Jump to content
  • The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.

  • Join The Silver Forum

    The Silver Forum is one of the largest and best loved silver and gold precious metals forums in the world, established since 2014. Join today for FREE! Browse the sponsor's topics (hidden to guests) for special deals and offers, check out the bargains in the members trade section and join in with our community reacting and commenting on topic posts. If you have any questions whatsoever about precious metals collecting and investing please join and start a topic and we will be here to help with our knowledge :) happy stacking/collecting. 20,000+ forum members and 900,000+ forum posts. For the latest up to date stats please see the stats in the right sidebar when browsing from desktop. 

Devon & Cornwall Police Forced To Pay The Price For Coin Fiasco


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Cornishfarmer said:

One of those toss pots who went intending to cause problems.   Should be charged with wasting police time also.   

I agree with your first point but the police should not have been called, not his fault.

Profile picture with thanks to Carl Vernon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a feeling this case would go in his favour, simply by virtue of how a petrol station transaction typically works (i.e. get product and become indebted to pay for it, as opposed to how it works in a conventional retail transaction). Even without Tesco confirming beforehand that they would accept these coins, I think he still would have "won".

While this was pretty obviously done for the youtube value, I've seen some people claim that it's stupid to try and spend commemorative coins like this because they cost far more than their face value, but that's not true - I suspect it was one of these £100 coins, which were actually sold for their face value (£100) https://www.royalmint.com/our-coins/ranges/denomination/trafalgar-square-2016-uk-100-pound-fine-silver-coin/

Those coins also led this this unfortunate situation :D https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3390519/I-buy-Royal-Mint-commemorative-coins-bulk-credit-card-gain-airmiles-cash-bank-s-refusing-accept-them.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cornishfarmer said:

One of those toss pots who went intending to cause problems.   Should be charged with wasting police time also.   

agreed, he was out to cause trouble and gained from it quite well, but he is still a d!ck

It does not matter how slowly you go so long as you do not stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it's the Royal Mint who should be in the dock for wasting everyone's time with these face value, legal tender (but of a non legal tier) "commemorative" coins.  They've confused the whole bullion vs circulating vs legal tender system by adding the new high face value commemorative definition.  A useless halfway house that's grossly overvalued if it were described as bullion, and worth absolutely zero as legal tender whilst pretending to be legal tender.  Nice one RM!

I looked into the £50 Britannia coin a couple of years ago, which I thought was a jolly nice design.  It was an ounce of silver but on digging it became clear that it was completely un-spendable anywhere.  Why refer to it as face value in that case??  The mint has massively confused the previously perfectly workable system, where the value in the open market of bullion or special edition coins was always much higher than their face values.  Artificially slapping a £50 or £100 price tag on to something that is non returnable is a deliberate con that's being used to milk the vulnerable through adverts in the back of glossy magazines.  I see it as little more than stealing from those who don't realise that they're just buying an expensive supermarket trolley token.  It might be made by the Royal Mint but it's still a trolley token being presented as if it was something else.

Now, if the mint were forced (through the regular banks) to accept back their commemorative edition coins at face value, it would be a completely different story.  The mint would rarely, if ever, see a single one of them back but if some fool wanted to spend a rare and valuable (mint backed, BU) commemorative coin in tescos, for far less than it was worth, the local manager would no doubt be more than happy to accept them; swapping them out of the till to sell for himself at a profit.  But in this case of course, because the coin is nothing more than a token with a deceptive name, it's never going to be accepted by anyone other than more vulnerable people.  The entire problem is the Royal Mint's making and no nation's mint should be allowed to do such a thing to it's currency.

New profile pic to support the current thing, because it's current year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

£5000, of taxpayers money?

Which charity will he be donating it to?

Technically, alcohol is a solution..

'It [socialism] poses a growing threat, however unintentional, to the freedom of this country, for there is no freedom where the State totally controls the economy. Personal freedom and economic freedom are indivisible. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t lose one without losing the other.'

"There is no such thing as public money, there is only taxpayers' money"

"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society (destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roy said:

£5000, of taxpayers money?

Which charity will he be donating it to?

the charity of 'i'm getting the drinks in boys and then i'm shouting a curry later'

It does not matter how slowly you go so long as you do not stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Roy said:

£5000, of taxpayers money?

Which charity will he be donating it to?

The HairyfordBullyun Bulls Pizzle foundation trust... I'm just setting it up now!

Central bankers are politicians disguised as economists or bankers. They‚Äôre either incompetent or liars. So, either way, you‚Äôre never going to get a valid answer.‚ÄĚ - Peter Schiff

Sound money is not a guarantee of a free society, but a free society is impossible without sound money. We are currently a society enslaved by debt.
 
If you are a new member and want to know why we stack PMs look at this link https://www.thesilverforum.com/topic/56131-videos-of-significance/#comment-381454
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

But they aren't pretending to be legal tender - they are legal tender!

Yes this is correct.  They're technically legal tender but that actually means very little other than that they can be used to pay debts in court.

It's the discrepancy between their face value and their intrinsic value where the problem lies.  Essentially "face value" is a state guaranteed minimum value on a coin or note.  For uncirculating bullion (which is legal tender), it's a nominal figure which is always far lower than the actual value of the bullion, so it never becomes an issue where someone might wish to pay a debt to the court in bullion.  The whole process endows bullion with the status of being legal tender, which then has legal implications around tax etc, without it ever having to be in circulation.

