What on Earth is going on in the world today? It's gone mad

[Federberg]

The more I hear and read about Russell Brand, I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear even more stories about him. He seems to have lived a lowlife celebrity existence where he thinks/thought little of women’s resistance to his ‘charms’. The story seems to have been heavily researched for years. His defenders still say “They’re” coming for him, but to me it’s a mystery who they “They” are, and why they’re coming for him, other than because he’s a lowlife.

Here’s the Brillo Pad scrubbing it clean:



I don’t subscribe to everything he says here but a lot of it’s hard to argue with.

For me the issue is due process. This is trial by media. Even before guilt is determined he's being demonetised and they are attempting to destroy him. This is mind blowing to me.

With regards to his past behaviour, as much as I am indifferent to the guy and his schtick, he's been very open about this. I'm not impressed in the least that we're going to hear 'more stories about him'. This is what happens in this era. After the first accuser, more and more people come out of the woodwork, and typically they get progressively less credible. Note that these media companies claim to have deeply researched this for years, but still all of a sudden more will come out? The reality is that we live in an attention seeking era, and it doesn't matter whether the attention is good or bad.

If I hadn't learned my lesson before, the Kevin Spacey thing has forced me to re-evaluate and not presume someone guilty because of what the herd says. I'm not falling for it again. Doesn't mean I think he's innocent, but... due process...

 

[Kieran]

For me the issue is due process. This is trial by media. Even before guilt is determined he's being demonetised and they are attempting to destroy him. This is mind blowing to me.

With regards to his past behaviour, as much as I am indifferent to the guy and his schtick, he's been very open about this. I'm not impressed in the least that we're going to hear 'more stories about him'. This is what happens in this era. After the first accuser, more and more people come out of the woodwork, and typically they get progressively less credible. Note that these media companies claim to have deeply researched this for years, but still all of a sudden more will come out? The reality is that we live in an attention seeking era, and it doesn't matter whether the attention is good or bad.

If I hadn't learned my lesson before, the Kevin Spacey thing has forced me to re-evaluate and not presume someone guilty because of what the herd says. I'm not falling for it again. Doesn't mean I think he's innocent, but... due process...

Absolutely. Agree with all of this. It’s an unfortunate trap of modern life that this stuff makes its first move openly in the media, and then seldom makes it to court, or when it does make it to court, charges get dropped or the defendant is found not guilty. There’s been so many cases where trial by social media and television has seen the accuser labelled a ‘victim’ before it’s even been established that there’s been a crime.

But, I also kind of feel that blokes like Brand abused their position for so long (allegedly) and hid behind their fame and power so that women who were victims couldn’t get justice. It’s bizarre now that sometimes that same fame might turn around and bite a fellow.

Here’s a real problem I have with some of his supporters. When looking at what’s alleged, there’s a sense of denial that there’s even a problem. This is a video by a woman commentator who supports him. The video is only about 2 minutes and deals with the (alleged) text messages between Brand and one of his accusers, which was quoted in the Sunday Times.



Now the video refers to the exchange where the girl tells Brand that ‘when a girl says no it means no,’ to which Brand replied that he was ‘very sorry.’

The commentator goes on to reveal that what they were texting about wasn’t sex but the use of a condom. The girl had said he should wear one, and he didn’t. The commentator then says that sex between them was consensual. But this isn’t the gotcha the commentator wants it to be. It’s non-consensual sex when a man agrees to the woman’s condition that they wear a condom but then tricks her.

I haven’t read the spread in the Sunday Times yet, but already this looks bad, to say the least. And yet the - female - defender of Brand is more or less trivialising the accusers objection. I know it’s kind of stereotypical of the moment that I say that we’ll hear more about him, and that he’s innocent until proven guilty - I absolutely agree with that - but a braggart and a brash womaniser who made his conquests and behaviour a large part of his schtick is now facing the flip side of his own public behaviour?

I don’t have sympathy for him…

 

[Federberg]

Absolutely. Agree with all of this. It’s an unfortunate trap of modern life that this stuff makes its first move openly in the media, and then seldom makes it to court, or when it does make it to court, charges get dropped or the defendant is found not guilty. There’s been so many cases where trial by social media and television has seen the accuser labelled a ‘victim’ before it’s even been established that there’s been a crime.

