Quote: billwill @ 6th July 2014, 3:39 PM BST

No more cash fares on London buses from Sunday

From today you can't pay with cash on London Buses, you have to use an Oyster card or a contactless credit card or have a day-pass.

I've tried to look on the web for the legal aspects, but only found nonsense from people with no real legal knowledge. Perhaps Jennie knows the answer.

Can TFL refuse the Coin-of-the-Realm in payment for a contract service?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think the people hardest hit by this might be the very poor & homeless.

Like my old thrupenny bit, it predates Roman civilisation but the police gave me a thick ear when I accidentally smashed up 2 Space Invaders machines and a phone booth with it

View original

Bill you coin is old.

That's not my coin, it's the mounting base for the South Pole.

They really ought to put it back because the South Pole is now leaning over like the Tower of Pizza and it's making the Earth wobble a bit and causing global warming etc etc.

Contractually it is no problem at all - they are allowed to trade in coins, or debit cards, or blow jobs. It's like shops that don't accept card payments - legally they can specify what they will accept in consideration for their goods. If you don't like it you don't have to buy.

There may be a human rights argument on the basis that they are a hybrid organisation - a private company providing a public service, such as the trains or water companies.

Quote: billwill @ 6th July 2014, 3:55 PM BST

That's not my coin, it's the mounting base for the South Pole.

View original

That chat up line never, ever works.

Quote: sootyj @ 6th July 2014, 3:27 PM BST

The Leon Britten thing is bothering me. So a year and a half ago the government lost 114 files, that's a lot of files they must have filled a room.

View original

Ok so a lot of this dossier was related to goings on at an establishment called the Elm Guest House

This 'guest house' advertised itself in the 70's as a place were gay men could get together and ermm... have parties etc

Except that was bollocks - it was a place were paedos could get together and abuse children - it was a front

Anyway the people, sorry, c**ts, that ran this place used to draw up guest lists for upcoming 'parties'

These guest lists are on the Internet for anyone to see

They are full of police, politicians, entertainers, Councillors etc etc - some of them very famous

Oh and there was one tory politician on those lists , errr I forget his name now, it was something like Liam Mitten or Deon Fritten

Plenty of people abused there have spoken about what went on in that place - like kids from local children's homes being taken there , given booze and well you am guess the rest

Anyway I'm sure Liam or whatever his name was is glad this dossier went 'missing'

Liam and RB and CR and all the others

Oh and one of the witnesses says they saw a photo of this Liam filth , naked at one of these parties with a small naked boy sat on his knee - but that's probably gone 'missing' too

These sick sick bastards have got away with this because te people charged with bringing them to account over it protected their own

It's terrifying

Tebbit on the BBC this morning, that old Conservative rotweiller and loyal soldier expressing regret about; "there being a culture of accepting people's failings that has fortunately changed"

when Tebbit says things were wrong, they were probably very wrong.

A campaigning MP was warned not to challenge Lord Brittan, the former Home Secretary, about what he knew about an alleged Westminster paedophile ring and was told he could be responsible for the Conservative peer's death.
Simon Danczuk said a Conservative minister stepped in to warn him not to name Lord Brittan in a Parliamentary committee last week.
Mr Danczuk said that members of the Home Affairs select committee received similar phone calls ahead of his appearance on Tuesday.
Mr Danczuk decided to name Lord Brittan despite the warning. Speaking to the committee he questioned what had happened to a "bundle" of papers detailing an alleged Westminster paedophile ring that was passed to Lord Brittan when he was Home Secretary.
Lord Brittan has since said he passed the 40 page-dossier of papers on to Home Office officials to investigate.

An internal review of hundreds of files last year found 13 previously undisclosed "items of information" about alleged child abuse - including four implicating Home Office officials.
Mark Sedwill, who has been appointed by David Cameron to investigate claims of a Whitehall cover-up of political paedophiles, revealed that 114 potentially relevant files were "presumed destroyed, missing or not found".
An independent legal figure, expected to be a promised QC, is to be appointed to conduct a review of the Home Office's handling of the case.
However Michael Gove ruled out a full public inquiry into the case.
Mr Danczuk described the warning that came after a vote in the House of Commons on Monday night when a Conservative minister "stepped out of the shadows" to confront him.
He said: "I'd never spoken to him before my life but he blocked my way and ushered me to one side.
"He warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the next day before the Home Affairs Select Committee when I'd be answering questions on child abuse.
"'I hear you're about to challenge Lord Brittan about when he knew about child sex abuse,' he said. 'It wouldn't be a wise move', he advised me. 'It was all put to bed a long time ago.' He warned me I could even be responsible for his death.
"We looked at each other in silence for a second. I knew straight away he wasn't telling me this out of concern or the man's welfare. There was no compassion in his voice.
Writing in the Mail on Sunday, he added: "As politicians made their way out of Westminster, I had no doubt that other conversations like this were taking place.
"Indeed this was confirmed when I spoke to other members of the Select Committee the next day. They'd been paid similar visits. Phone calls had been made."

Quote: lofthouse @ 6th July 2014, 4:59 PM BST

However Michael Gove ruled out a full public inquiry into the case.

