On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:26:01 +0100, PL wrote:

I thought the Local Authority was responsible
for street naming and numbering and that the PO was, perhaps, just a
consultee in the process.

It is. However no-one these days cares about what the place is really
called, they care about what the PO has called it in the PAF. If you're
not in the PO's database, then you no longer exist.

I live in a house that used to be a house over a shop (physically it
still is). When the shop ceased to be commercial for council tax
purposes, the PO managed to delete the entire address and place a gap on
the terraced street. Bank accounts were no longer openable here, various
sorts of ecommerce checks no longer worked. A damn nuisance all round,
yet the PO were uninterested in doing anything about it.

The message
from Andy Dingley contains these words:

I live in a house that used to be a house over a shop (physically it
still is). When the shop ceased to be commercial for council tax
purposes, the PO managed to delete the entire address and place a gap on
the terraced street. Bank accounts were no longer openable here, various
sorts of ecommerce checks no longer worked. A damn nuisance all round,
yet the PO were uninterested in doing anything about it.

The Royal Mail database uprooted my house (not physically obviously) and
plonked it down in a different road with a different postcode. Judging
by the the postcode they moved it about a quarter of a mile. When
challenged they claimed not to know who provided them with the bogus
information but said it must have been someone they trusted. The said
trustees could have been the Dept of Environment in their guise as TV
licence enforcers who bombarded my house name under yet another road
address* with threats for more than a decade.

They did however modify the address on the database at my request and I
actually ended up with a more informative address than the one I should
have. Now I have an address in the form of house name, road, parish,
town. The local authority had previously refused to include the road in
the address presumably on the grounds that the road wasn't actually in
the same parish as the house so now it is only official communications
such as polling cards that turn up sans road reference. OTOH I do
occasionally still get mail addressed to the bogus address despite the
false address being removed from the database in 1998.

*That at least was the name they had resurrected for a small group of
also unnumbered houses that are my closest neighbours on my side of the
road. Incidentally that renaming had put another neighbours nose out of
joint as said name was the name of their house on an adjacent road.

--
Roger Chapman

On 29 Apr, 03:38, "bluebell" wrote:

By the way the issue is not so much with the post man who does seem to know
where I am. Its other deliveries - parceline, TNT etc. But it seems they
have more trade that the postie these days.
It was in fact the post man who told me that there was another house - or
two - with my name to cause confusion.

I changed the name of my house by emailing my District Council. I then
sent another email confirming the details were correct after they had
checked there was no conflicting name in my village. If you give your
local planning department a call, they will be able to tell you who to
contact. You then have to do all your utilities/accounts etc. but it
will eventually work its way through the system.

Regards

T

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-01, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:26:01 +0100, PL wrote:

I thought the Local Authority was responsible
for street naming and numbering and that the PO was, perhaps, just a
consultee in the process.

It is. However no-one these days cares about what the place is really
called, they care about what the PO has called it in the PAF. If you're
not in the PO's database, then you no longer exist.

Or if it's wrong in the PAF, you're screwed. Apart from living in
a house with no number off a lane with no name, the PAF is wrong for
our house. The address should be;

{house name}
{street name}
{village name}
{nearbye town}
{county}

But they omit the village, causing enormous confusion. It's a wonder
we ever get any mail at all,

You obviously believe thatt 'where_I_ Live' is the reason for the PAF data;
however that's _not_ its purpose -the PAF is actually 'How does the RM
deliver something to my house' data.
The two sets of data -referring, to one house, - are different; compiled for
different reasons.

[In my case, I live approx 400 yards from the county border. I pay my
'county' taxes to the county council somewere about fifty miles away, as far
as they're concerned my address is $town, $County - but to the PAF it's
$next-door-(postal sorting)-town; $Next-door-county.]

It's a mistake to think that your 'postal address' should bear any relevance
to geography. However for the majority of the population its 'close enough
for government work'!

--

Brian

In uk.d-i-y, Huge wrote:
Apart from living in
a house with no number off a lane with no name, the PAF is wrong for
our house. The address should be;

{house name}
{street name}
{village name}
{nearbye town}
{county}

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the county is
not part of anyone's postal address. Not in England, anyway.

