLION OF EXTRA CASH SAVINGS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC Research from the Bank of England has shown that many people have built up excess cash savings during the pandemic."
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
More than seven million consumers registered to use phones and smart watches to make payments last year, new figures from Britain's banking industry show.
Mobile payments - unlike the wider use of contactless cards - are notably more popular among young people with just over 50% of 16 to 34 year olds registered compared to 11% of over-65s.
The figures from industry body UK Finance showed that overall 17.3 million people, or 32% of the adult population were using them by the end of last year, up by 7.4 million from 2019.
They also showed that lockdowns had resulted in the overall number of payments made in the UK falling last year for the first time in six years, by 11% to 35.6 billion.
In 2020, contactless represented 27% of all payments, up from 7% just four years earlier, the figures showed, with 83% of people now using this method - popular across all age groups and regions.
The increase was encouraged by the upper limit on the value of such transactions being increased from £30 to £45.
Meanwhile there was a sharp fall in the use of cash, which was used for only 17% of payments in the UK, while there were 13.7 million people who used cash only once a month or not at all.
For example would you let someone pay a car dealership £16,000 in £50 notes for a car they are purchasing?
There's so many issues with that
1) Dealerships wouldn't like having that much cash on site, plus there'd be additional costs in hiring someone like G4S to take the the cash to the banks
2) There's AML regs that would probably be violated with such a large cash transaction
3) What happens if the money turns out be fake notes, not everyone can afford the machines that check
There is an urban legend that a British gangster bought a Rolls Royce for cash after the banks closed on a Friday. Then sent his mob into to burgle the dealership on the weekend.
Similar case I heard about but involved some Albanians buying several luxury watches with cash on a Saturday afternoon then robbing the shop they bought the watches from on Saturday night.
More than seven million consumers registered to use phones and smart watches to make payments last year, new figures from Britain's banking industry show.
Mobile payments - unlike the wider use of contactless cards - are notably more popular among young people with just over 50% of 16 to 34 year olds registered compared to 11% of over-65s.
The figures from industry body UK Finance showed that overall 17.3 million people, or 32% of the adult population were using them by the end of last year, up by 7.4 million from 2019.
They also showed that lockdowns had resulted in the overall number of payments made in the UK falling last year for the first time in six years, by 11% to 35.6 billion.
In 2020, contactless represented 27% of all payments, up from 7% just four years earlier, the figures showed, with 83% of people now using this method - popular across all age groups and regions.
The increase was encouraged by the upper limit on the value of such transactions being increased from £30 to £45.
Meanwhile there was a sharp fall in the use of cash, which was used for only 17% of payments in the UK, while there were 13.7 million people who used cash only once a month or not at all.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Good luck with that - trying to force small business to take £50 notes would be... interesting.
Quite so. Our local corner shop has a sign specifically refusing to accept them.... and you can't tap to.pay for your paper either. Transaction has to be over 1.50.iirc
For example would you let someone pay a car dealership £16,000 in £50 notes for a car they are purchasing?
There's so many issues with that
1) Dealerships wouldn't like having that much cash on site, plus there'd be additional costs in hiring someone like G4S to take the the cash to the banks
2) There's AML regs that would probably be violated with such a large cash transaction
3) What happens if the money turns out be fake notes, not everyone can afford the machines that check
There is an urban legend that a British gangster bought a Rolls Royce for cash after the banks closed on a Friday. Then sent his mob into to burgle the dealership on the weekend.
Similar case I heard about but involved some Albanians buying several luxury watches with cash on a Saturday afternoon then robbing the shop they bought the watches from on Saturday night.
Doesn't surprise me that some would try that. Mind you, I would be very surprised that anyone sold watches for big piles of cash. The probability of money laundering/passing counterfeit money would approach 1.0
I was trying to find the story about the Rolls - it was the Berkeley Square outfit in the 60s, allegedly. IIRC the story goes on to claim that everyone involved was caught very rapidly, since it was very, very obvious who had done it.
Why did The Butler serve up the gay giraffes thing anyway?
Was it one of those "look it happens in nature so it's completely natural" things?
If so it's a ludcrously stupid position. I'm sure we can find racist and rapist animals to defend racists and rapists.
Gee, there's quite a lot going on here. We get a dig at Butler's (lack of) intellect, a little noddy logic demo, and a hint of homophobia thrown in. Hats off.
For example would you let someone pay a car dealership £16,000 in £50 notes for a car they are purchasing?
There's so many issues with that
1) Dealerships wouldn't like having that much cash on site, plus there'd be additional costs in hiring someone like G4S to take the the cash to the banks
2) There's AML regs that would probably be violated with such a large cash transaction
3) What happens if the money turns out be fake notes, not everyone can afford the machines that check
There is an urban legend that a British gangster bought a Rolls Royce for cash after the banks closed on a Friday. Then sent his mob into to burgle the dealership on the weekend.
