Amazon offer free delivery for item costing over £10. I ordered two
widgets that were shown as being in stock. If I had been willing to pay
I could have had them delivered the next day. As it was not urgent I
chose the free option. These in stock items were not despatched until
four days after ordering them. I just wonder what benefit Amazon gain
from delaying despatch. Is it because they hope you will pay extra or is
there some other reason that I have not realised? Just curious!

--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

Peter Crosland wrote:
Amazon offer free delivery for item costing over £10. I ordered two
widgets that were shown as being in stock. If I had been willing to pay
I could have had them delivered the next day. As it was not urgent I
chose the free option. These in stock items were not despatched until
four days after ordering them. I just wonder what benefit Amazon gain
from delaying despatch. Is it because they hope you will pay extra or is
there some other reason that I have not realised? Just curious!

I always select free delivery and the time varies greatly - sometimes
it's next day. I think it depends on how busy they are and various
random factors.

What I don't like is that Amazon won't allow you to set free delivery as
your default. You have to select it for every purchase.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Peter Crosland wrote:

I just wonder what benefit Amazon gain from delaying despatch.

Maybe they commit to a "job lot rate" with the couriers, so they delay
the free deliveries to smooth out peaks and troughs?

On 12/08/2014 10:05, Peter Crosland wrote:
Amazon offer free delivery for item costing over £10. I ordered two
widgets that were shown as being in stock. If I had been willing to pay
I could have had them delivered the next day. As it was not urgent I
chose the free option. These in stock items were not despatched until
four days after ordering them. I just wonder what benefit Amazon gain
from delaying despatch. Is it because they hope you will pay extra or is
there some other reason that I have not realised? Just curious!


Lots of firms differentiate products, with small increments costing a
lot. I found that Amazon were usually quite good about delivering early,
but yes if they want you to pay extra for next day delivery they have to
hold up the cheapo service deliberately.

On 12/08/2014 10:05, Peter Crosland wrote:
Amazon offer free delivery for item costing over £10. I ordered two
widgets that were shown as being in stock. If I had been willing to pay
I could have had them delivered the next day. As it was not urgent I
chose the free option. These in stock items were not despatched until
four days after ordering them. I just wonder what benefit Amazon gain
from delaying despatch. Is it because they hope you will pay extra or is
there some other reason that I have not realised? Just curious!

At a guess it has nothing to do with delivery but staff utilisation. The
staff at the Amazon warehouse will pick orders beginning with the ones
that have paid for next day delivery. When they have finished them then
if any more next day orders have come in they will go back and do those
first. Only if there are no more next day delivery orders to pick will
the pick yours.

There is probably also something in the system that prevents your order
sitting waiting for four weeks or more at times of high orders like
Christmas. Say, if your order has still not been picked after five day
then put it in the next day queue.

GB wrote:

I found that Amazon were usually quite good about delivering early,
but yes if they want you to pay extra for next day delivery they have to
hold up the cheapo service deliberately.

Certainly I have had occasions where I've not paid extra for quicker
delivery, yet it has arrived at first class speeds.

In article ,
Peter Crosland wrote:
Amazon offer free delivery for item costing over £10. I ordered two
widgets that were shown as being in stock. If I had been willing to pay
I could have had them delivered the next day. As it was not urgent I
chose the free option. These in stock items were not despatched until
four days after ordering them. I just wonder what benefit Amazon gain
from delaying despatch. Is it because they hope you will pay extra or is
there some other reason that I have not realised? Just curious!


Your parcel gets put in a queue for picking based largely on space on
dispatch vehicles (they ship a known number of lorry loads a day with
various carriers). Free delivery gets fitted into an available slot once
the paid for options have been scheduled. Once it gets to some time after
ordering (IIRC, it's 4 days) if you've still not been scheduled onto a
truck then you get a position in the queue to ensure it's not always stuck
in waiting state.

If they are quiet, or you are ordering something that happens to fit with
a particular courier well (lithium battery containing products often jump
the queue for example) then you'll get it early. If you want a promise of
early dispatch then you pay. If you feel lucky, you wait :-)

What annoys me is that I (with a prime membership) can't select a delivery
day. Orders are automatically delivered next day, but often I want to order
something for delivery "the day after next". Not an option :-(

Darren

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:31:16 +0000, D.M.Chapman wrote:

What annoys me is that I (with a prime membership) can't select a
delivery day. Orders are automatically delivered next day, but often I
want to order something for delivery "the day after next". Not an option
:-(

Order it the following day?