--
Mike Barnes

In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Huge wrote:
Apart from living in
a house with no number off a lane with no name, the PAF is wrong for
our house. The address should be;

{house name}
{street name}
{village name}
{nearbye town}
{county}

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the county is
not part of anyone's postal address. Not in England, anyway.

It really annoys me when the county is a compulsory field in an online
address thingie. Given I live in London.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 01 May 2007 22:44:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Huge wrote:
Apart from living in
a house with no number off a lane with no name, the PAF is wrong for
our house. The address should be;

{house name}
{street name}
{village name}
{nearbye town}
{county}

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the county is
not part of anyone's postal address. Not in England, anyway.

It really annoys me when the county is a compulsory field in an online
address thingie. Given I live in London.

Middlesex, innit.

All I do in a compulsory field is put a full stop, which is usually
accepted.

--
Frank Erskine

In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
It really annoys me when the county is a compulsory field in an online
address thingie. Given I live in London.

Middlesex, innit.

All of it? You live and learn.

All I do in a compulsory field is put a full stop, which is usually
accepted.

Ah.

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
I always stick to what is in the royal mail postal addess book -- number
(or name), street, postal town, postcode. This seems generally to work
well.

Most computer databases identify your house by simply postcode and number.
Dunno about those houses with no number. Moving to one that has might be
the answer.

--
*Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
All I do in a compulsory field is put a full stop, which is usually
accepted.

A space is usually sufficient, and usually results in that line being
omitted from the address.

Ah - again. I'll try that one too.

--
*Middle age is when work is a lot less fun - and fun a lot more work.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
All I do in a compulsory field is put a full stop, which is usually
accepted.

A space is usually sufficient, and usually results in that line being
omitted from the address.

Ah - again. I'll try that one too.

Don't you just hate those occasional 'intelligent' systems which try
really hard to stop you from omitting your phone number?

First, you just skip the field - result: invalid entry.
Next you enter "exdirectory" - sorry, try again. Grrr.
So you try 00000000000000. Nope.
Next up: 00000 000000. Yawn.
Then 01000 000000. Bzzzt!
Then 01302 000000. Nooooooooo!

And finally in despair you end up submitting "01302 234756", where
234456 is a random number which will cause the company to waste their
time phoning the poor sod who owns it.

Why can't they just accept that it's totally impossible to force people
to submit their number against their will?

In uk.d-i-y, Lobster wrote:
Don't you just hate those occasional 'intelligent' systems which try
really hard to stop you from omitting your phone number?

First, you just skip the field - result: invalid entry.
Next you enter "exdirectory" - sorry, try again. Grrr.
So you try 00000000000000. Nope.
Next up: 00000 000000. Yawn.
Then 01000 000000. Bzzzt!
Then 01302 000000. Nooooooooo!

And finally in despair you end up submitting "01302 234756", where
234456 is a random number which will cause the company to waste their
time phoning the poor sod who owns it.

Why can't they just accept that it's totally impossible to force people
to submit their number against their will?

I've not come across one of those. Have you tried entering *their* phone
number?

I hate online forms where you're required to specify a title. What's the
point?

--
Mike Barnes

On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:06:41 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
All I do in a compulsory field is put a full stop, which is usually
accepted.

A space is usually sufficient, and usually results in that line being
omitted from the address.

Ah - again. I'll try that one too.

Don't you just hate those occasional 'intelligent' systems which try
really hard to stop you from omitting your phone number?

Some 'intelligent' ones insist on a county, but won't accept anything
but the putative one that it's programmed with...

--
Frank Erskine

On 2007-05-02 10:37:59 +0100, Mike Barnes said:

In uk.d-i-y, Lobster wrote:
Don't you just hate those occasional 'intelligent' systems which try
really hard to stop you from omitting your phone number?

First, you just skip the field - result: invalid entry.
Next you enter "exdirectory" - sorry, try again. Grrr.
So you try 00000000000000. Nope.
Next up: 00000 000000. Yawn.
Then 01000 000000. Bzzzt!
Then 01302 000000. Nooooooooo!

And finally in despair you end up submitting "01302 234756", where
234456 is a random number which will cause the company to waste their
time phoning the poor sod who owns it.

Why can't they just accept that it's totally impossible to force people
to submit their number against their will?

I've not come across one of those. Have you tried entering *their* phone
number?