Similar case I heard about but involved some Albanians buying several luxury watches with cash on a Saturday afternoon then robbing the shop they bought the watches from on Saturday night.
My understanding with luxury watches now they are very particular who they sell to, how you pay for it, and you have to give loads of details? Basically you have to buy a load of lower priced watches with a particular dealer, before they will even entertain putting you down for the really expensive ones e.g. sort of like it is with high end cars, the only way to get on the list for one, is to be a known customer in the scene.
For example would you let someone pay a car dealership £16,000 in £50 notes for a car they are purchasing?
There's so many issues with that
1) Dealerships wouldn't like having that much cash on site, plus there'd be additional costs in hiring someone like G4S to take the the cash to the banks
2) There's AML regs that would probably be violated with such a large cash transaction (especially on a regular basis)
3) What happens if the money turns out be fake notes, not everyone can afford the machines that check
Cheques still exist, don't they? (I know they've been abolished in places like Sweden).
For example would you let someone pay a car dealership £16,000 in £50 notes for a car they are purchasing?
There's so many issues with that
1) Dealerships wouldn't like having that much cash on site, plus there'd be additional costs in hiring someone like G4S to take the the cash to the banks
2) There's AML regs that would probably be violated with such a large cash transaction
3) What happens if the money turns out be fake notes, not everyone can afford the machines that check
There is an urban legend that a British gangster bought a Rolls Royce for cash after the banks closed on a Friday. Then sent his mob into to burgle the dealership on the weekend.
Similar case I heard about but involved some Albanians buying several luxury watches with cash on a Saturday afternoon then robbing the shop they bought the watches from on Saturday night.
Doesn't surprise me that some would try that. Mind you, I would be very surprised that anyone sold watches for big piles of cash. The probability of money laundering/passing counterfeit money would approach 1.0
I was trying to find the story about the Rolls - it was the Berkeley Square outfit in the 60s, allegedly. IIRC the story goes on to claim that everyone involved was caught very rapidly, since it was very, very obvious who had done it.
Because I've been gold and jewellery shopping with my mother, some of the East Asian jewellers do take cash for large purchases.
Apparently in London today they have been doing drop in sped up 2nd doses for da yuff.
Where do you hear about this? I have a couple of younger friends who would like to be vaccinated asap.
Just got second dose of Pfizer at Science Museum in London, they’re doing them for anyone who had their first jab 21+ days ago on a walk-in basis with no need to book. It was brilliant, the staff, the volunteers were brilliant. Ten minute queue, go do it Londoners!
For example would you let someone pay a car dealership £16,000 in £50 notes for a car they are purchasing?
There's so many issues with that
1) Dealerships wouldn't like having that much cash on site, plus there'd be additional costs in hiring someone like G4S to take the the cash to the banks
2) There's AML regs that would probably be violated with such a large cash transaction (especially on a regular basis)
3) What happens if the money turns out be fake notes, not everyone can afford the machines that check
Cheques still exist, don't they? (I know they've been abolished in places like Sweden).
But they don't give immediate payment, you have to wait 3-5 working days for it to clear (and a few days longer for the cheque to be stopped if it isn't to mandate.)
Good luck in persuading a dealer on giving you the car the moment you give them the cheque.
More than seven million consumers registered to use phones and smart watches to make payments last year, new figures from Britain's banking industry show.
Mobile payments - unlike the wider use of contactless cards - are notably more popular among young people with just over 50% of 16 to 34 year olds registered compared to 11% of over-65s.
The figures from industry body UK Finance showed that overall 17.3 million people, or 32% of the adult population were using them by the end of last year, up by 7.4 million from 2019.
They also showed that lockdowns had resulted in the overall number of payments made in the UK falling last year for the first time in six years, by 11% to 35.6 billion.
In 2020, contactless represented 27% of all payments, up from 7% just four years earlier, the figures showed, with 83% of people now using this method - popular across all age groups and regions.
The increase was encouraged by the upper limit on the value of such transactions being increased from £30 to £45.
Meanwhile there was a sharp fall in the use of cash, which was used for only 17% of payments in the UK, while there were 13.7 million people who used cash only once a month or not at all.
I'd like to stress my father loves paying for stuff on his watch, so it just isn't the youff that use their smartphones and smartwatches.
Most ordinary people don't want to see the end of cash. It's another elite project which leaves most people cold.
This is interesting:
"£125 BILLION OF EXTRA CASH SAVINGS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC Research from the Bank of England has shown that many people have built up excess cash savings during the pandemic."
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Good luck with that - trying to force small business to take £50 notes would be... interesting.
