Crown and Anchor pub, Brixton Road, Brixton goes card-only

[ShiftyBagLady]

Stupid fucks, actually

 

[discobastard]

.

 

[discobastard]

.

 

[Gramsci]

I do, I'm just busy. Has anybody bothered to read the articles I posted?

So am I. You post long posts. When asked to clarify what you mean don't get back.

 

[Gramsci]

But nobody seems to get that - they just dismiss any posts trying to establish context, don't read any of the evidence and continue to complain about the one business (of many) without looking at the bigger picture. It's a waste of time. And then you get a load of bullshit about 'transparently personal attacks' which is genuinely sooooooo far from the truth.

I do and asked you a specific question.

 

[discobastard]

.

 

[Gramsci]

I think it should be fairly clear what I am saying, I have tried to express it really simply, but at the same time post some articles that convey a number of different points of view. These include, for clarity:

• FCA guidance on how one can get a bank account and what the FCA expects of banks in this regard (I am not responsible for whether banks follow these guidelines)
• This also includes information on the 'basic' bank accounts - again, I am not responsible for this but am merely posting information in regaultory guidance - which I think is reasonable context, no?
• An article that interviews a number of businesses that have moved to card only, their experiences of doing that and the experiences of those using those businesses
• An article that highlights the potential issues with moving to cash only (and one that namechecks the original Gramsci funnily enough), and that I am in considerable agreement with in terms of how the industries set the agenda

So there's some decent context there and hopefully some evidence that I have read and understood the issues on both sides. And I can see how the retail industry (pubs and restaurants included) are moving towards that and the wider impact on society.

Within that context, it is not unreasonble to understand (but not necessarily agree with) the fact that some businesses (which are not social enterprises - whether you think they should be or not - I am not talking about the political or economic system you would like but the one we have) have chosen to move to card for business reasons. Businesses will make choices that may not be popular but at the same time may only affect a small number of people. I also suspect that this particular business is not one that that financially vulnerable will use regularly. But I make no comment about that and do not assume that I think that because of this that it doesn't matter.

I have also made it very clear that continuing to vilify a single business, that despite what has been said about it being unusual, is not in the least bit unusual in making a commercial decision about what payment they take for their goods and services.

I have also communicated that it seems there is some contempt for the landlord in question (although my paraphrasing was held to account), but teh posted in question has avoided admitting whether they hold the landlord in contempt or not.

Nobody has commented on or addressed any of the issues raised about the wider context, and it seems (to me at least, I may be wrong) that the only 'correct' message to bring to this thread is that this particular pub is one that has deliberately taken the decision to 'fuck the poor' and impose their will on people. Which in turn suggests that there are many people that are affected by this and suffer detriment through not being able to spend £5 on a pint of craft beer.

Personally, I think that message is disingenuous, and a distortion of the truth. And if nobody can be bothered to read about and debate the wider context (which is pretty clear from some of the rebukes I've had), then it's a pretty worthless discussion to have.

And I state for the last time, which is something that some seem to conveniently ignore, that I would prefer it if all businesses offered a choice. At the same time I can understand why some take a business decision to move to a card only model, even if I would prefer that they didn't.

And if that amounts to me being a right wing toff that is only willing to engage in transparently personal attacks, then it sounds like we're all fucked. It's bizarre.

Gramsci exactly what is it that you don;t understand about my position (bearing in mind the economic system that we currently live with)?

Your just repeating at great length what you have posted already.

Can you please answer my question in post 737.

I've never called you a right wing toff btw. So don't understand why you put that in.

 

[discobastard]

.

 

[Gramsci]

You asked quite a vague question. The economic system is facilitating something that suits them - i.e trackable and low cost payments.

There are systems available for consumers (hate that word) and businesses that make payments more convenient. And for those that do use an account like Monzo or actually any of the other banks have good visibility into what you are spending and where - I have done a lot of research with people who are on relatively low incomes and online banking and for many it provides information to help them manage their money better than ever before - and at the same time I wholly accept that there are some who prefer to use cash because that is how they want to do things. Some businesses see benefits too to using card only. All businesses are different and who am I to dictate how they run them?