But, I also kind of feel that blokes like Brand abused their position for so long (allegedly) and hid behind their fame and power so that women who were victims couldn’t get justice. It’s bizarre now that sometimes that same fame might turn around and bite a fellow.

Here’s a real problem I have with some of his supporters. When looking at what’s alleged, there’s a sense of denial that there’s even a problem. This is a video by a woman commentator who supports him. The video is only about 2 minutes and deals with the (alleged) text messages between Brand and one of his accusers, which was quoted in the Sunday Times.



Now the video refers to the exchange where the girl tells Brand that ‘when a girl says no it means no,’ to which Brand replied that he was ‘very sorry.’

The commentator goes on to reveal that what they were texting about wasn’t sex but the use of a condom. The girl had said he should wear one, and he didn’t. The commentator then says that sex between them was consensual. But this isn’t the gotcha the commentator wants it to be. It’s non-consensual sex when a man agrees to the woman’s condition that they wear a condom but then tricks her.

I haven’t read the spread in the Sunday Times yet, but already this looks bad, to say the least. And yet the - female - defender of Brand is more or less trivialising the accusers objection. I know it’s kind of stereotypical of the moment that I say that we’ll hear more about him, and that he’s innocent until proven guilty - I absolutely agree with that - but a braggart and a brash womaniser who made his conquests and behaviour a large part of his schtick is now facing the flip side of his own public behaviour?

I don’t have sympathy for him…

if, as the text conversation seems to indicate, he didn't use protection, I assume that he did that with her full knowledge. If she only found out afterwards then I would agree that's non-consensual. But if in the moment she accepted it, despite her reservations, then that is consensual, even if after the event she was unhappy about it. She clearly had receipts, so why is it better to give this to the media years later and not immediately go to the police (if it was against her will). It's either one or the other, and I'm not here to adjudicate. I don't like the media process. I remain highly sceptical about all of this. I'm not here to defend him. And I don't believe the old trope that men in power can get away with this stuff anymore. In this era, it's because you're famous that stuff like this is done through the media

 

[Kieran]

I don't like the media process. I remain highly sceptical about all of this. I'm not here to defend him. And I don't believe the old trope that men in power can get away with this stuff anymore. In this era, it's because you're famous that stuff like this is done through the media

I’m on the same page with regards to trial by media and social media. It’s a scourge and in the Andrew Neil interview above he dismisses this as irrelevant, that juries aren’t stupid and make their own minds up, that the MSM would never hold powerful people to account, etc, but I think he’s overestimating our ability to ignore the prejudicial stuff we’ve already been told ahead of a trial. It’s impossible to have neutral feelings about Harvey Weinstein, for example. How could you find a jury of his peers that could honestly say they don’t know a thing about him, or if they have, they’re open minded? It’s one of the many brainless own goals of the #metoo and #believeallwomen movements which were endorsed by typically faddish leadership in the Democrat party.

But personally I think Brand is a mutt, I think he’s never been funny or intelligent in any way, and his vulgarian pseudo-Byronic act is now biting him, and though it’s happening in the wrong way for the 3-times Shagger of the Year, I can’t help but smirk.

We’ll know more about whether famous people are still getting away with things because of their fame, eventually, maybe. I think a lot of rock stars will be looking in the mirror. David Bowie had his name mentioned even before he died, regarding sex with minors. I thinks lot of famous people have gotten away with that stuff, because of who they are.

But my purpose with showing the video was to critique how his politically biased allies are defending him. The article in the Sunday Times mentions that he removed a condom during sex. Now you and I would both agree that if he did that, it depends on if his sexual partner knew, and consented.

But his defender in the video isn’t so careful, she more or less dismisses the notion that deceiving a woman by not wearing the condom he’d agreed to wear is a terrible thing. And yet it is a terrible thing and she’d have been more honest to say so..

 

[Federberg]

I’m on the same page with regards to trial by media and social media. It’s a scourge and in the Andrew Neil interview above he dismisses this as irrelevant, that juries aren’t stupid and make their own minds up, that the MSM would never hold powerful people to account, etc, but I think he’s overestimating our ability to ignore the prejudicial stuff we’ve already been told ahead of a trial. It’s impossible to have neutral feelings about Harvey Weinstein, for example. How could you find a jury of his peers that could honestly say they don’t know a thing about him, or if they have, they’re open minded? It’s one of the many brainless own goals of the #metoo and #believeallwomen movements which were endorsed by typically faddish leadership in the Democrat party.