Quite so. Our local corner shop has a sign specifically refusing to accept them.... and you can't tap to.pay for your paper either. Transaction has to be over 1.50.iirc
I sometimes wonder about this latter thing that you still see about occasionally. Is it
1) because there is still a cost involved in processing contactless payments 2) a cheeky move to force people into buying more than they actually want 3) designed to ensure that the businesses retain sufficient small change to be able to offer change to customers.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Apparently in London today they have been doing drop in sped up 2nd doses for da yuff.
Where do you hear about this? I have a couple of younger friends who would like to be vaccinated asap.
Just got second dose of Pfizer at Science Museum in London, they’re doing them for anyone who had their first jab 21+ days ago on a walk-in basis with no need to book. It was brilliant, the staff, the volunteers were brilliant. Ten minute queue, go do it Londoners!
Short gap Pfizer seems to be increasing across the country but there's insufficient expected supply to make it the nationwide default I believe. Australia is ~4 months behind us on vaccinations, they need to speed them up there however they want to do it.
Spent a few hours phone canvassing in Batley and Spen this weekend, finding a lot of people answering this time (unlike last, when the footie was on). I was being steered by the system to the don't knows/won't says/undecideds/ who tend to be a tough gig. Some notes:
* Kim Leadbeater has a genuine personal following. Nobody mentioned her being the sister of Jo Cox, but I I got nearly a dozen voters saying they knew her, knew her family, etc. One said he usually voted Tory but was probably going for her, as she'd "really represent the area", and an ex-Kipper was giving her a personal vote. But the Tory candidate Ryan Stephenson is respected too and I encountered people weighing up personal preference.
* Interest in Galloway remains undetectable to my eyes (and I've been doing this stuff for 50 years), and people who mentioned him did it with contempt. One voter with a Pakistani name said, "He is an imposter, he is no more interested in Muslims than I am the Pope." He's definitely not going to win, or outpoll Labour, and I'm scaling back my guesstimate from 9% to 6%. I did get one voter who was switching from Labour to "Green Socialist".
* There's a LOT of interest. Nobody told me not to bother them, mind my own business, etc. Don't knows still exist but mostly in the sense of genuinely wavering, not non-voters in disguise. Quite a few wanted to discuss it, which is unusual in my phone canvassing experience.
* Nobody mentioned Hancock etc., though one said "Some of these blokes who were on TV this week for the Government maybe need taking down a peg or two."
* Some of the media reports from journalists visiting from London suggest that Batley is a grim area full of bigoted WWC and radical Muslims. That's not my impression at all. Going by the people I talked to, it sounds a nice place.
Overall - all anecdotal, too varied to say. But my impression is that Labour is narrowing the gap a bit - probably not quite enough, though. If we do win it'll be much more to do with Kim than the national scene.
That's really interesting, thanks.
I wonder whether there may be a bit of a backlash against Galloway among some in the Muslim community. Too many people on here treat the 'Muslim vote' as a homogenous bloc, which is at best patronising. I'm not denying that there may be patriarchal influences within some families (as there are in families of most other religions), but there's also lots of rebellion in those same families, and many Muslim voters of independent mind, of course. I reckon some may be sick of being patronised and taken for granted by Galloway, with his oh-so-obvious appeals to 'Palestine, anti-LGBT in schools, Kashmir etc.' I live in hope that B&S may yet say f*** off George.
You can now get over 7 on a Labour hold. I haven't bet on this thus far but I wonder ...
Might do a 'heart over head'. Don't usually, and the drifter usually loses these things, but 7 looks big set aside Nick's report.
Spent a few hours phone canvassing in Batley and Spen this weekend, finding a lot of people answering this time (unlike last, when the footie was on). I was being steered by the system to the don't knows/won't says/undecideds/ who tend to be a tough gig. Some notes:
* Kim Leadbeater has a genuine personal following. Nobody mentioned her being the sister of Jo Cox, but I I got nearly a dozen voters saying they knew her, knew her family, etc. One said he usually voted Tory but was probably going for her, as she'd "really represent the area", and an ex-Kipper was giving her a personal vote. But the Tory candidate Ryan Stephenson is respected too and I encountered people weighing up personal preference.
* Interest in Galloway remains undetectable to my eyes (and I've been doing this stuff for 50 years), and people who mentioned him did it with contempt. One voter with a Pakistani name said, "He is an imposter, he is no more interested in Muslims than I am the Pope." He's definitely not going to win, or outpoll Labour, and I'm scaling back my guesstimate from 9% to 6%. I did get one voter who was switching from Labour to "Green Socialist".
* There's a LOT of interest. Nobody told me not to bother them, mind my own business, etc. Don't knows still exist but mostly in the sense of genuinely wavering, not non-voters in disguise. Quite a few wanted to discuss it, which is unusual in my phone canvassing experience.
* Nobody mentioned Hancock etc., though one said "Some of these blokes who were on TV this week for the Government maybe need taking down a peg or two."
