• Replies 52 replies
  • Subscribers 44 subscribers
  • Views 2335 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Changing bank note designs

TheCatWoman

This is something that seems to have caused a lot of hoo-ha, the design changes every 10 years, usually with someone different put on them, after a public consultation wildlife was the favourite to replace humans. I don't have a problem with this, but the political right do, with Farage saying replacing Churchill with a badger is a load of woke nonsense, I saw an interview with Churchills grand daughter who said the family were asked before his image was used and were told it would be for 10 years and they had no problem with it changing. Some people are getting het up about there being no women, so I'm guessing female wildlife dosen't count? lol.

I dont' know what they're going to put on each note, but I'd like to see an oak tree on one, not only are they historically significant, but one oak tree supports around 2,000 other species. I'd like to see red squirrels too and Scottish Wildcats.

What about you, what would you like to see and do you have any issues with the changes to bank notes? 

Parents

  • I love that we are getting wildlife in our bank notes. These things span politics, ethnicity and religion, they are part of our islands and so very much deserve to be on the notes. Nigel Farage can do one. 

  • in reply to Orangegnome

    Agreed! I think having animals is far less controversial. Historical figures can be problematic. They may be remembered for good but often they were also involved in controversial things too. Then you get the issue of race, gender etc and how representative they are. Wildlife can't be debated. They can't actually controversially. Yes people may want different animals. But it's been done fairly with a vote and I'd personally much rather look at an animals face than a humans.

Reply
  • in reply to Orangegnome

    Agreed! I think having animals is far less controversial. Historical figures can be problematic. They may be remembered for good but often they were also involved in controversial things too. Then you get the issue of race, gender etc and how representative they are. Wildlife can't be debated. They can't actually controversially. Yes people may want different animals. But it's been done fairly with a vote and I'd personally much rather look at an animals face than a humans.

Children
No Data