But personally I think Brand is a mutt, I think he’s never been funny or intelligent in any way, and his vulgarian pseudo-Byronic act is now biting him, and though it’s happening in the wrong way for the 3-times Shagger of the Year, I can’t help but smirk.

We’ll know more about whether famous people are still getting away with things because of their fame, eventually, maybe. I think a lot of rock stars will be looking in the mirror. David Bowie had his name mentioned even before he died, regarding sex with minors. I thinks lot of famous people have gotten away with that stuff, because of who they are.

But my purpose with showing the video was to critique how his politically biased allies are defending him. The article in the Sunday Times mentions that he removed a condom during sex. Now you and I would both agree that if he did that, it depends on if his sexual partner knew, and consented.

But his defender in the video isn’t so careful, she more or less dismisses the notion that deceiving a woman by not wearing the condom he’d agreed to wear is a terrible thing. And yet it is a terrible thing and she’d have been more honest to say so..

I'm a bit sceptical about the removing the condom thing. Did he remove it or did it come off. That can happen. If he intentionally removed it, surely she was aware of the action, unless she was blindfolded? What am I missing here? How is it every act of the man is considered and intentional and when it comes to the woman somehow she was in a fog, or distracted? Doesn't that strike people as odd?

I have never understood why people think Brand is entertaining. The most interesting thing about all of this is how so many people are now admitting that they too have never found him funny. I actually thought I was in the minority so I just kept quiet about it!

If this ends up not meeting the standard for the law to get involved, I hope to goodness he sues. He makes 10s of millions from social media. This is potentially big enough to seriously jeopardise the financial standing of Channel 4, and I doubt Murdoch will be happy with another big pay out. Perhaps this is the media hit job that finally forces more responsible journalism. I certainly hope so! As for the government stepping in to force social media companies to abandon him, that's a creature of an entirely different chilling stripe. I'm appalled

 

[Kieran]

I'm a bit sceptical about the removing the condom thing. Did he remove it or did it come off. That can happen. If he intentionally removed it, surely she was aware of the action, unless she was blindfolded? What am I missing here? How is it every act of the man is considered and intentional and when it comes to the woman somehow she was in a fog, or distracted? Doesn't that strike people as odd?

I have never understood why people think Brand is entertaining. The most interesting thing about all of this is how so many people are now admitting that they too have never found him funny. I actually thought I was in the minority so I just kept quiet about it!

If this ends up not meeting the standard for the law to get involved, I hope to goodness he sues. He makes 10s of millions from social media. This is potentially big enough to seriously jeopardise the financial standing of Channel 4, and I doubt Murdoch will be happy with another big pay out. Perhaps this is the media hit job that finally forces more responsible journalism. I certainly hope so! As for the government stepping in to force social media companies to abandon him, that's a creature of an entirely different chilling stripe. I'm appalled

I think he will sue if he’s not sued first. Or even if he is sued first. I don’t think an accuser can go straight to the media and blacken a persons name first, and still be entitled to anonymity in court. They’re two separate things.

As for the government official contacting Rumble, it’s very bizarre and inappropriate, and yet typical of the way the worst social media cancel culture behaviour infects politicians. They’re cowards and bandwagon jumpers…

 

[Federberg]

Hadn’t even considered that 16 is a legal age in the U.K. If that’s the case where’s the crime here?

 

[Kieran]

Hadn’t even considered that 16 is a legal age in the U.K. If that’s the case where’s the crime here?

It’s an interesting video and she raises a serious concern. But legally, as this stands, if Brand was with a 16 year old schoolgirl and it was consensual, it’s pervy and inappropriate, but not illegal. Which is important because nobody should should have their life dragged through the mud and be miscategorised as a rapist in a situation like this.