* Some of the media reports from journalists visiting from London suggest that Batley is a grim area full of bigoted WWC and radical Muslims. That's not my impression at all. Going by the people I talked to, it sounds a nice place.
Overall - all anecdotal, too varied to say. But my impression is that Labour is narrowing the gap a bit - probably not quite enough, though. If we do win it'll be much more to do with Kim than the national scene.
That's really interesting, thanks.
I wonder whether there may be a bit of a backlash against Galloway among some in the Muslim community. Too many people on here treat the 'Muslim vote' as a homogenous bloc, which is at best patronising. I'm not denying that there may be patriarchal influences within some families (as there are in families of most other religions), but there's also lots of rebellion in those same families, and many Muslim voters of independent mind, of course. I reckon some may be sick of being patronised and taken for granted by Galloway, with his -oh-so-obvious appeals to 'Palestine, anti-LGBT in schools, Kashmir etc.' I live in hope that B&S may yet say f*** off George.
Galloway's game has worked in the past. It got him elected previously. Which is why he does it.
Hopefully it is a burst ballon. We shall see in polling day.
Yes, I know, but it is 9 years (I think) since he was last elected. And he got a mere 1.4% of the votes in the 2016 London mayoral election, and only 1.5% in Scotland recently. So it hasn't worked recently. Yesterday's man (I hope).
For balance I should add - a friend (another former Labour MP) just told me he was deployed on the ground in one of the two Muslim wards - says the Palestine issue *is* seeing cut-through with younger Muslim voters and Galloway is getting traction there, as an extra layer on the usual "you're all the same" meme. Older Muslim voters are generally still loyal to Labour, so there's a bit of a youth revolt too, I think - "you can't tell me what to do, dad". Complicated cross-currents. My impression is that the imams are staying out of it.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
It's a good example of an utterly reactionary viewpoint being disguised in progressive-sounding language.
Another reason why some people continue to pay in cash is because some people can't get bank accounts.
Perhaps the Government should legislate for banks to offer bank accounts for all who want them...
Still, maybe that's "disgustingly authoritarian" as well.
They have.
There is an interesting disconnect between Europe and the US on this. With the rise of the alt-banks in Europe, the general situation is that anyone can get a bank account - without credit. Revolut, for example give free setup - and then charge a small amount for issuing an actual card...
When one of these companies wanted to setup in the US, they were hammered at politically. From the left. A bit puzzled, they talked to some political consultants. Who pointed out that, in the US, banking without lots of charges sounded incredible. And that they would be treading on the toes of lots of local activists with credit unions etc.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There is an argument that all businesses should accept legal tender, and that it is in the interest of the state (and society as a whole) that they do.
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
A company that chooses to accept cash but not cards is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards but not cash is accepting legal tender. A company that chooses to accept cards and cash is accepting legal tender.
Some people seem for some bizarre reason to think the second of those three should be illegal. Why? Its the companies choice what method they wish to accept legal tender.
EDIT: Double-checking, this is wrong.
Why shouldn't the customer's choice be as important as the company's choice? Why should they, in an ordinary case of reasonable everyday transactions, insist on saying "I want to be paid, and will sue you if I am not, but won't take payment as payment, and will still sue you even though you have offered legal tender."
Wouldn't any judge think this was crazy?
It's not the customers company, it's the owners company.
A customer gets to choose whether to shop with a company or not, they don't get to choose how the company operates.
They are taking payment as payment but it's up to them what form that payment takes. If they quite reasonably view electronic transactions as safer, more secure and more efficient then that's their choice.
Totally agree,
Business are (in most cases) are there to make money, and have good incentive in selecting how do to that, which in some cases may be cash only in overs card only, and probably in a lot ether cash or card.
businesses have good incentive for being as customer friendly as they can, but there will be times for some businesses, its better only take one or the other. and the companies should be able to do that.
More than seven million consumers registered to use phones and smart watches to make payments last year, new figures from Britain's banking industry show.
Mobile payments - unlike the wider use of contactless cards - are notably more popular among young people with just over 50% of 16 to 34 year olds registered compared to 11% of over-65s.
The figures from industry body UK Finance showed that overall 17.3 million people, or 32% of the adult population were using them by the end of last year, up by 7.4 million from 2019.
They also showed that lockdowns had resulted in the overall number of payments made in the UK falling last year for the first time in six years, by 11% to 35.6 billion.
In 2020, contactless represented 27% of all payments, up from 7% just four years earlier, the figures showed, with 83% of people now using this method - popular across all age groups and regions.
The increase was encouraged by the upper limit on the value of such transactions being increased from £30 to £45.
Meanwhile there was a sharp fall in the use of cash, which was used for only 17% of payments in the UK, while there were 13.7 million people who used cash only once a month or not at all.
