SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Rainbow Vegetarian Café in Cambridge, England, has announced that it will not accept the new £5 polymer notes, introduced by the Bank of England in September. Last week the British vegan community discovered that the notes contain trace amounts of beef tallow, which is animal fat, and are therefore unacceptable by their cruelty-free standards. A heated online controversy has resulted, including a petition asking the Bank to remove tallow from the polymer.
The Rainbow Café's owner, Sharon Meijland, told The Telegraph that her stance was announced last Wednesday, at the end of a BBC radio interview on the unrelated topic of Christmas food.
"We sponsor the Vegan Fair and announced on Wednesday we would not be accepting the £5 notes because they are dubious ethically. We have been providing food for vegans for 30 years and have tried to be as ethical as we possibly can...This is not just a restaurant, it's a restaurant where tiny details like this are really important."
Is any of our money cruelty-free?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday December 06 2016, @03:29PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @03:41PM
> I'm quite happy with their decision, they won't accept my money and I will not give them my trade.
Not like you were going to anyway.
How many people here refuse to use credit cards because of the tracking infrastructure behind them?
If they were refusing to take credit cards people here would be lauding them.
This is really no different. The proprietors of this restaurant have one set of principles which they are sticking to. If they took that cash how many would accuse them of being hypocrites? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You may disagree with their principles, but they are being ideologically consistent. Its not like they are refusing service based on some principle that is unrelated to their actual business, like refusing service to blacks or gays.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday December 06 2016, @03:45PM
That's not even remotely the same thing. There are all sorts of reasons why people don't use credit cards ranging from not being able to get one to overspending when using them. But, it's a personal decision not to use them, if somebody fails to offer credit as a form of payment, then some people won't buy from them.
Cash though, is a more universal form of payment and in the US it's legal tender for settling debt, apart from Apple, nobody refuses to take cash. This is the UK, and so our rules don't apply, but I can't imagine a functioning economy where some businesses are allowed to arbitrarily take some cash and not others other than if they suspect the cash is counterfeit. The closest thing I've ever seen is places where they refuse to take large bills.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:47PM
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Tuesday December 06 2016, @05:21PM
Only people with bank accounts & credit can get credit cards. People that can't get or don't have bank accounts or have bad credit can't use credit cards, but everyone can use cash. You can buy Amazon gift cards with cash and buy from Amazon with those too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @05:30PM
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Tuesday December 06 2016, @05:36PM
You also can't walk into an Amazon and buy something, you have to order off a website. Physical stores take physical money, electronic money, IOUs both physical and electronic (although the physical are less and less common), electronic stores take electronic money because they don't have the capability for anything else.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 06 2016, @05:49PM
You also can't walk into an Amazon and buy something
Exactly. And not every mail-order company sells gift cards in the local store.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:04PM
Many do accept Western Union though.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:50PM
You can buy anything from a store for cash and if you really need something online and don't have a credit card, you can buy a gift card or prepay a credit card. Not good options, but they are possible.
Credit cards require credit checks as well as having a bank and these are also decisions being made by the customer rather than the business. Businesses taking cards, but not cash are pretty much restricted to companies that are either online or dealing with such large amounts of money that it would be unwieldy to accept cash. For example, people buying and selling houses generally won't take cash.
It's also notable in that I've never heard of a business refusing small bills. Refusing 50s and 100s is fairly common as those are bills that are potentially large enough to counterfeit, but refusing a smaller bill is just weird. If they're going to be doing business with the public, then they need to provide a sane method of payment.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:46PM
A debt, and a bill are very different. A debt is incurred with out service having to be rendered, e.g. taxes both income and property, which is what the statement legal tender for debts public an private was intended for. It was designed to keep the government from taking land/property to pay taxes. A bill is for services rendered and the server can insist on not accepting a particular denomination, as illustrated by many businesses refusing high denomination bills in the late hours.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @05:27AM
Then don't put animal ingredients in the fucking money. How hard is that?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:28PM
How many people here refuse to use credit cards because of the tracking infrastructure behind them?
If they were refusing to take credit cards people here would be lauding them.
This is really no different.
No, it's completely different. Accepting credit cards requires you to be set up to do so, which necessitates paying a credit processing fee. Accepting money is virtually zero effort.
The proprietors of this restaurant have one set of principles which they are sticking to. If they took that cash how many would accuse them of being hypocrites?