View original

That's surprising. I can clearly envisage a photo of Gove bending over a school chair with only a mortar board on and an apple in his mouth. I'm sure one exists.

Good to see the Tories back in the sleaze pit they belong.

That is some mental image, Alfred!

Quote: Jennie @ 6th July 2014, 4:00 PM BST

Contractually it is no problem at all - they are allowed to trade in coins, or debit cards, or blow jobs. It's like shops that don't accept card payments - legally they can specify what they will accept in consideration for their goods. If you don't like it you don't have to buy.

There may be a human rights argument on the basis that they are a hybrid organisation - a private company providing a public service, such as the trains or water companies.

View original

The Law must have changed since I did "Contract Law for Engineers" as part of my Engineering degree back in 1962; At that time, I think, you had to accept payment if offered in Coin-of-the-Realm as that was the legal tender.

Quote: lofthouse @ 6th July 2014, 4:59 PM BST

A campaigning MP was warned not to challenge Lord Brittan, the former Home Secretary, about what he knew about an alleged Westminster paedophile ring and was told he could be responsible for the Conservative peer's death.
Simon Danczuk said a Conservative minister stepped in to warn him not to name Lord Brittan in a Parliamentary committee last week.
Mr Danczuk said that members of the Home Affairs select committee received similar phone calls ahead of his appearance on Tuesday.
Mr Danczuk decided to name Lord Brittan despite the warning. Speaking to the committee he questioned what had happened to a "bundle" of papers detailing an alleged Westminster paedophile ring that was passed to Lord Brittan when he was Home Secretary.
Lord Brittan has since said he passed the 40 page-dossier of papers on to Home Office officials to investigate.

An internal review of hundreds of files last year found 13 previously undisclosed "items of information" about alleged child abuse - including four implicating Home Office officials.
Mark Sedwill, who has been appointed by David Cameron to investigate claims of a Whitehall cover-up of political paedophiles, revealed that 114 potentially relevant files were "presumed destroyed, missing or not found".
An independent legal figure, expected to be a promised QC, is to be appointed to conduct a review of the Home Office's handling of the case.
However Michael Gove ruled out a full public inquiry into the case.
Mr Danczuk described the warning that came after a vote in the House of Commons on Monday night when a Conservative minister "stepped out of the shadows" to confront him.
He said: "I'd never spoken to him before my life but he blocked my way and ushered me to one side.
"He warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the next day before the Home Affairs Select Committee when I'd be answering questions on child abuse.
"'I hear you're about to challenge Lord Brittan about when he knew about child sex abuse,' he said. 'It wouldn't be a wise move', he advised me. 'It was all put to bed a long time ago.' He warned me I could even be responsible for his death.
"We looked at each other in silence for a second. I knew straight away he wasn't telling me this out of concern or the man's welfare. There was no compassion in his voice.
Writing in the Mail on Sunday, he added: "As politicians made their way out of Westminster, I had no doubt that other conversations like this were taking place.
"Indeed this was confirmed when I spoke to other members of the Select Committee the next day. They'd been paid similar visits. Phone calls had been made."

View original

Lofty, why do you bother to quote all such stuff without giving a link to your source.

You know we won't believe your own word. So are you ashamed to reveal that it came from some exceedingly dodgy source?

Quote: billwill @ 6th July 2014, 10:37 PM BST

So are you ashamed to reveal that it came from some exceedingly dodgy source?

View original

HP?

Quote: billwill @ 6th July 2014, 10:37 PM BST

The Law must have changed since I did "Contract Law for Engineers" as part of my Engineering degree back in 1962; At that time, I think, you had to accept payment if offered in Coin-of-the-Realm as that was the legal tender.

Lofty, why do you bother to quote all such stuff without giving a link to your source.

You know we won't believe your own word. So are you ashamed to reveal that it came from some exceedingly dodgy source?

View original

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10949366/Simon-Danczuk-I-was-warned-not-to-challenge-Leon-Brittan-over-paedophile-dossier.html

Quote: billwill @ 6th July 2014, 10:37 PM BST

The Law must have changed since I did "Contract Law for Engineers" as part of my Engineering degree back in 1962; At that time, I think, you had to accept payment if offered in Coin-of-the-Realm as that was the legal tender.

View original

The Royal Mint explanation is quite a good one.

You cannot refuse legal tender in settlement of a debt for services already performed.. so if you do your engineering and the customer wants to pay you in cash you must accept it.

However at the point of contract, the parties are free to contract as they wish.

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines

Of course, this doesn't really help the average person against TfL, hence why I think a human rights challenge might be in order.

Quote: Jennie @ 6th July 2014, 10:30 PM BST

That is some mental image, Alfred!

View original

And he's winking. >_<

Quote: Jennie @ 6th July 2014, 10:49 PM BST

The Royal Mint explanation is quite a good one.

You cannot refuse legal tender in settlement of a debt for services already performed.. so if you do your engineering and the customer wants to pay you in cash you must accept it.

However at the point of contract, the parties are free to contract as they wish.

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines

Of course, this doesn't really help the average person against TfL, hence why I think a human rights challenge might be in order.

View original

Splendid explanation, Jennie.