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:27:03 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

What I don't like is that Amazon won't allow you to set free delivery as
your default. You have to select it for every purchase.

I wonder why they might possibly want to do that...? scratches head,
genuinely baffled

In message , Adrian
writes
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:27:03 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

What I don't like is that Amazon won't allow you to set free delivery as
your default. You have to select it for every purchase.

I wonder why they might possibly want to do that...? scratches head,
genuinely baffled

Another annoyance... if you have card details stored, there appears to
be no way of paying via a different card.

--
Tim Lamb

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:54:45 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:

Another annoyance... if you have card details stored, there appears to
be no way of paying via a different card.

Add another card to your account, you then get offered a choice of
which card to use? Mine has my CC and daughters DC for when she wants
to buy music.

--
Cheers
Dave.

D.M.Chapman wrote:

What annoys me is that I (with a prime membership) can't select a delivery
day. Orders are automatically delivered next day, but often I want to order
something for delivery "the day after next". Not an option :-(

Order it tomorrow ... simples ;-)

On 8/12/2014 6:54 AM, Tim Lamb wrote:
writes
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:27:03 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:
What I don't like is that Amazon won't allow you to set free delivery as
your default. You have to select it for every purchase.
I wonder why they might possibly want to do that...? scratches head,
genuinely baffled

Another annoyance... if you have card details stored, there appears to
be no way of paying via a different card.

Really?
I have a number of cards (business and personal) registered with them,
and three different addresses (in two countries)- I've had no trouble
choosing how to pay and where to ship, when checking out.

In message , S Viemeister
writes
On 8/12/2014 6:54 AM, Tim Lamb wrote:
writes
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:27:03 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:
What I don't like is that Amazon won't allow you to set free delivery as
your default. You have to select it for every purchase.
I wonder why they might possibly want to do that...? scratches head,
genuinely baffled

Another annoyance... if you have card details stored, there appears to
be no way of paying via a different card.

Really?
I have a number of cards (business and personal) registered with them,
and three different addresses (in two countries)- I've had no trouble
choosing how to pay and where to ship, when checking out.

As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

--
Tim Lamb

On 12/08/14 10:27, Mike Barnes wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote:
Amazon offer free delivery for item costing over £10. I ordered two
widgets that were shown as being in stock. If I had been willing to pay
I could have had them delivered the next day. As it was not urgent I
chose the free option. These in stock items were not despatched until
four days after ordering them. I just wonder what benefit Amazon gain
from delaying despatch. Is it because they hope you will pay extra or is
there some other reason that I have not realised? Just curious!

I always select free delivery and the time varies greatly - sometimes
it's next day. I think it depends on how busy they are and various
random factors.

What I don't like is that Amazon won't allow you to set free delivery as
your default. You have to select it for every purchase.

Remember the vast majority of stuff on amazon is not actually from
amazon: they do the shop site, the payment processing and underwrite the
transaction BUT the stuff is being shipped from 'man in a shed'
operations quite often.


I had to wait 2 weeks for one part. I guess the guy actually made it
specially



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 12/08/14 11:54, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Adrian
writes
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:27:03 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

What I don't like is that Amazon won't allow you to set free delivery as
your default. You have to select it for every purchase.

I wonder why they might possibly want to do that...? scratches head,
genuinely baffled

Another annoyance... if you have card details stored, there appears to
be no way of paying via a different card.

You add the new card to your customer account


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:26:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Remember the vast majority of stuff on amazon is not actually from
amazon: they do the shop site, the payment processing and underwrite the
transaction BUT the stuff is being shipped from 'man in a shed'
operations quite often.

There's three categories of stuff...

Sold by Amazon.
Sold and fulfilled by ManInShed.
Sold by ManInShed, fulfilled by Amazon.

On 12/08/2014 13:02, Tim Lamb wrote:
....
As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

You object to them meeting their statutory obligation to run the
business as profitably as possible?