I hate online forms where you're required to specify a title. What's the
point?

One might actually *have* a title....

On 2007-05-02 13:46:04 +0100, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
I hate online forms where you're required to specify a title. What's the
point?
One might actually *have* a title....

One does, but one only uses it for TV licensing.

Revd Owain.

Wee Free?

On 2007-05-02 17:14:34 +0100, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
Revd Owain.
Wee Free?

Free, but with 20 million Ministers, not wee. (And if you want to be
Master Of Wicca, not free.) Quite a lot of us at
http://www.themonastery.org/

Owain

Yes but you don't get to kiss any rings....

On Wed, 2 May 2007 17:37:43 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-02 17:14:34 +0100, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
Revd Owain.
Wee Free?

Free, but with 20 million Ministers, not wee. (And if you want to be
Master Of Wicca, not free.) Quite a lot of us at
http://www.themonastery.org/

Owain

Yes but you don't get to kiss any rings....

Want a bet? You get some strange things in those woods at night!

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-02 10:37:59 +0100, Mike Barnes said:

In uk.d-i-y, Lobster wrote:
Don't you just hate those occasional 'intelligent' systems which try
really hard to stop you from omitting your phone number?

First, you just skip the field - result: invalid entry.
Next you enter "exdirectory" - sorry, try again. Grrr.
So you try 00000000000000. Nope.
Next up: 00000 000000. Yawn.
Then 01000 000000. Bzzzt!
Then 01302 000000. Nooooooooo!

And finally in despair you end up submitting "01302 234756", where
234456 is a random number which will cause the company to waste their
time phoning the poor sod who owns it.

Why can't they just accept that it's totally impossible to force people
to submit their number against their will?

I've not come across one of those. Have you tried entering *their* phone
number?

I hate online forms where you're required to specify a title. What's the
point?

One might actually *have* a title....

Oh yes... IIRC it's *Lord* Hall, isn't it ;-)

BTW you-know-who seems awful quiet these days doesn't he?

On 2007-05-02 18:59:25 +0100, Lobster said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-02 10:37:59 +0100, Mike Barnes said:

In uk.d-i-y, Lobster wrote:
Don't you just hate those occasional 'intelligent' systems which try
really hard to stop you from omitting your phone number?

First, you just skip the field - result: invalid entry.
Next you enter "exdirectory" - sorry, try again. Grrr.
So you try 00000000000000. Nope.
Next up: 00000 000000. Yawn.
Then 01000 000000. Bzzzt!
Then 01302 000000. Nooooooooo!

And finally in despair you end up submitting "01302 234756", where
234456 is a random number which will cause the company to waste their
time phoning the poor sod who owns it.

Why can't they just accept that it's totally impossible to force people
to submit their number against their will?

I've not come across one of those. Have you tried entering *their* phone
number?

I hate online forms where you're required to specify a title. What's the
point?

One might actually *have* a title....

Oh yes... IIRC it's *Lord* Hall, isn't it ;-)

According to someone, yes.



BTW you-know-who seems awful quiet these days doesn't he?

Yes. Perhaps he sold an awful lot of combis with magnetic sludge
extractors. Either that, or the boys in his shop have had a whip round
for a round the world tour.

On 2007-05-02 22:10:52 +0100, NRH said:

Huge wrote:

A damn nuisance all round,
yet the PO were uninterested in doing anything about it.

Why should they GAS? They're a State sponsored monopoly.

Wait until they've been run out of business by private competition,
and you've got three or four purely business oriented competitors
delivering all the post.

That will be excellent.


It'll be nothing but high-priced deliveries
and junk mail, you can be sure of that!

Not exactly. The *really* junk mail stuff will be priced out of the
market and will be more likely to be delivered along with the local
newspapers.

Other deliveries *should* cost more.


Two thirds of the problem with the Royal Mail/Post Office is that it
still has a public sector mentality.

The remaining third is that not enough is charged for a decent service.

There is virtually zero chance of changing the culture of Royal
mail/Post Office, so it might as well be left to take its own natual
path to oblivion. If that can be accelerated, then all to the good.

Once the market has been left to complete its natural course, as it
inevitably will, only items that *need* to be printed and delivered
will be and there will be an obvious incentive for everything else to
be handled electronically. Useless junk mail like cheques, bank
statements and all the rest of it can easily be eliminated tomorrow.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Two thirds of the problem with the Royal Mail/Post Office is that it
still has a public sector mentality.

