Jump to content

Recommended Posts

With inflation going the way it is, the only use for it will be the same as the 3d bit - in an xmas pudding. For this reason I already like it.


What is beyond belief is why the govt thought it necessary to change the design. They are printing billions in 'quantitative easing' yet suddenly got worried by a few million fake coins. Against the cost of changing all the slot machines?


But perhaps it will persuade those still demanding you use one for supermarket trolleys to stop.

Love the sauciness of the thrupenny bit slang reference but also I like the introduction of a small knobbly coin again.

For far too long we've had to put up with them round, milled edged ol' suckers.

Fair got on me thrups so they did.


I reckon shove ha'penny boards (played with the modern pound bits) will make a comeback, I'll encourage it enthusiastically, even vigorously.


What shall we call 'em? How about pound bits? Mmmm, not sure.

16 ouncers? Mmmm even less sure.

The 12-sided bastard? I like it, but not sure it'll catch on.


Requires a little more thought. Any suggestions?

A Dodo sounds good there Max. If in fact the 12 sided 'bit' is named a dodecagon as you claim. I'll take your word for it of course.

When making a small wager, would it work? I'll have a Dodo to win on Shapely Goddess in the 3:15? Not completely sure about that.

And what of the subsequent, inevitable dialogue in the pub?

Down to me last Dodo? Ain't got a Dodo to me name? Sub us a few Dodo 'til payday?


I'm not sure it quite 'sings' all that well.

But never mind it's early days yet.

So, twelve sides, I'm thinking about slanging it up as an 'Apostles'. Yes I am and that'll be the last time I 'quotes' it an' all.

I think the idea of a single coin with a plural nomenclature*, for want of a better phrase, would be ginchy and marvy beyond all reason, really.

It'd trip off the tongue(s)of the billionaire, the barrister, the barrow boy and the b@stard in the pub, whose blathering warrants a slap, with equal alacrity.

Yes, it's a word of the people so it is. Demotic, and don't let any bleeder tell you any different. Really. Don't.


Initial thoughts about extensions of the newly-minted and soon to sweep the nation term: A Gospeller-?4:00 A Betrayal-?11:00: A Thomas - a coin whose authenticity is perhaps untrustworthy: A Ressurection a complete fake.


*If nomenclature is the 'mot juste' I'm seeking here, d'accorde, of course.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What exactly is the problem with fake coins ?


Off the top of my head.. the businesses that take them may be unable to pay them into the bank. Reduces the government's power to money supply and therefore inflation. And also, what dodgy activities the proceeds might be funding...

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What exactly is the problem with fake coins ?

>

> Off the top of my head.. the businesses that take

> them may be unable to pay them into the bank.

> Reduces the government's power to money supply and

> therefore inflation. And also, what dodgy

> activities the proceeds might be funding...


Just a little bit of privatized QE & an expanded money supply that directly reduces the cost of borrowing..

What exactly is the problem with fake coins?


Leaving aside the macro-economic impact on the value of currency, I think the practical issue for shops and businesses is that those coins can't/shouldn't be paid into their bank accounts as mentioned above.


So the business has sold an asset for (say) ?10, its books and records show a transaction for ?10 and it pays tax on the ?10 transaction, but when it comes to pay the money for that transaction into the bank, the business has only received ?9 which it can pay into its bank account and is left holding a token that doesn't have a remaining "value" of ?1. The business has no ability to change the value of the transaction or reduce the amount of tax it pays because the "value" of the transaction is the same. The bank has no obligation to accept a fake coin and won't give the business a real ?1 in exchange. Fake coins are basically fraud on the business that receives them.


Of course it's a lot more complicated than that, because the vast majority of people who use a fake ?1 to pay for something don't intend to defraud the business and in reality, businesses keep the fake ?1 in their float if they won't be accepted by the bank and may then pay it back out to another customer (which is I think your point - does it really matter?) - I would say yes - as ultimately you're holding something which purports to be ?1 which isn't.

Siduhe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What exactly is the problem with fake coins?