I'd like to stress my father loves paying for stuff on his watch, so it just isn't the youff that use their smartphones and smartwatches.
Most ordinary people don't want to see the end of cash. It's another elite project which leaves most people cold.
Citation required.
Dunno about most but I was recently speaking to someone who'd been turned down for a card, so there is at least one person who depends on shops taking cash.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
I think it's unfair to say that this is a "male" minority. There are plenty of women involved in the "anti-bigotry" movement.
The interesting thing about this particular debate is that i think it is one which men, in general, are often very happy to stay out of. Perhaps that is mistaken, but they are certainly happy to let women make the running on it...
Why did The Butler serve up the gay giraffes thing anyway?
Was it one of those "look it happens in nature so it's completely natural" things?
If so it's a ludcrously stupid position. I'm sure we can find racist and rapist animals to defend racists and rapists.
Gee, there's quite a lot going on here. We get a dig at Butler's (lack of) intellect, a little noddy logic demo, and a hint of homophobia thrown in. Hats off.
You are hilariously funny.
I mean, you are a spoof, right?
Sometimes. It depends. Right now - this very second - I'm not.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Thanks for the field report. Do you think turnout will be above 50%? (Chesham was 52%, in a totally different type of constituency).
Possibly - that seems high for a by-election but as I say people seemed very interested. One unknown (to me) if how the Labour phone canvassing programme selects people - I think it's smart enough to focus on people who voted last time, so I'm not being offered many habitual non-voters.
On £50 notes, the new Turing nifty was launched to a curious lack of fanfare this week: I'd have expected souvenir material like they do with stamps, to appeal to geeks, gays and ww2 buffs. But one problem for betting shops with taking £50 notes is not that they might have been forged but that most customers do not want them in their winnings, because (in a circular argument) it is so hard to spend them.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
I think it's unfair to say that this is a "male" minority. There are plenty of women involved in the "anti-bigotry" movement.
The interesting thing about this particular debate is that i think it is one which men, in general, are often very happy to stay out of. Perhaps that is mistaken, but they are certainly happy to let women make the running on it...
Men try to get involved and get called "pig ignorant, supercilious bigots".
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
The "it" being pig ignorant, supercilious bigotry.
I'll bite.
Do you think that a man should be allowed to do this?
I'm not sure enough to make a blanket statement about it. Ditto the other way, male spaces.
At risk of sounding rather sexist against my own sex:
I very much doubt if a biological woman doing what this person did in men’s changing rooms would attract complaints.
Lots of other sorts of remarks, but not complaints.
I don't know - it would at least result in behaviour changes. In the average changing room men would be more likely to cover up and would be more reluctant to wash in open showers.
Although maybe i'm guilty of failing to distinguish between a woman and a "self identifying man".
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
There are all sorts of areas where the state mandates businesses preventing them from discriminating on who they can and cannot accept as customers.
Might also point out that the use of cash is one way that individuals can still operate in a way to try and avoid state authoritarianism. Because paying for things with cash leaves no trace. A world without cash, is a world where the power of the state grows immeasurably.
If you wish to use cash to avoid the state that's your prerogative, but why should a business be obliged by law to facilitate that if they don't wish to do so?
I was simply making reference to your claim that it was "disgustingly authoritarian". I was just pointing out that it could actually be an example of the state acting against its authoritarian instincts - by limiting its ability to track people.
Except it is authoritarian for the state to tell people what they must do. The state telling people they must accept cash, even when they've decided its against their own interests to do so, is authoritarian.
Just because it goes against the state's authoritarian instincts doesn't stop the state telling people what they can and can't do is authoritarian.
What you're suggesting is like saying "fight fire with fire" but you're still using fire. You're still using authoritarianism.
Do you believe it is authoritarian for the state to say that businesses should not be able to say that they won't serve women? Or black people? Or other prescribed groups?
I think on your definition it is. But it is still justified.
So maybe forcing businesses to accept cash is "authoritarian". Whether it is "disgustingly" so is i think a matter for debate - if a widespread move from businesses to refuse to accept charge actively disadvantages a sizeable (or even not so sizeable) section of society.
Yes it is.
Anti-discrimination laws are a state restriction, but they are the state restriction because society has determined there's a lot to gain from fighting discrimination and there's little to lose.
Telling companies they must put themselves at the risk of armed robberies is of course disgusting. I had a pregnant friend working at a shop in Liverpool who had armed thieves hold a knife to the throat for seven minutes until the manager opened the time-delayed safe.
And you want companies that have determined they have no good reason to subject themselves to that risk to be compelled to by law? Disgusting.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
On £50 notes, the new Turing nifty was launched to a curious lack of fanfare this week: I'd have expected souvenir material like they do with stamps, to appeal to geeks, gays and ww2 buffs. But one problem for betting shops with taking £50 notes is not that they might have been forged but that most customers do not want them in their winnings, because (in a circular argument) it is so hard to spend them.