The remaining third is that not enough is charged for a decent service.

There is virtually zero chance of changing the culture of Royal
mail/Post Office, so it might as well be left to take its own natual
path to oblivion. If that can be accelerated, then all to the good.

I think you're being unfair. I get a good service from Royal Mail -
considering their regulation and the requirement to carry any mail
anywhere at a fixed price. Much better than some of the private couriers.
Of course I'm not including Parcel Force in this...

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Oh yes... IIRC it's *Lord* Hall, isn't it ;-)

According to someone, yes.



BTW you-know-who seems awful quiet these days doesn't he?

Yes. Perhaps he sold an awful lot of combis with magnetic sludge
extractors. Either that, or the boys in his shop have had a whip round
for a round the world tour.

Well, he did sort of semi crack up some months back if you remember him
threatening to set the police on me. Or something like that. Perhaps he's
finally flipped. But he seems to have a worthy successor in 'timegoesby'.

--
*I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Oh yes... IIRC it's *Lord* Hall, isn't it ;-)

According to someone, yes.



BTW you-know-who seems awful quiet these days doesn't he?

Yes. Perhaps he sold an awful lot of combis with magnetic sludge
extractors. Either that, or the boys in his shop have had a whip round
for a round the world tour.

Well, he did sort of semi crack up some months back if you remember him
threatening to set the police on me. Or something like that. Perhaps he's
finally flipped. But he seems to have a worthy successor in 'timegoesby'.

Really ...

no, he/she/it is a complete amateur in comparison

Maybe dIMM actually has a Prius and the batteries exploded

.... but, let's face it, more likely, he's been sectioned


--
geoff

On 2007-05-02 23:53:26 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Two thirds of the problem with the Royal Mail/Post Office is that it
still has a public sector mentality.

The remaining third is that not enough is charged for a decent service.

There is virtually zero chance of changing the culture of Royal
mail/Post Office, so it might as well be left to take its own natual
path to oblivion. If that can be accelerated, then all to the good.

I think you're being unfair. I get a good service from Royal Mail -
considering their regulation and the requirement to carry any mail
anywhere at a fixed price.

That was really the third of the problem - that requirement doesn't make sense.

Much better than some of the private couriers.
Of course I'm not including Parcel Force in this...

If I actually look at what I get delivered by Royal Mail vs. what comes
delivered by courier, there is very little indeed that RM delivers that
actually *needs* to be delivered in physical form.

In a typical week I get:

- A few magazines that I actually want. Actually I do like to have
the hard copies of these but secured PDFs available on line would be
fine.

- Bank and credit card statements. Investment statements. All of
these can be provided on line. Amex already does this and doesn't send
paper. My bank sends printed statements. I shred them because the
same is available on line

- Utility bills. I have asked BT to stop sending paper. They have
not managed this quite yet

- Government communications, e.g. tax documents, local authority stuff.
None of this is needed in paper form.

- Political pamphlets

- Junk mail

90% plus of all of this lot goes into the rubbish with some via the shredder.

I am struggling to find what actually *needs* to be delivered by Royal
Mail. It's a complete disaster involving them in anything that
involves importation - that wastes far too much time because of their
procedures for doing it.

When it comes to delivery of goods, I specifically choose suppliers who
don't use Royal Mail or Parcelfarce if at all possible or specify that
these carriers are not to be used.

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:

- Political pamphlets

- Junk mail

I can never tell the difference.

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-02 23:53:26 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Two thirds of the problem with the Royal Mail/Post Office is that it
still has a public sector mentality.

snip


In a typical week I get:

- A few magazines that I actually want. Actually I do like to have the
hard copies of these but secured PDFs available on line would be fine.

- Bank and credit card statements. Investment statements. All of these
can be provided on line. Amex already does this and doesn't send paper.
My bank sends printed statements. I shred them because the same is
available on line

- Utility bills. I have asked BT to stop sending paper. They have not
managed this quite yet

- Government communications, e.g. tax documents, local authority stuff.
None of this is needed in paper form.

- Political pamphlets

- Junk mail

90% plus of all of this lot goes into the rubbish with some via the
shredder.