--
Colin Bignell

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:05:32 AM UTC+1, Peter Crosland wrote:
Amazon offer free delivery for item costing over �10.

Probably worth pointing out that Amazon hiked the price of Prime to £79/year a few months ago, so watch out for it auto-renewing.

Not sure how they justified the previous price given that nothing ever turned up the next day...

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:49:52 AM UTC+1, Andrew May wrote:
On 12/08/2014 10:05, Peter Crosland wrote:

Amazon offer free delivery for item costing over �10. I ordered two
widgets that were shown as being in stock. If I had been willing to pay
I could have had them delivered the next day. As it was not urgent I
chose the free option. These in stock items were not despatched until
four days after ordering them. I just wonder what benefit Amazon gain
from delaying despatch. Is it because they hope you will pay extra or is
there some other reason that I have not realised? Just curious!

At a guess it has nothing to do with delivery but staff utilisation. The
staff at the Amazon warehouse will pick orders beginning with the ones
that have paid for next day delivery. When they have finished them then
if any more next day orders have come in they will go back and do those
first. Only if there are no more next day delivery orders to pick will
the pick yours.
There is probably also something in the system that prevents your order
sitting waiting for four weeks or more at times of high orders like
Christmas. Say, if your order has still not been picked after five day
then put it in the next day queue.

Robots rather than staff though.


NT

wrote:

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:49:52 AM UTC+1, Andrew May wrote:

At a guess it has nothing to do with delivery but staff utilisation. The
staff at the Amazon warehouse will pick orders beginning with the ones
that have paid for next day delivery.

Robots rather than staff though.

no, staff as robots ...

http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...an-robots.html

On 12/08/2014 15:02, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:41:00 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

On 12/08/2014 13:02, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

You object to them meeting their statutory obligation to run the
business as profitably as possible?

I was shot down in flames, on another forum when I made that observation.
Apparently it's a myth ....


Only to those who wish to believe otherwise, or, to be generous, are not
familiar with the latest legislation. The duty was introduced in the
Companies Act 2006.

Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 requires a director of a company
to act in the way he considers would be most likely to promote the
success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. It
also requires directors to act in the interests of the creditors of the
company. This, effectively, means that the directors have a statutory
duty to run the business as profitably as possible.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Jethro_uk writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:41:00 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

On 12/08/2014 13:02, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

You object to them meeting their statutory obligation to run the
business as profitably as possible?

I was shot down in flames, on another forum when I made that observation.
Apparently it's a myth ....

Depends on the country, but as a US company, the shareholders can
sue the directors if they deliberately don't run it as profitably
as possible.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 12/08/2014 13:02, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , S Viemeister
writes
On 8/12/2014 6:54 AM, Tim Lamb wrote:
writes
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:27:03 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:
What I don't like is that Amazon won't allow you to set free
delivery as
your default. You have to select it for every purchase.
I wonder why they might possibly want to do that...? scratches head,
genuinely baffled

Another annoyance... if you have card details stored, there appears to
be no way of paying via a different card.

Really?
I have a number of cards (business and personal) registered with them,
and three different addresses (in two countries)- I've had no trouble
choosing how to pay and where to ship, when checking out.

As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

If the Guvmint didn't waste so much money, people wouldn't mind paying
taxes.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 12/08/2014 13:02, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

You object to them meeting their statutory obligation to run the
business as profitably as possible?

I don't have any shares in Amazon. Their business model appears to
utilise the tax offsets for expansion investment as well as shunting
profit to the lowest tax domicile. Other existing businesses may be
disadvantaged by this activity so... yes:-)


--
Tim Lamb

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:51:19 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 requires a director of a company
to act in the way he considers would be most likely to promote the
success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. It
also requires directors to act in the interests of the creditors of the
company.

Yep.

This, effectively, means that the directors have a statutory duty to
run the business as profitably as possible.

Up to a point, Mr O'Leary...

There's a very strong argument that "the interests of the creditors" and
"the benefit of its members" are not _always_ best served by pushing for
ultimate short-term profitability. Brand reputation, long-term growth,
customer service - even corporate-social responsibility - could easily be
argued to be worth trading off profit for whilst still fulfilling those
goals.