So, with the systems available to them (within the greater industry push to cashless), I can see how consumers and businesses are taking advantage of cashless payment. And some people may be left behind. But to suggest that individual businesses have taken that choice with an attitude of 'fuck those that choose to use only cash' seems like a bit of a stretch to me. And I imagine that the pubs that tend to get a lot of cash only drinkers will continue to do so in order to keep their customers, in the face of an industry that wants them to change their ways.

Please point out the flaws in my thinking if you feel the need. I am very open to that.

Your not answering my question.

 

[discobastard]

.

 

[discobastard]

.

 

[discobastard]

.

 

[Gramsci]

That's because nobody bothered to engage with any of the detail in the first place and just parroted back the same contempt for a single business.

I haven't "parroted" back.

 

[Gramsci]

You asked quite a vague question. The economic system is facilitating something that suits them - i.e trackable and low cost payments.

There are systems available for consumers (hate that word) and businesses that make payments more convenient. And for those that do use an account like Monzo or actually any of the other banks have good visibility into what you are spending and where - I have done a lot of research with people who are on relatively low incomes and online banking and for many it provides information to help them manage their money better than ever before - and at the same time I wholly accept that there are some who prefer to use cash because that is how they want to do things. Some businesses see benefits too to using card only. All businesses are different and who am I to dictate how they run them?

So, with the systems available to them (within the greater industry push to cashless), I can see how consumers and businesses are taking advantage of cashless payment. And some people may be left behind. But to suggest that individual businesses have taken that choice with an attitude of 'fuck those that choose to use only cash' seems like a bit of a stretch to me. And I imagine that the pubs that tend to get a lot of cash only drinkers will continue to do so in order to keep their customers, in the face of an industry that wants them to change their ways.

Please point out the flaws in my thinking if you feel the need. I am very open to that.

The impression I got from your post 724 is that banks are to blame for this move to cashless society and you were critical of this and thought people should have a choice.

Your objection was that this business was just a small business and it was the overall system that was wrong. So anger should be directed at banks. Is this correct?

In this post you appear to say that cashless society is a good thing.

So I'm none the wiser what your position is.

 

[discobastard]

.

 

[alcopop]

Redirect Notice

 

[editor]

Fuck forcing a cashless society on people, even if it makes the lives of rich bosses a little bit more profitable.

In a world without cash, every payment you make will be traceable. Do you want governments (which are not always benevolent), banks or payment processors to have potential access to that information? The power this would hand them is enormous and the potential scope for Orwellian levels of surveillance is terrifying.

Cash, on the other hand, empowers its users. It enables them to buy and sell, and store their wealth, without being dependent on anyone else. They can stay outside the financial system, if so desired.

Cash means total financial inclusion, a luxury the better-off take for granted. Without financial inclusion – and there will always be some who, for whatever reason, won’t have it – you are trapped in poverty. So beware the war on cash.

Why we should fear a cashless world | Dominic Frisby

“The beauty of cash is that it’s a direct and simple transaction between all kinds of different people, no matter how rich or poor,” explains financial writer Dominic Frisby. “If you begin to insist on cashlessness, it does put pressure on you to be banked and signed up to financial system, and many of the poorest are likely to remain outside of that system. So there is this real danger of exclusion.”

Wealth, however, remains the key factor in determining who might be entirely left behind by the evolving digital economy. Some of the poorest people in Europe’s richest cities have found themselves pushed aside.

In Amsterdam, homeless people selling street magazine Z!, the Dutch equivalent of The Big Issue, now struggle to find customers still using cash. Z! trialled card payments by giving a dozen of the city’s vendors iZettle readers back in 2013, but the method was deemed too cumbersome.

“After a few weeks, our vendors said, ‘Look, this is too complicated’,” says editor Hans van Dalfsen. “It became too clunky and time-consuming for the vendor to juggle their magazines, the card reader and their own mobile phone connected to Bluetooth – all that stuff was needed to carry out the transaction.”