I am struggling to find what actually *needs* to be delivered by Royal
Mail. It's a complete disaster involving them in anything that involves
importation - that wastes far too much time because of their procedures
for doing it.

snip

Yonks ago; perhaps in the early sixties, I dimly recall a short story in
'Analog' (the SF magazine) the story concerned a worker (Male; Gamma, Block
NNNN, Cell YYYY) who'd had the temerity to write a genuine letter to an
worker (Female; Gamma; Block ZZZZ, cell XXXX) that he'd spotted and fancied
in the street. He was accused of crimes against the state because his hand
written envelope had 'broken' the automated mail system and completely
screwed up the distribution of 'Bank and Card statements'; 'Utility bills';
'Government Communications'; 'political pamphlets'; 'Junk Mail'; etc. etc.
.... !

Hang on! It's wasn't a SF story! It's (almost) happened!

--

Brian

Hi Brian
'Computers don't Argue', by Gordon Dickson?

http://www.dave.rainey.net/calendars.../process3.html


There's a story by Ray Bradbury which I'm also reminded of ... can't
remember the title tho'

Jon N

On Thu, 3 May 2007 08:23:03 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
I think you're being unfair. I get a good service from Royal Mail -
considering their regulation and the requirement to carry any mail
anywhere at a fixed price.

That was really the third of the problem - that requirement doesn't
make sense.

But is unlikely to change, notwithstanding that IIRC it can cost £8 for
a delivery to some isolated rural addresses. Labour aren't going to
upset the mail unions and the Conservative aren't going to tell their
rural supporters that anyone who lives in a settlement of less than
(say) 500 homes will have to pay a delivery surcharge or collect their
mail from the PO. Look at the press outcry over the closure of
uneconomic rural post offices.

Personally I think the PO does a pretty good job: we spent £2700 on
postages last year and the vast majority of first class items seem to
get delivered next day.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Thu, 3 May 2007 08:23:03 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

- A few magazines that I actually want. Actually I do like to have
the hard copies of these but secured PDFs available on line would be
fine.

I'm yet to come up with a satisfactory way of reading a magazine in
PDF format whilst in the bath.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 2007-05-03 13:30:40 +0100, Peter Parry said:

On Thu, 3 May 2007 08:23:03 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

- A few magazines that I actually want. Actually I do like to have
the hard copies of these but secured PDFs available on line would be
fine.

I'm yet to come up with a satisfactory way of reading a magazine in
PDF format whilst in the bath.

Easy. Touch screen tablet.

On 2007-05-03 13:24:43 +0100, Tony Bryer said:

On Thu, 3 May 2007 08:23:03 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
I think you're being unfair. I get a good service from Royal Mail -
considering their regulation and the requirement to carry any mail
anywhere at a fixed price.

That was really the third of the problem - that requirement doesn't
make sense.

But is unlikely to change, notwithstanding that IIRC it can cost £8 for
a delivery to some isolated rural addresses. Labour aren't going to
upset the mail unions and the Conservative aren't going to tell their
rural supporters that anyone who lives in a settlement of less than
(say) 500 homes will have to pay a delivery surcharge or collect their
mail from the PO.

True, but it still doesn't make sense.



Look at the press outcry over the closure of
uneconomic rural post offices.

Then the question arises as to whether they are meant to be a business
function or a social service.


Personally I think the PO does a pretty good job: we spent £2700 on
postages last year and the vast majority of first class items seem to
get delivered next day.

I'm a bit surprised at the need to send this much physical mail.

I spend about £2-300 tops with Royal Mail and most of that is for
having a PO Box and delivery from it. For the amount that gets used,
it isn't really worth keeping.

Everything else goes electronically if it's a document or a transaction
and all the rest by courier firm.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Look at the press outcry over the closure of
uneconomic rural post offices.

Then the question arises as to whether they are meant to be a business
function or a social service.

And that tends to be the problem with this modern world where profit is
all. Some services should be the same price throughout the country, and
post is one of them.

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 3 May 2007 15:32:35 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Easy. Touch screen tablet.

Tried that - you need the milspec version to be soap proof and they
are far too heavy. Not to mention the battery always runs out just
as you are settling into the second glass of wine and an interesting
article on machining titanium.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 2007-05-03 17:12:25 +0100, Peter Parry said:

On Thu, 3 May 2007 15:32:35 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Easy. Touch screen tablet.