The video does raise a good question though regarding the age of consent, especially when it comes to experienced predatory adults and young children making their first steps into adulthood…

 

[Moxie]

OMG, you guys are cracking me up! So much fretting over Russell Brand, and is it a witch hunt? I will say that I actually DID find him funny, and I liked him. I wished him well, after all of his drug issues and sex addiction issues. But, given that history, of everyone, is he REALLY the most likely to be pure as the driven snow? I mean, stand up for Al Franken. Stand up for Kevin Spacey, which I see was a recent mention, but of everyone, seriously, you're defending Russell Brand? The man clearly doesn't understand "consensual." And that was even after he got off of the drugs.

 

[Federberg]

OMG, you guys are cracking me up! So much fretting over Russell Brand, and is it a witch hunt? I will say that I actually DID find him funny, and I liked him. I wished him well, after all of his drug issues and sex addiction issues. But, given that history, of everyone, is he REALLY the most likely to be pure as the driven snow? I mean, stand up for Al Franken. Stand up for Kevin Spacey, which I see was a recent mention, but of everyone, seriously, you're defending Russell Brand? The man clearly doesn't understand "consensual." And that was even after he got off of the drugs.

Sigh... and we were getting along so well recently! This is something you do often, attempting to trivialise something others find important. If you don't understand that this isn't specifically about Russell Brand then I don't know what to tell you. Frankly I don't care for the guy, as I've said before. Never understood why he's become so famous. I don't understand why people think he has any talent at all. And his faux intellectualism grates on me. It's like he's the emperor with no clothes with me the only one seeing that he's prancing around butt naked!

This is a much bigger issue. This is not the first time the media has done this. They did it with Andrew Tate as @Front242 noted, but they also did it with Kevin Spacey and Sir Cliff Richard. I'm a bit sceptical about the idea that this is an attempted cancellation of someone who's in competition with the MSM. I guess I would have to believe what he's selling for that to have any credibility with me. Frankly Joe Rogen would be a more logical target, but I guess he's not in the UK so that might be the reason for that. No.. the issue is trial by media. That in itself would be bad enough, if there weren't MSM personalities in the UK who've recently done things at least as bad as Brand has been alleged to have done - Huw Edwards and Philip Schofield. If you don't know who they are, I invite you to use your google machine. But this is far more serious than that.. the government. The UK government! Has approached social media platforms to push them into demonetising this guy. Before due process. How does all of this not concern you? Can you possibly be this oblivious that you don't comprehend the wider societal implications of this? Seriously... I'm asking you...

 

[Moxie]

Sigh... and we were getting along so well recently! This is something you do often, attempting to trivialise something others find important. If you don't understand that this isn't specifically about Russell Brand then I don't know what to tell you. Frankly I don't care for the guy, as I've said before. Never understood why he's become so famous. I don't understand why people think he has any talent at all. And his faux intellectualism grates on me. It's like he's the emperor with no clothes with me the only one seeing that he's prancing around butt naked!

This is a much bigger issue. This is not the first time the media has done this. They did it with Andrew Tate as @Front242 noted, but they also did it with Kevin Spacey and Sir Cliff Richard. I'm a bit sceptical about the idea that this is an attempted cancellation of someone who's in competition with the MSM. I guess I would have to believe what he's selling for that to have any credibility with me. Frankly Joe Rogen would be a more logical target, but I guess he's not in the UK so that might be the reason for that. No.. the issue is trial by media. That in itself would be bad enough, if there weren't MSM personalities in the UK who've recently done things at least as bad as Brand has been alleged to have done - Huw Edwards and Philip Schofield. If you don't know who they are, I invite you to use your google machine. But this is far more serious than that.. the government. The UK government! Has approached social media platforms to push them into demonetising this guy. Before due process. How does all of this not concern you? Can you possibly be this oblivious that you don't comprehend the wider societal implications of this? Seriously... I'm asking you...

No, I do understand the wider concerns. This sort of thing has been address on these forums A LOT, only the demonetizing is new. I don't think it's unimportant. Not sure Russell Brand makes the best poster boy is all, and there's a lot of combing over the details, if it's really the wider point you're interested in.

 

[Federberg]

No, I do understand the wider concerns. This sort of thing has been address on these forums A LOT, only the demonetizing is new. I don't think it's unimportant. Not sure Russell Brand makes the best poster boy is all, and there's a lot of combing over the details, if it's really the wider point you're interested in.

this sort of thing gets addressed a lot? Can you give me a similar example? As for the rest, if you look at my submissions on this topic, it should be clear that it was never about Russell Brand. It was always about trial by media, and the push for complete cancellation.