The rise of the cashless city: 'There is this real danger of exclusion'

 

[editor]

<link removed because it turns out the author is a twat>

 

[snowy_again]

Some valid points in the earlier links but you might not want to cite info form a site that describes itself as

"[Return Of Kings is] a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine." and weird incel ness: About – Return Of Kings

 

[Thimble Queen]

Some valid points in the earlier links but you might not want to cite info form a site that describes itself as

"[Return Of Kings is] a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine." and weird incel ness: About – Return Of Kings

It's run by that Roosh V pick up artist wanker. Isn't he also a well massive antisemite.

 

[Mr Retro]

Some valid points in the earlier links but you might not want to cite info form a site that describes itself as

"[Return Of Kings is] a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine." and weird incel ness: About – Return Of Kings

Whoops

 

[SpamMisery]

Some valid points in the earlier links but you might not want to cite info form a site that describes itself as

"[Return Of Kings is] a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine." and weird incel ness: About – Return Of Kings

Ahhaahaaa oh dear

 

[snowy_again]

Anyway, let's not let one bad bit of googling stop an interesting conversation.

 

[alcopop]

Some valid points in the earlier links but you might not want to cite info form a site that describes itself as

"[Return Of Kings is] a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine." and weird incel ness: About – Return Of Kings

Haha

Hilarious

“Women and homosexuals are strongly discouraged from commenting here.” !!!!!

 

[editor]

Some valid points in the earlier links but you might not want to cite info form a site that describes itself as

"[Return Of Kings is] a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine." and weird incel ness: About – Return Of Kings

The author may be a tosspot, but it's a shame you chose to ignore the points made in that specific article. (I've deleted it now anyway).

You may want to engage with the points raised in the other articles too, and there's plenty more to be found that raise serious concerns about the kind of cash-free society that the Crown and Anchor is trying to foist on its customers.

 

[editor]

And in the hope that the usual suspects here can be actually bothered to engage with the topic, this make for interesting reading.

The central bank governor’s remarks are helping to bring other concerns about a cash-free society into the mainstream, says Björn Eriksson, 72, a former national police commissioner and the leader of a group called the Cash Rebellion, or Kontantupproret.

Until now, Kontantupproret has been dismissed as the voice of the elderly and the technologically backward, Eriksson says.

“When you have a fully digital system you have no weapon to defend yourself if someone turns it off,” he says.

“If Putin invades Gotland [Sweden’s largest island] it will be enough for him to turn off the payments system. No other country would even think about taking these sorts of risks, they would demand some sort of analogue system.”

'Being cash-free puts us at risk of attack': Swedes turn against cashlessness

 

[snowy_again]

The author may be a tosspot, but it's a shame you chose to ignore the points made in that specific article. (I've deleted it now anyway).

You may want to engage with the points raised in the other articles too, and there's plenty more to be found that raise serious concerns about the kind of cash-free society that the Crown and Anchor is trying to foist on its customers.

You mean the bit where I said the other articles had some valid points? I think people were engaging in the topic - hence why we're 12 pages further in than we were a few days ago.

Incidentally, did you actually read the Kings article beyond the opening Sweden quote? Aside from his rancid beliefs it was full of bat shit interpretations of the concept of currency as a medium for exchange, crazy conspiracy theories around government 'control' etc.

 

[editor]

You mean the bit where I said the other articles had some valid points? I think people were engaging in the topic - hence why we're 12 pages further in than we were a few days ago.

Incidentally, did you actually read the Kings article beyond the opening Sweden quote? Aside from his rancid beliefs it was full of bat shit interpretations of the concept of currency as a medium for exchange, crazy conspiracy theories around government 'control' etc.

As I've already stated, I've deleted that article, so I think we can move on to the many other links I've posted.

But for a bit of clarity here: am I the only one here who actually condemns - without reservation - the pub for making their customers use cards or else they can fuck off?

A simple yes or no will do from posters.

 

[alex_]

But for a bit of clarity here: am I the only one here who actually condemns - with reservation - the pub for making their customers use cards or else they can fuck off?

A simple yes or no will do from posters.

What do you think this will achieve ?

 

[TruXta]

As I've already stated, I've deleted that article, so I think we can move on to the many other links I've posted.

But for a bit of clarity here: am I the only one here who actually condemns - without reservation - the pub for making their customers use cards or else they can fuck off?

A simple yes or no will do from posters.

Give over. You've had multiple posters state their position. Just read the thread if you've forgotten.