Tried that - you need the milspec version to be soap proof and they
are far too heavy. Not to mention the battery always runs out just
as you are settling into the second glass of wine and an interesting
article on machining titanium.

I wasn't thinking of dunking it *in* the bath.....

"jkn" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Brian
'Computers don't Argue', by Gordon Dickson?

http://www.dave.rainey.net/calendars.../process3.html


No, it wasn't that one.
Although I do remember reading that one on its original publication ...
Ithought it was entitled 'DO NOT FOLD, STiPPLE OR MUTILATE', I recall
reading it on a night watch .... when 'valves' were incandescent and we'd
gather awe-struck at 19" racking with memory cores ferrite with 20
microsecond cycle times!
"Nah", we said 'it'll never happen!" Can anybody imagine a _Library_ being
able to afford a _computer_!".?


There's a story by Ray Bradbury which I'm also reminded of ... can't
remember the title tho'

Jon N


--

Brian

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-05-02 23:53:26 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:
I think you're being unfair. I get a good service from Royal Mail -
considering their regulation and the requirement to carry any mail
anywhere at a fixed price.

That was really the third of the problem - that requirement doesn't make sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense, but that is hardly Royal Mail's fault -
their contact stipulates that they (RM) have to deliver mail anywhere,
at the same price. The same stipulation does not apply to private
contractors/couriers. What is needed is a level playing field - then
see who copes and who fails.

Much better than some of the private couriers.
Of course I'm not including Parcel Force in this...

Please don't ...

If I actually look at what I get delivered by Royal Mail vs. what comes
delivered by courier, there is very little indeed that RM delivers that
actually *needs* to be delivered in physical form.

Andy, you are absolutely correct, but again, that is hardly the point.
RM deliver whatever they are paid to deliver. RM are not in place to
censor anyone's mail, and quietly remove the boring or unnecessary
stuff. Sometimes I wish they would :-)

Going off on a tangent, there are two problems. Firstly, the spread of
computerisation over the last twenty or so years, which we were assured
would lead to the paperless office, has created the exact opposite.
People now want hard copies of everything. Worse, people realise that
the same information is available in countless permutations, and again,
they want to see it. Hard copy. The amount of paper used by the
average office must have escalated immensely since everyone had a PC and
printer.

Second problem is that Joe Public *likes* everything in black and white.
The vast majority of people want a hard copy bill, or statement, whether
or not identical information is available in an electronic format.
People like to file these things away, for whatever reason.

In a typical week I get:

- A few magazines that I actually want. Actually I do like to have
the hard copies of these but secured PDFs available on line would be
fine.

I do like to keep back issues of certain magazines, for future
reference.

- Bank and credit card statements. Investment statements. All of
these can be provided on line. Amex already does this and doesn't send
paper. My bank sends printed statements. I shred them because the
same is available on line

Indeed. I like paper copies of bank statements when completing yearly
accounts, but am happy to print cheap copies at home, as and when
necessary. Much cheaper than paying the bank to print and post them.

- Utility bills. I have asked BT to stop sending paper. They have
not managed this quite yet

BT and Royal Mail Group are one and the same, in all but name ...

- Government communications, e.g. tax documents, local authority stuff.
None of this is needed in paper form.

I file my returns via the web, but still receive what feels like vast
amounts of bumph by post.

- Political pamphlets

Plenty of those in Scotland at the moment! I don't receive them, as I
don't have a letter box :-)

- Junk mail

You will see more of that in the future.

--
Graeme

On 2007-05-03 20:54:30 +0100, Graeme said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-05-02 23:53:26 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:
I think you're being unfair. I get a good service from Royal Mail -
considering their regulation and the requirement to carry any mail
anywhere at a fixed price.

That was really the third of the problem - that requirement doesn't make sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense, but that is hardly Royal Mail's fault
- their contact stipulates that they (RM) have to deliver mail
anywhere, at the same price. The same stipulation does not apply to
private contractors/couriers. What is needed is a level playing field
- then see who copes and who fails.

I think we already know the answer to that question. People in
outlying areas would pay the true economic cost of the service.




Much better than some of the private couriers.
Of course I'm not including Parcel Force in this...