PS, don't be surprised if they try to close his bank accounts. And bear in mind the UK is a country where they are trying to make it impossible to exist using cash. It's Orwellian. I simply don't understand how this isn't a HUGE issue, regardless of which side of the politics you're on...

 

[tented]

this sort of thing gets addressed a lot? Can you give me a similar example? As for the rest, if you look at my submissions on this topic, it should be clear that it was never about Russell Brand. It was always about trial by media, and the push for complete cancellation.

This is my interpretation of your posts. Russell Brand is simply a name — the current name — making news, but the true issue is the trial-by-media, and the presumption of guilt with little to no chance of being seen as innocent.

I know almost nothing about him. He has never interested me, so I’ve ignored him as much as possible. I did watch him with Bill Maher, and Brand was just obnoxious, bossing around and interrupting Maher, so I turned it off. As to whether or not he’s guilty, I haven’t a clue. But I hope the truth — the real truth — is what’s determined and not continue to be presumed guilty by an online, virtual mob with pitchforks.

 

[Fiero425]

This is my interpretation of your posts. Russell Brand is simply a name — the current name — making news, but the true issue is the trial-by-media, and the presumption of guilt with little to no chance of being seen as innocent.

I know almost nothing about him. He has never interested me, so I’ve ignored him as much as possible. I did watch him with Bill Maher, and Brand was just obnoxious, bossing around and interrupting Maher, so I turned it off. As to whether or not he’s guilty, I haven’t a clue. But I hope the truth — the real truth — is what’s determined and not continue a presumed guilty by an online, virtual mob with pitchforks.

I get a little misty thinking of that era of comedy way back when w/ George Carlin, Bill Mahar, & Dennis Miller! They were all so cerebral and invoked "historic quotes," a past era, or literature that's "above" the common college student! George never changed much over the decades, but I was so disappointed when others started copping out and supporting "the other side!" Miller eviscerated Reagan, Bush & W's admins. initially, but now make them out as American heroes! You can play it down the middle at your own peril of losing credibility these days! Mahar got on my bad side helping W get elected in 2000 by supporting Ralph Nader! That was the beginning of the end! We've never really recovered from that one! The Nat'l Debt was going down w/ surpluses under Clinton, but "W" squeaked in nefariously! He gave away that surplus and more destroying any hope of equity! We've just been sheep grazing around ever since as a select few truly herd us around here in the States & elsewhere! I've been disgusted w/ the "right leanings" as it's only gotten worse! No one in their right minds thought it possible that Trump would win, but it happened due to the dilligence of some true psychos at the top as many have been brainwashed into allowing attrocities & lies to go unchallenged! The true hypocrisy is we're always trying to manage other people's affairs abroad! I've been just sick! END RANT!

 

[Moxie]

this sort of thing gets addressed a lot? Can you give me a similar example? As for the rest, if you look at my submissions on this topic, it should be clear that it was never about Russell Brand. It was always about trial by media, and the push for complete cancellation.

By "this sort of thing," I was referring to men being accused of sexual misconduct, and the "he said/she said" or "he said/he said" getting played out in the media. Even you mentioned Kevin Spacey just above. There's been a fair amount on Trump. I mentioned Al Franken, who we've discussed. The list goes on, and plenty have been debated here, that's all I meant.

I have seen that you don't think it's about Brand. Basically no one here likes him. Like @tented above, I have mostly just ignored it. It doesn't get the same play here. But when I saw a post about a condom, which was yours, in response to Kieran's, I decided I was definitely abdicating from the details, and that was when I decided to ask why everyone was propping up Brand, of all people, on sex allegations.

Forgive me for taking it just "another one of those" stories. I can see this one is hitting on bigger issues, and I know that trial-by-media, and trial-by-social media is big enough.

PS, don't be surprised if they try to close his bank accounts. And bear in mind the UK is a country where they are trying to make it impossible to exist using cash. It's Orwellian. I simply don't understand how this isn't a HUGE issue, regardless of which side of the politics you're on...