On circulating base coins, the guaranteed minimum face value is its value, and this works fine.   If the price of the base metal rises above the face value, it's a crime to melt down circulating currency.  That's not been much of an issue because most of the base coinage is now steel anyway.

But in the case of these special low value, high "face value", "commemorative coins", the mint cleverly used some word salad to imply that they would have their "face value" honoured.  After issues with people trying to spend the £20 versions, it was made clear that they were uncirculating, commemorative coins as opposed to circulating.  Given that they're legal tender, I'd love to see someone use these £100 coins to pay for their parking fines in court!!  The court would lose it I'm sure because where would they get rid of them???

I've no idea what they're selling for on the secondary market but I doubt it's £100.  Most people are probably too embarrassed to put them up for sale at a big loss, so I'm guessing there aren't any for sale.  I can't imagine there are any buyers who want to pay £100 for a common "commemorative" legal tender token.

If the mint had sold them for £120 each, and classed them as circulating commemoratives, I would have bought one for sure.  They would have a minimum value of £100 with the possibility of becoming a collectors item.  Instead, they're an immediate massive loss.  In 100 years time, there will be a whole bunch of them knocking around antique shops for the same price as the current £5 commemorative coins.

New profile pic to support the current thing, because it's current year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Cornishfarmer said:

Should be charged with wasting police time also

The police wasted their own time. They should quickly have realised they were in the wrong instead of being pig-headed and wasting tax payers money. This is an increasing tendency of the police to act in this way, they seem to think they are unaccountable.

Profile picture with thanks to Carl Vernon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police were right the guy was wrong no one here ( apart from one guy in the chain ) understands what legal tender is , and a shop can accept or reject any form of payment they wish .

Edited by 4Nines7Hills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

These coins have a face value (just like notes) and were issued as legal tender with no caveats (at the time) to inform people that they were 'only joking'. Why should the RM be able to arbitrarily decide that they will no longer honour the value that the coins represent ?

Would the naysayers be equally vociferous if he'd tried to pay with £5 notes and been told they don't accept them. Even the two-faced RM have stated that these coins are good for debt so i really don't see any issue here other than the fact that a retailer is ignorant of the status of these coins.

Now if all this could be directed at the RM rather than a food (and fuel) retailer then i'm sure most people would applaud his actions.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 4Nines7Hills said:

The police were right the guy was wrong no one here ( apart from one guy in the chain ) understands what legal tender is , and a shop can accept or reject any form of payment they wish .

They can refuse a £50 note or £10 note coins or a credit card in the store at the till, but in this case the fuel is in the tank so the Tesco manager is no longer in a position to negotiate personal preferences when offered legal tender. That is in essence is why there is a legal tender law. The only person who understood the Law was the guy who rightfully claimed £5k damages.

What if I told you...

There is no "cloud" it's someone else's computer!

Government is the only Religion you can't opt out of!

The "money" which controls every aspect of your life is counterfeit! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and if the police understood the law it would have saved £5000 of taxpayers money, which they should have done.

There are also implications with legal tender regarding VAT exemptions on gold coins, that is if the coin is not on the list.

Edited by Fivepoundfred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/10/2021 at 13:56, ChardsCoinandBullionDealer said:

I am part way through reading Iaian Gould's blog about the Brett Richardson case, and am starting to wonder if Brett and Iaian are one and the same person:

"Brett was therefore left with no remedy but a legal claim for compensation, and that was when he instructed myself in January 2021."

ūüėé

Chards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

I am part way through reading Iaian Gould's blog about the Brett Richardson case, and am starting to wonder if Brett and Iaian are one and the same person:

"Brett was therefore left with no remedy but a legal claim for compensation, and that was when he instructed myself in January 2021."

ūüėé

I See Mr C is on the case¬†ūüėĀ¬†Does your dooog bite? 'no' replies Hotelier Mr C strokes dog and bites him. I thought you saaaid your dog does not bite" Hotilier "that is not my doog"

image.png.25535537c2a3a07f6553f7ec04850e17.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C59-wJhBpq8

Edited by HerefordBullyun

Central bankers are politicians disguised as economists or bankers. They‚Äôre either incompetent or liars. So, either way, you‚Äôre never going to get a valid answer.‚ÄĚ - Peter Schiff

Sound money is not a guarantee of a free society, but a free society is impossible without sound money. We are currently a society enslaved by debt.
 
If you are a new member and want to know why we stack PMs look at this link https://www.thesilverforum.com/topic/56131-videos-of-significance/#comment-381454
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings about what he did. He was obviously fishing for this ideal scenario, however they did take a big, fat bite of his bait!

That being said, the Police fired the first salvo at Joe public when it comes to using legal, but underhanded tactics, particularly when fining someone £100 for going 3 mph over the speed limit by sneakily putting a speed camera at the bottom of a hill, or hiding a speed van in an odious ploy to generate revenue (using technology that has sometimes proven to be inaccurate with false readings) so if someone is also slyly operating within the confines of the law, then they too have no right to bully or criticise him.

As a general rule of thumb, I have the utmost respect for the Police, however they have recently been prioritising minor offences, bending their knees to fringe groups and allowing yobs to block roads. Oddly, they were able to muster whole squads of officers to forcibly arrest people for daring to keep their livelihood open during a lockdown, though? 

The only real crime here is that the taxpayer has been shafted due to the hubris of a bully armed with a badge, who should have brushed up on his knowledge of the law before enforcing what he ignorantly believed was correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...

Cookies & terms of service

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies and to our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use