>

> Leaving aside the macro-economic impact on the

> value of currency, I think the practical issue for

> shops and businesses is that those coins

> can't/shouldn't be paid into their bank accounts

> as mentioned above.

>

> So the business has sold an asset for (say) ?10,

> its books and records show a transaction for ?10

> and it pays tax on the ?10 transaction, but when

> it comes to pay the money for that transaction

> into the bank, the business has only received ?9

> which it can pay into its bank account and is left

> holding a token that doesn't have a remaining

> "value" of ?1. The business has no ability to

> change the value of the transaction or reduce the

> amount of tax it pays because the "value" of the

> transaction is the same. The bank has no

> obligation to accept a fake coin and won't give

> the business a real ?1 in exchange. Fake coins

> are basically fraud on the business that receives

> them.

>

> Of course it's a lot more complicated than that,

> because the vast majority of people who use a fake

> ?1 to pay for something don't intend to defraud

> the business and in reality, businesses keep the

> fake ?1 in their float if they won't be accepted

> by the bank and may then pay it back out to

> another customer (which is I think your point -

> does it really matter?) - I would say yes - as

> ultimately you're holding something which purports

> to be ?1 which isn't.


Do banks really refuse them - I'd have though shops would be more careful in that case.


I had many Scottish notes refused a few years back. The girl in Sainsburys

not long ago said to me "do you want a Scottish note" answer "NO"

It's been a long time since I paid a float into a bank but as a teenage shop girl (during the period that ?1s existed I hasten to add) we used to scrutinise the payable in carefully for that reason and banks definitely did reject coins. In these days of depositing cash via machines/envelopes etc, it may well be different in terms of what happens in practice.


The bank is definitely under no legal obligation to accept a fake coin if they spot it.

HonaloochieB Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, twelve sides, I'm thinking about slanging it up as an 'Apostles'...

...Initial thoughts about extensions of the

> newly-minted and soon to sweep the nation term: A

> Gospeller-?4:00 A Betrayal-?11:00: A Thomas - a

> coin whose authenticity is perhaps untrustworthy:

> A Ressurection a complete fake.


Ok, and with 12 sides suggesting (as well as divine inspiration) a Brexitish nod towards a return to the marmiteovaltine days of the imperial system perhaps with 4 apostles (or apostlesles) in a Gospell (the new imperial fiver) we'd have 3 Gospells in a Messiah (it's new tenner cousin with dodgy ones known as a Brian); your Betrayal would - like the old guinea - mainly be used for auctions or payments of commissioned acts and would always include VAT.


I can already hear punters boasting of winning a Gospel Quire at Kempton.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I personally, just lost respect as this is not the time to.disrupt hospitals and put additional strain on stretched resources.  BBC News - Doctors vote to go ahead with this week's five-day strike https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c246dnyjylqo
    • I'm guessing that most people with pets would not bring either the pets or fireworks into their day to day conversations, to complain or otherwise. Are you suggesting that only "timid" pets are scared by fireworks? What evidence do you have for that, exactly?  Or are you equating being scared of fireworks with being "timid"? And what about the foxes and other wildlife? Is it ok for them to be scared? Firework noise is not a noise that "comes with normal city living" ! What a very strange thing to say! Are you one of the people who have been constantly letting off fireworks recently? I'm assuming you don't have any pets yourself, or you wouldn't have these opinions, but if you do have pets, please share how they react when they hear loud bangs. Unless they are goldfish, in which case you probably wouldn't be able to tell.
    • Well, I know a lot of people in London with pets and I've never heard any of them complain about fireworks.  Maybe what's not ok is keeping timid animals in a metropolis when they are scared of the noises that come with normal city living.
    • We git a ticket when we tried to park there to watch the fireworks.  Anyways we didn't even get a space and so we didn't actually park.  But we got a penalty notice.  We just paid up.  And we won't be taking our car their ever again.  You probably needed a Southwark council visitors permit.  I imagine it would have needed to be booked online B4 or by the end of the day that you parked. Beat thing to do is contact Southwark Council Estate parking to clarify the situation.   I hope your freebie was worth the value of your penalty.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...