I agree that trying to taking away his ability to monetize his work on the internet even before he's actually guilty of anything is shocking. Even if he were convicted of something, it's generally considered, at least here in the US, what you can't do is profit off of your crime. Meaning, you can't write a best-seller about the trial and the machinations and make money from it. Or, if you have profits from your crime, they can be seized. But, just because you may or may not have committed a crime in the past, can they take away your livelihood just because you become persona non grata on the internet? I guess it has been done to people in the past. But I do agree it's Orwellian.

You mention as a sidebar that the UK is trying to make it impossible to exist using cash. Can you say more about that?

 

[Federberg]

By "this sort of thing," I was referring to men being accused of sexual misconduct, and the "he said/she said" or "he said/he said" getting played out in the media. Even you mentioned Kevin Spacey just above. There's been a fair amount on Trump. I mentioned Al Franken, who we've discussed. The list goes on, and plenty have been debated here, that's all I meant.

I have seen that you don't think it's about Brand. Basically no one here likes him. Like @tented above, I have mostly just ignored it. It doesn't get the same play here. But when I saw a post about a condom, which was yours, in response to Kieran's, I decided I was definitely abdicating from the details, and that was when I decided to ask why everyone was propping up Brand, of all people, on sex allegations.

Forgive me for taking it just "another one of those" stories. I can see this one is hitting on bigger issues, and I know that trial-by-media, and trial-by-social media is big enough.

I agree that trying to taking away his ability to monetize his work on the internet even before he's actually guilty of anything is shocking. Even if he were convicted of something, it's generally considered, at least here in the US, what you can't do is profit off of your crime. Meaning, you can't write a best-seller about the trial and the machinations and make money from it. Or, if you have profits from your crime, they can be seized. But, just because you may or may not have committed a crime in the past, can they take away your livelihood just because you become persona non grata on the internet? I guess it has been done to people in the past. But I do agree it's Orwellian.

You mention as a sidebar that the UK is trying to make it impossible to exist using cash. Can you say more about that?

hard to come up with hard evidence yet. Just lots... and I mean lots of anecdotal stuff, and also people reporting the same on social media. Going in to a bank to try to get cash now is becoming extremely difficult. I don't personally do it. But I do know of many who are finding it tough to do. A lot of Greek British like to carry around clips of cash, and I have a lot of friends in that community. These are guys who have a lot of money. It's not unusual for them to want to carry around a few thousand pounds. Bizarre to me, but culture is powerful.

 

[Moxie]

hard to come up with hard evidence yet. Just lots... and I mean lots of anecdotal stuff, and also people reporting the same on social media. Going in to a bank to try to get cash now is becoming extremely difficult. I don't personally do it. But I do know of many who are finding it tough to do. A lot of Greek British like to carry around clips of cash, and I have a lot of friends in that community. These are guys who have a lot of money. It's not unusual for them to want to carry around a few thousand pounds. Bizarre to me, but culture is powerful.

How bizarre. Does that mean you can't get cash out of an ATM (cash point?) That's how most people exchange currency anymore, when they travel. Obviously, most of us use and carry a lot less cash than even a few years ago, but still...why would that be, that it should be hard to get cash?

 

[Federberg]

How bizarre. Does that mean you can't get cash out of an ATM (cash point?) That's how most people exchange currency anymore, when they travel. Obviously, most of us use and carry a lot less cash than even a few years ago, but still...why would that be, that it should be hard to get cash?

most banks here limit you to £250 - £500. So if you want to hold on to more you'll need to go to a bank branch to make a withdrawal. I think the max I've ever done is probably around £1,500. I had my driving license with me as well as my card so it wasn't a problem. But that was years ago. Personally I hate holding cash. In fact I often don't even take my wallet out and just use my phone these days.

As for why.. I'm not really sure. They've just been asked why they need to hold on to cash.

 

[Moxie]

most banks here limit you to £250 - £500. So if you want to hold on to more you'll need to go to a bank branch to make a withdrawal. I think the max I've ever done is probably around £1,500. I had my driving license with me as well as my card so it wasn't a problem. But that was years ago. Personally I hate holding cash. In fact I often don't even take my wallet out and just use my phone these days.