On 12/08/2014 18:12, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:51:19 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 requires a director of a company
to act in the way he considers would be most likely to promote the
success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. It
also requires directors to act in the interests of the creditors of the
company.

Yep.

This, effectively, means that the directors have a statutory duty to
run the business as profitably as possible.

Up to a point, Mr O'Leary...

There's a very strong argument that "the interests of the creditors" and
"the benefit of its members" are not _always_ best served by pushing for
ultimate short-term profitability. Brand reputation, long-term growth,
customer service - even corporate-social responsibility - could easily be
argued to be worth trading off profit for whilst still fulfilling those
goals.


It might be argued that those are admirable goals, but I would think
that most shareholders would prefer short term (by which I mean 10 years
or less) gains.

--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Tim Lamb wrote

As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

You object to them meeting their statutory obligation
to run the business as profitably as possible?

Yes, when that involves rorting the tax system like Apple and Amazon do.

And there is no statutory obligation to run the business
as profitably as possible.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 15:02, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:41:00 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

On 12/08/2014 13:02, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

You object to them meeting their statutory obligation to run the
business as profitably as possible?

I was shot down in flames, on another forum when I made that observation.
Apparently it's a myth ....


Only to those who wish to believe otherwise, or, to be generous, are not
familiar with the latest legislation. The duty was introduced in the
Companies Act 2006.

Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 requires a director of a company to
act in the way he considers would be most likely to promote the success of
the company for the benefit of its members as a whole.

Which is not the same thing as running the business
as profitably as possible by rorting the tax system.

It also requires directors to act in the interests of the creditors of the
company. This, effectively, means that the directors have a statutory duty
to run the business as profitably as possible.

Bull****. ALL it requires is that they run the operation at a profit,
which is NOT the same thing as as profitably as possible.

They are welcome for example to make donations to charitys etc.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:51:19 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 requires a director of a company
to act in the way he considers would be most likely to promote the
success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. It
also requires directors to act in the interests of the creditors of the
company.

Yep.

This, effectively, means that the directors have a statutory duty to
run the business as profitably as possible.

Up to a point, Mr O'Leary...

There's a very strong argument that "the interests of the creditors" and
"the benefit of its members" are not _always_ best served by pushing for
ultimate short-term profitability. Brand reputation, long-term growth,
customer service - even corporate-social responsibility - could easily be
argued to be worth trading off profit for whilst still fulfilling those
goals.


It might be argued that those are admirable goals, but I would think that
most shareholders would prefer short term (by which I mean 10 years or
less) gains.

What they might or might not prefer is an entirely separate matter
to your claim about what Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006
requires them to do.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jethro_uk writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:41:00 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

On 12/08/2014 13:02, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

You object to them meeting their statutory obligation to run the
business as profitably as possible?

I was shot down in flames, on another forum when I made that observation.
Apparently it's a myth ....

Depends on the country, but as a US company, the shareholders can
sue the directors if they deliberately don't run it as profitably
as possible.

They can sue them for anything at all. Whether
they win or not is a separate matter entirely.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 13:02, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , S Viemeister
writes
On 8/12/2014 6:54 AM, Tim Lamb wrote:
writes
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:27:03 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:
What I don't like is that Amazon won't allow you to set free
delivery as
your default. You have to select it for every purchase.
I wonder why they might possibly want to do that...? scratches head,
genuinely baffled

Another annoyance... if you have card details stored, there appears to
be no way of paying via a different card.

Really?
I have a number of cards (business and personal) registered with them,
and three different addresses (in two countries)- I've had no trouble
choosing how to pay and where to ship, when checking out.

As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

If the Guvmint didn't waste so much money, people wouldn't mind paying
taxes.

Bull****. People always do mind paying taxes, even when its used
efficiently.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
D.M.Chapman wrote:

What annoys me is that I (with a prime membership) can't select a delivery
day. Orders are automatically delivered next day, but often I want to order
something for delivery "the day after next". Not an option :-(

Order it tomorrow ... simples ;-)

Hah, but the price has often gone up again then.

http://uk.camelcamelcamel.com/ is interesting to show just how much
amazon move their pricing around...

wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:49:52 AM UTC+1, Andrew May wrote:
On 12/08/2014 10:05, Peter Crosland wrote:

Amazon offer free delivery for item costing over �10. I ordered two
widgets that were shown as being in stock. If I had been willing to pay
I could have had them delivered the next day. As it was not urgent I
chose the free option. These in stock items were not despatched until
four days after ordering them. I just wonder what benefit Amazon gain
from delaying despatch. Is it because they hope you will pay extra or
is
there some other reason that I have not realised? Just curious!