Legendary modesty klaxon.
I did tip at 33/1 that Alan Turing would be the face of the £50 note.
Another reason why some people continue to pay in cash is because some people can't get bank accounts.
Perhaps the Government should legislate for banks to offer bank accounts for all who want them...
Still, maybe that's "disgustingly authoritarian" as well.
They have.
There is an interesting disconnect between Europe and the US on this. With the rise of the alt-banks in Europe, the general situation is that anyone can get a bank account - without credit. Revolut, for example give free setup - and then charge a small amount for issuing an actual card...
When one of these companies wanted to setup in the US, they were hammered at politically. From the left. A bit puzzled, they talked to some political consultants. Who pointed out that, in the US, banking without lots of charges sounded incredible. And that they would be treading on the toes of lots of local activists with credit unions etc.
Yeah, the concept of free banking seems alien to so many countries.
FWIW - I think free banking as we know it in the UK will end in the future, but with some benefits to offset that.
More than seven million consumers registered to use phones and smart watches to make payments last year, new figures from Britain's banking industry show.
Mobile payments - unlike the wider use of contactless cards - are notably more popular among young people with just over 50% of 16 to 34 year olds registered compared to 11% of over-65s.
The figures from industry body UK Finance showed that overall 17.3 million people, or 32% of the adult population were using them by the end of last year, up by 7.4 million from 2019.
They also showed that lockdowns had resulted in the overall number of payments made in the UK falling last year for the first time in six years, by 11% to 35.6 billion.
In 2020, contactless represented 27% of all payments, up from 7% just four years earlier, the figures showed, with 83% of people now using this method - popular across all age groups and regions.
The increase was encouraged by the upper limit on the value of such transactions being increased from £30 to £45.
Meanwhile there was a sharp fall in the use of cash, which was used for only 17% of payments in the UK, while there were 13.7 million people who used cash only once a month or not at all.
I'd like to stress my father loves paying for stuff on his watch, so it just isn't the youff that use their smartphones and smartwatches.
Most ordinary people don't want to see the end of cash. It's another elite project which leaves most people cold.
Citation required.
Dunno about most but I was recently speaking to someone who'd been turned down for a card, so there is at least one person who depends on shops taking cash.
Tell them to get a Monzo, Monese, or Revolut account.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
The "it" being pig ignorant, supercilious bigotry.
I'll bite.
Do you think that a man should be allowed to do this?
I'm not sure enough to make a blanket statement about it. Ditto the other way, male spaces.
At risk of sounding rather sexist against my own sex:
I very much doubt if a biological woman doing what this person did in men’s changing rooms would attract complaints.
Lots of other sorts of remarks, but not complaints.
What if rel-life Viz Fat Slags did it?
That of course, is the crux of the argument. No man would complain if someone like Natalie Dormer or Gal Gadot wandered naked into their changing room.
But if it were Candy Atherton or the Gorgon of the Soke?
Another reason why some people continue to pay in cash is because some people can't get bank accounts.
Perhaps the Government should legislate for banks to offer bank accounts for all who want them...
Still, maybe that's "disgustingly authoritarian" as well.
They have.
There is an interesting disconnect between Europe and the US on this. With the rise of the alt-banks in Europe, the general situation is that anyone can get a bank account - without credit. Revolut, for example give free setup - and then charge a small amount for issuing an actual card...
When one of these companies wanted to setup in the US, they were hammered at politically. From the left. A bit puzzled, they talked to some political consultants. Who pointed out that, in the US, banking without lots of charges sounded incredible. And that they would be treading on the toes of lots of local activists with credit unions etc.
I do a fair amount of translation for paysafecard, whose business model is that people without bank accounts or credit cards can buy a prepaid card for cash in a local corner shop and use it as a pseudo-credit card - they also appeal to people who are nervous of giving babnk details online. I'd have thought it was a model without a future, but they have hundreds of thousands of shops signed up and there seems to be an appetite for it in countries where it's harder to get a credit card - eastern Europe and South America especially.
Mind you, I got turned down for a savings account with Virgin, inexplicably - I was trying to stay under the guaranteed savings limit per bank so thought I'd open another savings account. Why it should be a credit risk to accept someone's money I still can't work out. I put the money in premium bonds instead, whose average 1% interest is quite nice these days.
Comments
Colour me shocked.
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
They reckon Corbyn would have the vote in this election because Theresa May gave Charlie Elphicke a vote in the 2018 vote of confidence despite him being whipless due facing several allegations of sexual assault.
Off the top of my head I cannot see the grounds for changing the law to that simply because some people think it should be the law. What purpose would it serve, what ill does it prevent, and is it such a large ill that legislation is a necessary remedy?