Because you alerted me to this, I read this article in The Guardian, upon a quick on-line search. (With my "google machine." LOL.) They mention the hardships on older people, which is sort of obvious, in terms of comfort, and lack of confidence in new technologies, etc., and the poor, which is also sort of obvious, due to poor credit, etc. It also highlighted the travails of a tourist, which was a point I made above, just thinking of myself. He planned ahead, exchanged pounds before he traveled, at a good rate, then got stuck with them, and nearly 100 euros in bank fees which he'd specifically been planning to avoid. (And he's going to lose money exchanging those pounds back.) They also allude to people who have issues with managing their finances, generally. On top of that, all the people who aren't paying attention to hidden fees. A cash transaction is clear.

I also saw on google that the UK and Scandinavia are leading the way in going cashless, while Germans and Italians use much more cash. I think we still use a lot of cash in the US. In my business, "petty cash" is a thing. We used to draw out as much as $10,000+ liquid, but we have much less use for that now, given that much is handled virtually. I get my expenses reimbursed by Venmo, etc. However, we don't expect production assistants to front money, so we give them cash. And wardrobe stylists and production design departments likewise, so thousands in cash can go out the door, for what can't be paid on the company credit card or purchase orders. Business accounts have no problem drawing that much in a day, even now. Personally, I can take $800 from an ATM, and I've never seen a limit to what I can withdraw from a teller, though it's been awhile since I withdrew a large sum. Like you, I pay with card or phone, though, living in a small town as I do, lots of small businesses still prefer cash. They charge extra if you use a card. And New York being the Third World, I can negotiate better prices with cash. Plus, how do you grease a palm, except with cash? Get a better table? Get your super to do something for you? Slide 1200 lbs of film equipment through airline baggage except with a few crisp $20s?

As for why.. I'm not really sure. They've just been asked why they need to hold on to cash.

Given the recent bank defaults in the US, I find this comment very scary. Is that what you mean? Has the government been asking?

 

[Federberg]

Because you alerted me to this, I read this article in The Guardian, upon a quick on-line search. (With my "google machine." LOL.) They mention the hardships on older people, which is sort of obvious, in terms of comfort, and lack of confidence in new technologies, etc., and the poor, which is also sort of obvious, due to poor credit, etc. It also highlighted the travails of a tourist, which was a point I made above, just thinking of myself. He planned ahead, exchanged pounds before he traveled, at a good rate, then got stuck with them, and nearly 100 euros in bank fees which he'd specifically been planning to avoid. (And he's going to lose money exchanging those pounds back.) They also allude to people who have issues with managing their finances, generally. On top of that, all the people who aren't paying attention to hidden fees. A cash transaction is clear.

I also saw on google that the UK and Scandinavia are leading the way in going cashless, while Germans and Italians use much more cash. I think we still use a lot of cash in the US. In my business, "petty cash" is a thing. We used to draw out as much as $10,000+ liquid, but we have much less use for that now, given that much is handled virtually. I get my expenses reimbursed by Venmo, etc. However, we don't expect production assistants to front money, so we give them cash. And wardrobe stylists and production design departments likewise, so thousands in cash can go out the door, for what can't be paid on the company credit card or purchase orders. Business accounts have no problem drawing that much in a day, even now. Personally, I can take $800 from an ATM, and I've never seen a limit to what I can withdraw from a teller, though it's been awhile since I withdrew a large sum. Like you, I pay with card or phone, though, living in a small town as I do, lots of small businesses still prefer cash. They charge extra if you use a card. And New York being the Third World, I can negotiate better prices with cash. Plus, how do you grease a palm, except with cash? Get a better table? Get your super to do something for you? Slide 1200 lbs of film equipment through airline baggage except with a few crisp $20s?


Given the recent bank defaults in the US, I find this comment very scary. Is that what you mean? Has the government been asking?

no I don't think it's anything to do with bank runs. I think banks are over correcting because of regulatory pressure relating to money laundering. It's completely over the top. But at the same time we all know that the current conservative government is trying to push digital currencies (it helps that the Prime Minister's father in law is a billionaire owner of the company most likely to benefit from the sorts of technology that would be required). If it was just one thing it would be fine, but it's when there are so many angles to the pressure and the push. Makes you worry!