Please don't ...

If I actually look at what I get delivered by Royal Mail vs. what comes
delivered by courier, there is very little indeed that RM delivers that
actually *needs* to be delivered in physical form.

Andy, you are absolutely correct, but again, that is hardly the point.
RM deliver whatever they are paid to deliver. RM are not in place to
censor anyone's mail, and quietly remove the boring or unnecessary
stuff. Sometimes I wish they would :-)

Which is a very good reason for escalating the pricing to a
commercially viable level.





Going off on a tangent, there are two problems. Firstly, the spread of
computerisation over the last twenty or so years, which we were assured
would lead to the paperless office, has created the exact opposite.
People now want hard copies of everything.

They do? I don't know of anybody. In fact I tend to avoid
organisations that generate it.


Worse, people realise that the same information is available in
countless permutations, and again, they want to see it. Hard copy.
The amount of paper used by the average office must have escalated
immensely since everyone had a PC and printer.

Second problem is that Joe Public *likes* everything in black and
white. The vast majority of people want a hard copy bill, or statement,
whether or not identical information is available in an electronic
format. People like to file these things away, for whatever reason.

Then it should cost them an economic price.






In a typical week I get:

- A few magazines that I actually want. Actually I do like to have
the hard copies of these but secured PDFs available on line would be
fine.

I do like to keep back issues of certain magazines, for future reference.

Yes and no. I keep some, but to be honest, get more value from buying
a DVD of articles.




- Bank and credit card statements. Investment statements. All of
these can be provided on line. Amex already does this and doesn't send
paper. My bank sends printed statements. I shred them because the
same is available on line

Indeed. I like paper copies of bank statements when completing yearly
accounts, but am happy to print cheap copies at home, as and when
necessary. Much cheaper than paying the bank to print and post them.

- Utility bills. I have asked BT to stop sending paper. They have
not managed this quite yet

BT and Royal Mail Group are one and the same, in all but name ...

- Government communications, e.g. tax documents, local authority stuff.
None of this is needed in paper form.

I file my returns via the web, but still receive what feels like vast
amounts of bumph by post.

I get the accountant to do that - he can do it whichever way he likes,
I don't really care.



- Political pamphlets

Plenty of those in Scotland at the moment! I don't receive them, as I
don't have a letter box :-)

- Junk mail

You will see more of that in the future.

Which is another reason for increasing the prices.

In article , Lobster wrote:
Don't you just hate those occasional 'intelligent' systems which try
really hard to stop you from omitting your phone number?

First, you just skip the field - result: invalid entry.
Next you enter "exdirectory" - sorry, try again. Grrr.
So you try 00000000000000. Nope.
Next up: 00000 000000. Yawn.
Then 01000 000000. Bzzzt!
Then 01302 000000. Nooooooooo!

And finally in despair you end up submitting "01302 234756", where
234456 is a random number which will cause the company to waste their
time phoning the poor sod who owns it.

When killing time at the bus station, or where ever else, pick up
the Daily Spurt or look in the "massage" classified ads in a convenient
paper. Pick a mobile or land line number.
Here's 2 from this week's Private Eye - 07776 473 166 ; 08865 557
233.
Or if you don't want to disturb the ladies in their hard work,
use the numbers for your local Mormons / JWs / Harri Krishnas or the
newspaper's newsdesk. Or the last place that you called for
dial-a-diahorrea.

--
Aidan
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Fri, 04 May 2007 01:27 +0100, but posted later.

In article , Huge wrote:
'phone told me "but everyone has a number". That really ****ed me
off. Anyhow, so far as AW are concerned, we're #100.

Unimaginative.
Hurt their system by giving them a number in hexadecimal. Or
binary. Or whatever the current holder of the title for "largest prime
number" is. 2^32,582,657 - 1 which is a number of almost 10 million
digits, increasing by a factor of about 10 every 8-or-so years. Maybe a
bit much.

--
Aidan
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Fri, 04 May 2007 01:40 +0100, but posted later.

In article , Owain wrote:
A google of the ofcom site should produce the "reserved for drama" phone
numbers - intended for use in TV/films - that can be used fairly safely
for fictional purposes.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/num_drama

--
Aidan
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Fri, 04 May 2007 01:54 +0100, but posted later.