At a guess it has nothing to do with delivery but staff utilisation. The
staff at the Amazon warehouse will pick orders beginning with the ones
that have paid for next day delivery. When they have finished them then
if any more next day orders have come in they will go back and do those
first. Only if there are no more next day delivery orders to pick will
the pick yours.
There is probably also something in the system that prevents your order
sitting waiting for four weeks or more at times of high orders like
Christmas. Say, if your order has still not been picked after five day
then put it in the next day queue.

Robots rather than staff though.

Has anyone found any logic in the way china does things post wise ?

They are amazingly cheap, lots of small stuff is available for just $1
total cost including the postage. But with a real downside that it
can often take 3-4 weeks to arrive. What is in it for china post to
have the stuff sitting around for that long in some warehouse ?

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 6:49:34 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
It might be argued that those are admirable goals, but I would think
that most shareholders would prefer short term (by which I mean 10 years
or less) gains.

That's still longer-term planning than most governments engage in (i.e. until the next election).

Owain

On 12/08/2014 20:16, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Tim Lamb wrote

As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

You object to them meeting their statutory obligation to run the
business as profitably as possible?

Yes, when that involves rorting the tax system like Apple and Amazon do.

What they do is perfectly legal. If a few people don't like it, then
they need to get the law changed.

--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Tim Lamb wrote

As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance ethics.

You object to them meeting their statutory obligation to run the
business as profitably as possible?

Yes, when that involves rorting the tax system like Apple and Amazon do.

What they do is perfectly legal.

That is very arguable indeed when they claim that they are
producing their taxable income in low income tax jurisdictions
with transfer pricing and claiming to be flogging IP to their
operations in those when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.

If a few people don't like it, then they need to get the law changed.

It isnt even possible to make that illegal.

On 13/08/2014 00:14, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Tim Lamb wrote

As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance
ethics.

You object to them meeting their statutory obligation to run the
business as profitably as possible?

Yes, when that involves rorting the tax system like Apple and Amazon do.

What they do is perfectly legal.

That is very arguable indeed when they claim that they are
producing their taxable income in low income tax jurisdictions
with transfer pricing and claiming to be flogging IP to their
operations in those when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.

If what they are doing were illegal, HMRC would be prosecuting them.

If a few people don't like it, then they need to get the law changed.

It isnt even possible to make that illegal.

It is perfectly possible to change the taxation system.

--
Colin Bignell

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:05:32 +0100, Peter Crosland wrote:

Amazon offer free delivery for item costing over £10. I ordered two
widgets that were shown as being in stock. If I had been willing to pay
I could have had them delivered the next day. As it was not urgent I
chose the free option. These in stock items were not despatched until
four days after ordering them. I just wonder what benefit Amazon gain
from delaying despatch. Is it because they hope you will pay extra or is
there some other reason that I have not realised? Just curious!

I think it's more to do with whether it makes up a full van/lorry.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 13/08/2014 00:14, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Tim Lamb wrote

As Dave says... you have to register the other card before placing
the
order. I try to avoid using them because of their tax avoidance
ethics.

You object to them meeting their statutory obligation to run the
business as profitably as possible?

Yes, when that involves rorting the tax system like Apple and Amazon
do.

What they do is perfectly legal.

That is very arguable indeed when they claim that they are
producing their taxable income in low income tax jurisdictions
with transfer pricing and claiming to be flogging IP to their
operations in those when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.

If what they are doing were illegal, HMRC would be prosecuting them.

Duh. It isnt even possible to make what they are doing illegal.

If a few people don't like it, then they need to get the law changed.

It isnt even possible to make that illegal.

It is perfectly possible to change the taxation system.

But not to make that particularly flagrant
tax avoidance unethical practice illegal.