Probably nobody except some percentage of their customers, which we've generally established are already unreasonable :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:32PM
No, it's completely different. Accepting credit cards requires you to be set up to do so, which necessitates paying a credit processing fee. Accepting money is virtually zero effort.
The mechanics have nothing to do with it.
If they rejected credit cards out of principle it would be exactly the same thing.
The only difference is that it would be a principle you are more open to.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:35PM
If they rejected credit cards out of principle
Well, this is a clause I never agreed was part of the argument. I don't care whether they refuse to take CC for practical or idealistic reasons, or indeed at all.
Just recently Aldi started accepting credit cards. I would assume their reasoning for not doing so before was a cost-saving measure, since it seems they only have like 2-4 people working there at any given time.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:43PM
> Well, this is a clause I never agreed was part of the argument.
Well, if you ignore the entire point of my post, you can dispute anything!
See the subject line "ideologically consistent" - you shouldn't have continued to use the same subject line if you were talking about some wholly unrelated concept.
Next time argue in good faith or don't argue at all.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:47PM
Because changing the subject line in a reply definitely isn't ambushing us :P
Next time argue in good faith or don't argue at all.
I could say the same thing about you getting an actual damn username.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:53PM
> Because changing the subject line in a reply definitely isn't ambushing us
I changed it because the new subject line was descriptive of the point being made.
In fact, its a direct-cut-and-paste from the text that I wrote in the post too.
There was no ambush. Unless you are admitting to being a puppet account of janrinok.
Stop trying to save face, you went all red herring and have been called on your bullshit.
Admit your error and move on. Or just stop replying, either is identical.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:22PM
Straight to ad hominems, eh? Talk about arguing in bad faith.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:56PM
You can't ad hominem someone who refuses to name themself. The entire meaning of ad hominem relies on you already knowing who they are.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:10PM
> You can't ad hominem someone who refuses to name themself.
Apparently you don't know what word means.
"You are wrong because you suck" is an ad hominem.
It doesn't matter who you are, just as long the unrelated "you suck" is the basis for judging the validity of the argument.
You said he's not arguing in good faith because he doesn't have a username, the two are completely unrelated. The argument stands on its own regardless of who makes it.
And you might as well face it, nobody know who the fuck tangomargarine is either.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:32PM
Accepting credit cards requires you to be set up to do so, which necessitates paying a credit processing fee. Accepting money is virtually zero effort.
While I'm not going to dispute other things you say, that latter statement is problematic. Accepting cash most certainly requires significant effort and resources, which most studies (and businesses) generally estimate to be roughly 1-2% of the transaction costs. Cash creates overhead because small businesses have to stock enough cash for change, which will require you to often get such cash from the bank and transport it (safely). There's the safety issues involved in storing cash and then transporting it TO the bank for deposit, which may incur costs for safes and other security (perhaps even armored car transport, if your business is large enough). Of course this is all because of the risk of robbery. And there is the additional labor involved in "balancing the register" each day and concern about theft from employees as well. Etc.
It's generally NOT as expensive as credit card fees for merchants, but accepting and processing cash transactions most certainly is more than "zero effort."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @05:30AM
Probably nobody except some percentage of their customers,
What have you been smoking? There are countless incredibly petty people who would waste no time mocking them for apparent hypocrisy. It's quite popular to accuse others of being hypocrites, even if it isn't necessarily true; it's a lazy way to dismiss someone's arguments without doing the hard work of actually debunking them.
which we've generally established are already unreasonable :P
No such thing has been established.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:57PM
I'll have a little picnic outside their cafe, where I'll tuck into yummy yummy german speck and italian lardo.
The total of tallow used in all the 5 quid notes is *one freaking cow*. Get over it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @05:11AM
Your response seems to be a common one in response to vegans doing their own thing.
I think it falls squarely within the group of behaviors commonly described as virtue signaling.
Basically you've let the world know your distaste for vegan beliefs or at least what you imagine them to be.
Would you do the same to hindus?
Would you go out of your way to eat pork or shellfish in front of a jewish deli?
What makes their beliefs regarding animal products unworthy of your public condemnation?
(Score: 5, Informative) by TheRaven on Tuesday December 06 2016, @03:41PM
I have a problem with it. First, it's insane. Someone calculated that the total amount of tallow used in all of the £5 notes in circulation is about half of the amount that you get from one cow. No cows are being killed to make the notes, they're simply using an animal byproduct because it's cheap. The Rainbow Cafe contains quite a few things that contain a lot more tallow than the fivers - they even sell some things that contain tallow. They're just cashing in on the press attention.