In what form? Well, try paying your taxes in 2p coins....
https://campaigns.which.co.uk/freedom-to-pay/
Since they generally bear the loss.
Might also point out that the use of cash is one way that individuals can still operate in a way to try and avoid state authoritarianism. Because paying for things with cash leaves no trace. A world without cash, is a world where the power of the state grows immeasurably.
A company that chooses to accept cards but not cash is accepting legal tender.
A company that chooses to accept cards and cash is accepting legal tender.
Some people seem for some bizarre reason to think the second of those three should be illegal. Why? Its the companies choice what method they wish to accept legal tender.
EDIT: Double-checking, this is wrong.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Lab + Gallows = more than Tory, Galloway has the last and biggest laugh of all. Mission successful.
Has Galloway brought any solutions, unity, hope? Or merely divided our society further and wallowed in the division?
Galloway will deliver a Tory victory breakfast this week. And being the lost valueless party they now are, they will enjoy it.
Brexit = death of Conservative Britain. Brexit = death of fiscal responsibility. Brexit = sow division and wallow in it. Brexit = having cake and eating it. Global Britain = putting Britain First winning in B&S this week.
I am not suggesting that cash should be compulsory or permitted for paying for a nuclear power station or buying Canary Wharf. But say for small transactions of up to £100 or £200 it should be that 'legal tender' actually is what people thought it was.
Unless the law steps in there will be inequality of bargaining power. The big people will be controlling the decisions of ordinary people, perhaps to their inconvenience.
The "it" being pig ignorant, supercilious bigotry.
There is no obligation in the law to accept legal tender and there never has been.
I wonder whether there may be a bit of a backlash against Galloway among some in the Muslim community. Too many people on here treat the 'Muslim vote' as a homogenous bloc, which is at best patronising. I'm not denying that there may be patriarchal influences within some families (as there are in families of most other religions), but there's also lots of rebellion in those same families, and many Muslim voters of independent mind, of course. I reckon some may be sick of being patronised and taken for granted by Galloway, with his oh-so-obvious appeals to 'Palestine, anti-LGBT in schools, Kashmir etc.' I live in hope that B&S may yet say f*** off George.
Do you think that a man should be allowed to do this?
There's so many issues with that
1) Dealerships wouldn't like having that much cash on site, plus there'd be additional costs in hiring someone like G4S to take the the cash to the banks
2) There's AML regs that would probably be violated with such a large cash transaction (especially on a regular basis)
3) What happens if the money turns out be fake notes, not everyone can afford the machines that check
Hopefully it is a burst ballon. We shall see in polling day.
Just because it goes against the state's authoritarian instincts doesn't stop the state telling people what they can and can't do is authoritarian.
What you're suggesting is like saying "fight fire with fire" but you're still using fire. You're still using authoritarianism.
Wouldn't any judge think this was crazy?
"Dominic Cummings Retweeted
Declan Butler
@Declan_M_Butler
1/22 Dec 2011 "Fears grow over lab-bred flu"
"It is a nightmare scenario: a human pandemic caused by the accidental release of a man-made form of the lethal avian influenza virus H5N1.Yet the risk is all too real.""
https://twitter.com/Declan_M_Butler/status/1408458284827357191
Confess to thoughtcrime now. It is much easier. They always confess in the end.
I think on your definition it is. But it is still justified.
So maybe forcing businesses to accept cash is "authoritarian". Whether it is "disgustingly" so is i think a matter for debate - if a widespread move from businesses to refuse to accept charge actively disadvantages a sizeable (or even not so sizeable) section of society.
The pandemic has accelerated it.
More than seven million consumers registered to use phones and smart watches to make payments last year, new figures from Britain's banking industry show.
Mobile payments - unlike the wider use of contactless cards - are notably more popular among young people with just over 50% of 16 to 34 year olds registered compared to 11% of over-65s.
The figures from industry body UK Finance showed that overall 17.3 million people, or 32% of the adult population were using them by the end of last year, up by 7.4 million from 2019.
They also showed that lockdowns had resulted in the overall number of payments made in the UK falling last year for the first time in six years, by 11% to 35.6 billion.
In 2020, contactless represented 27% of all payments, up from 7% just four years earlier, the figures showed, with 83% of people now using this method - popular across all age groups and regions.
The increase was encouraged by the upper limit on the value of such transactions being increased from £30 to £45.
Meanwhile there was a sharp fall in the use of cash, which was used for only 17% of payments in the UK, while there were 13.7 million people who used cash only once a month or not at all.
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/millions-more-using-phones-smart-160900245.html
I'd like to stress my father loves paying for stuff on his watch, so it just isn't the youff that use their smartphones and smartwatches.
A customer gets to choose whether to shop with a company or not, they don't get to choose how the company operates.