Second, the £5 is legal tender. If I buy something from them and they refuse to accept legal tender in return, then what happens? It's a bit murky (lots of common law rulings), but there's quite a bit of precedent to say that the goods are free. If they're happy with that, then fine, but I doubt that they are.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1) by ShadowSystems on Tuesday December 06 2016, @05:08PM
*Standing ovation*
THANK YOU!
I was waiting for someone to point out that tiny little fact. Thank you for doing so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:14PM
Legal tender only applies to the discharge of a debt, so if they require payment up front it is irrelevant.
Even then (paying after consuming food, such that there is a debt), legal tender is actually only a legal defense during a court case, and to exercise it one has to pay the sum in to the court - as legal tender.
So I leave others to work out the practical implications, which I'd suggest are quite obvious.
diasan
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:28PM
BTW - This came up on the ukcrypto mailing list a few years ago, have a look at these two messages, and follow the link to the CPR:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2014-December/002447.html [greenend.org.uk]
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2014-December/002450.html [greenend.org.uk]
CPR 37.2: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part37 [justice.gov.uk]
diasan
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:34PM
Does 'animal cruelty' have a half-life? I imagine that, over time, all the cruelty that went into a five pound note will be amortized over thousands of transactions, leaving behind a well-worn, but guilt-free, note.
What is vegan canon for archaeological sites? Are whale bone tools tainted by the fate of history's dead whales? What about lesser animals? (I understand that elephant ivory is forever tainted, for instance, but how about feathers?)
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:01PM
> Does 'animal cruelty' have a half-life?
It must have, but it is conveniently left unstated, because the five pound notes are _plastic_ - which is made from fossil fuel which is made from dead plants and dead animals.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:12PM
Second, the £5 is legal tender. If I buy something from them and they refuse to accept legal tender in return, then what happens? It's a bit murky (lots of common law rulings), but there's quite a bit of precedent to say that the goods are free.
Not quite. First, this issue is actually covered in TFA, and the owner basically has said if anyone tries to push the issue, she'll just donate the note to an animal shelter.
But there are lots of misconceptions surrounding legal tender. "Legal tender" has a very specific and technical legal meaning [royalmint.com]. No one in the UK is required to accept "legal tender" [wikipedia.org] for any transaction that hasn't yet taken place.
Legal tender only comes into play when a DEBT exists. Once a debt exists and someone sues you in court, they MUST generally accept any legal tender for payment of that debt.
If you go to a store and say, "I want to buy X" and they say, "Sure, you can have X if you give me three goats," then you can't say, "But I don't have goats! You must accept my 'legal tender' that is equivalent to the price of three goats." Well, you can say it, but they still have no legal obligation to give you X. You have no right to leave the store with X.
However, if someone provides a service for you, and you are now in their DEBT, then they are obligated to accept payment in legal tender to satisfy that DEBT. If they request payment in goats up-front, though, and you refuse, they can't be required to accept "legal tender" instead. You won't get your service.
Basically, normal everyday transactions are still effectively "contracts" even if handled informally and verbally. You can write up a complex contract of sale that involves delivery of various goods and services in exchange for other goods and services, with no cash involved. Most stores don't go that route, because... well, using a monetary standard is convenient for all sorts of reasons.
To get back to the case at hand -- if the restaurant requests payment up-front for their food or service, then there's likely no legal question that they can simply refuse service to you if you only offer a 5-pound note. If, on the other hand, they provide you the service FIRST, the law gets more murky. If they had a sign up prominently which said, "No 5-pound notes accepted!" they might make a legal argument that you were forewarned, BUT the whole point of "legal tender" is generally that if they sue you in court they have to accept any "legal tender" offered as a payment of debt. So they'd probably have little legal recourse if they provided the service before asking for payment. They could sue you, but then they'd have to take the 5-pound note anyway.
My guess is that if they had any problems with a LOT of customers who tried any shenanigans, they'd just make a "pay up-front" policy, which would likely give them a legal excuse to refuse anyone who wanted to pay in denominations they didn't like. But since their customer base is probably likely to subscribe to their perspective on this anyway, it seems doubtful they're going to get a significant uprising in customers over the issue.