They are taking payment as payment but it's up to them what form that payment takes. If they quite reasonably view electronic transactions as safer, more secure and more efficient then that's their choice.
One thing that few people think of - small shops find cash a real problem. Too small to get deliveries and drops off with real security.....
This is interesting:
"£125 BILLION OF EXTRA CASH SAVINGS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Research from the Bank of England has shown that many people have built up excess cash savings during the pandemic."
https://chasedevere.co.uk/2021/05/14/125-billion-of-extra-cash-savings-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
One of the other advantages of paying for stuff on credit cards, as opposed to cash, is the Section 75 protection you get for purchases over £100.
Also I think I've earn about £800 a year in Nectar points thanks to my Sainsbury's credit card.
I was trying to find the story about the Rolls - it was the Berkeley Square outfit in the 60s, allegedly. IIRC the story goes on to claim that everyone involved was caught very rapidly, since it was very, very obvious who had done it.
I mean, you are a spoof, right?
https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1409094219529138184?s=20
Good luck in persuading a dealer on giving you the car the moment you give them the cheque.
1) because there is still a cost involved in processing contactless payments
2) a cheeky move to force people into buying more than they actually want
3) designed to ensure that the businesses retain sufficient small change to be able to offer change to customers.
https://api.coronavirus.data.gov.uk/v1/data?page=1&filters=areaType=nhsRegion&structure={"date":"date","areaName":"areaName","areaType":"areaType","areaCode":"areaCode","cases":"newCasesBySpecimenDate","deaths":"newDeaths28DaysByDeathDate","hospitalCases":"hospitalCases","newAdmissions":"newAdmissions","newPillarOne":"newPillarOneTestsByPublishDate","newPillarTwo":"newPillarTwoTestsByPublishDate","cumAdmissionsByAge":"cumAdmissionsByAge","femaleCases":"femaleCases","maleCases":"maleCases","cumFirstDose":"cumPeopleVaccinatedFirstDoseByPublishDate","cumSecondDose":"cumPeopleVaccinatedSecondDoseByPublishDate"}
The age specific data is available for England - and I think Wales.
This is what is used to get the data for the dashboard - you can see it being used here, for example
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation&areaName=England#card-cases_by_age_and_sex
https://www.reddit.com/r/GetJabbed/
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Perhaps the Government should legislate for banks to offer bank accounts for all who want them...
Still, maybe that's "disgustingly authoritarian" as well.
Australia is ~4 months behind us on vaccinations, they need to speed them up there however they want to do it.
Disgusting
Might do a 'heart over head'. Don't usually, and the drifter usually loses these things, but 7 looks big set aside Nick's report.
Another poll would be good!
Even if you have a CIFAS marker you can open an account with someone like Monzo or Monese, they only do identity checks, not credit checks.
When one of these companies wanted to setup in the US, they were hammered at politically. From the left. A bit puzzled, they talked to some political consultants. Who pointed out that, in the US, banking without lots of charges sounded incredible. And that they would be treading on the toes of lots of local activists with credit unions etc.
Business are (in most cases) are there to make money, and have good incentive in selecting how do to that, which in some cases may be cash only in overs card only, and probably in a lot ether cash or card.
businesses have good incentive for being as customer friendly as they can, but there will be times for some businesses, its better only take one or the other. and the companies should be able to do that.
The interesting thing about this particular debate is that i think it is one which men, in general, are often very happy to stay out of. Perhaps that is mistaken, but they are certainly happy to let women make the running on it...
I very much doubt if a biological woman doing what this person did in men’s changing rooms would attract complaints.
Lots of other sorts of remarks, but not complaints.
e.g.
IF Barkleys sead they did not what Nike Griffin, or George Galloway as customers, I might be more incline to bank with Barkleys.
It's happened to me.
Although maybe i'm guilty of failing to distinguish between a woman and a "self identifying man".
Anti-discrimination laws are a state restriction, but they are the state restriction because society has determined there's a lot to gain from fighting discrimination and there's little to lose.
Telling companies they must put themselves at the risk of armed robberies is of course disgusting. I had a pregnant friend working at a shop in Liverpool who had armed thieves hold a knife to the throat for seven minutes until the manager opened the time-delayed safe.
And you want companies that have determined they have no good reason to subject themselves to that risk to be compelled to by law? Disgusting.
I did tip at 33/1 that Alan Turing would be the face of the £50 note.
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
FWIW - I think free banking as we know it in the UK will end in the future, but with some benefits to offset that.
But if it were Candy Atherton or the Gorgon of the Soke?
Mind you, I got turned down for a savings account with Virgin, inexplicably - I was trying to stay under the guaranteed savings limit per bank so thought I'd open another savings account. Why it should be a credit risk to accept someone's money I still can't work out. I put the money in premium bonds instead, whose average 1% interest is quite nice these days.