Ordered a new battery from Draper's on-line store for my high power torch
Monday afternoon. It was in the porch Tuesday morning when I got up....

Now *that's* good service!

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

In message , The Wanderer
writes
Ordered a new battery from Draper's on-line store for my high power torch
Monday afternoon. It was in the porch Tuesday morning when I got up....

Now *that's* good service!

but as much due to the courier's delivery route as anything else

I offer next day delivery as standard, collected from me at some time
after 3pm. From then on, its out of my hands and in the hands of the
courier
--
geoff

geoff wrote:

but as much due to the courier's delivery route as anything else

I offer next day delivery as standard, collected from me at some time
after 3pm. From then on, its out of my hands and in the hands of the
courier

Exactly - some parcels will get there at 8.05am, others at 6pm, and a
few (about 2%) won't make it at all, and will take an extra day. All of
it is entirely beyond the control of the company which shipped it
(choice of courier not withstanding).

--
Grunff

talk about two f***in killjoys

bloody hell !

see these two when they win the lottery - well , its only a million . . .

good for draper in using decent couriers




"Grunff" wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:

but as much due to the courier's delivery route as anything else

I offer next day delivery as standard, collected from me at some time
after 3pm. From then on, its out of my hands and in the hands of the
courier

Exactly - some parcels will get there at 8.05am, others at 6pm, and a
few (about 2%) won't make it at all, and will take an extra day. All of
it is entirely beyond the control of the company which shipped it
(choice of courier not withstanding).

--
Grunff

In article ,
hoilday wrote:
talk about two f***in killjoys

bloody hell !

see these two when they win the lottery - well , its only a million . . .

good for draper in using decent couriers

I regularly get stuff *posted* just the day before. And if by any chance
I'm not in and can't arrange for a suitable delivery day, the local
sorting office is close - unlike most courier's places.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

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

On Sep 28, 2:25 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
hoilday wrote:

talk about two f***in killjoys
bloody hell !
see these two when they win the lottery - well , its only a million . . .
good for draper in using decent couriers

I regularly get stuff *posted* just the day before.

Indeed. The Royal Mail is much, and unfairly, maligned these days. The
millions who get their post on time every day just accept it. The
other few % would probably moan even if it did arrive on time.

MBQ

In article .com,
wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:25 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
hoilday wrote:

talk about two f***in killjoys
bloody hell !
see these two when they win the lottery - well , its only a million . . .
good for draper in using decent couriers

I regularly get stuff *posted* just the day before.

Indeed. The Royal Mail is much, and unfairly, maligned these days. The
millions who get their post on time every day just accept it. The
other few % would probably moan even if it did arrive on time.

I've got nothing but praise for RM - even although my delivery is now
later than it used to be. Luck of the draw - someone else locally will be
getting theirs early.
But I've got nothing but scorn for ParcelForce. How one side can be so
good and the other so bad I've no idea. Especially since it's the near
monopoly one which is good. Thought competition was meant to improve all
businesses.

--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *

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

On 2007-09-28 15:32:00 +0100, "
said:

On Sep 28, 2:25 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
hoilday wrote:

talk about two f***in killjoys
bloody hell !
see these two when they win the lottery - well , its only a million . . .
good for draper in using decent couriers

I regularly get stuff *posted* just the day before.

Indeed. The Royal Mail is much, and unfairly, maligned these days.

It's entirely fair to malign it. The organisation is a shambles with
staff who still seem to believe that they can withdraw their labour in
order to improve their lot when their employer is a fundamentally
broken business.

What is especially sad is that they seem not to realise that the
business model of the organisation for which they work will lead to its
demise in relatively short order. A decade ago, email
communication exceeded paper mail communication by a factor of ten to
one, yet these dinosaurs still seem to think that the world owes them a
living.


The
millions who get their post on time every day just accept it.

This would be the case if it were true.

Good service - i.e. delivered to the specification, should be an
expectation of the customer and the deliverer should not expect praise
for that. Outstanding service, way beyond what is promised, is
worthy of praise. Anything less than good service is worthy of
condemnation. It isn't a case of moaning, but a case of whether or
not the deliverer of the service does what they say they will do. If
they do deliver that, they should expect nothing apart from payment.
If they excel then they should be pleased if they receive accolades.
If they underdeliver, then they should not expect to get away with
excuses because there are none.



The
other few % would probably moan even if it did arrive on time.

MBQ

Andy Hall wrote:

It's entirely fair to malign it. The organisation is a shambles with
staff who still seem to believe that they can withdraw their labour in
order to improve their lot when their employer is a fundamentally
broken business.

And even when they are at work they CBA to work properly. The local one
simply dumps the mail if he's feeling a bit lazy, or sticks through any
old letterbox.

He doesn't deliver anything on Mondays, ever.

First post nowadays is usually about 2pm.

Andy Hall wrote:

It's entirely fair to malign it. The organisation is a shambles with
staff who still seem to believe that they can withdraw their labour in
order to improve their lot when their employer is a fundamentally broken
business.

I seem to spend far too much of my life these days comparing delivery
statistics of different carriers...


--
Grunff

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It's entirely fair to malign it. The organisation is a shambles with
staff who still seem to believe that they can withdraw their labour in
order to improve their lot when their employer is a fundamentally
broken business.

'Improve' their lot? Usually these days just trying to stand still.

I can't see any private firm wanting to take over RM's responsibilities -
providing post boxes etc and delivering to far flung locations. Plenty
will want the high volume stuff - and if they're allowed to have it simply
make the unprofitable bits of RM even more so.

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

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

On 2007-09-29 00:10:28 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It's entirely fair to malign it. The organisation is a shambles with
staff who still seem to believe that they can withdraw their labour in
order to improve their lot when their employer is a fundamentally
broken business.

'Improve' their lot? Usually these days just trying to stand still.

I can't see any private firm wanting to take over RM's responsibilities -
providing post boxes etc and delivering to far flung locations. Plenty
will want the high volume stuff - and if they're allowed to have it simply
make the unprofitable bits of RM even more so.

Exactly. They almost certainly wouldn't, and it's yet another
indication that the present position itself is untenable. If a
business is untenable, then so is that of its employees - they can't
expect even to stand still.

It indicates that it is really time to have a rethink about this so
called "responsibility" and to alter that.

The first point is that while there has been a proportional shift to
various kinds of electronic messaging, there is still much more that
could be moved to it. There is really no need to have paper
versions of utility bills, bank statements and all of that. People
who emotionally "need" a piece of paper for this can receive a PDF file
and print the result. So called "important" documents such as legal
documents and the like can go via a courier service. If they are
*that* important, they are not sensitive to a £5-10 delivery charge.

A significant proportion of material delivered by post is various kinds
of marketing material and junk mail. If the senders of that really
find it so important to send it, then again having a higher charge will
sort out how essential that really is.

Very little is left after that. Perhaps a few magazines on
subscription, not much more.

For the remote areas, there are already services such as postbuses.
Already well developed in other countries, they could be extended in
scope and address at least two issues at once. RM doesn't need to
operate those particularly either.

So the reality of the situation is that there isn't a need at all for
this imagined responsibility. Until that is realised, RM will
continue to decline into the inevitable abyss.

On 29 Sep, 05:17, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-09-29 00:10:28 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:

The first point is that while there has been a proportional shift to
various kinds of electronic messaging, there is still much more that
could be moved to it. There is really no need to have paper
versions of utility bills, bank statements and all of that. People
who emotionally "need" a piece of paper for this can receive a PDF file
and print the result. So called "important" documents such as legal
documents and the like can go via a courier service. If they are
*that* important, they are not sensitive to a £5-10 delivery charge.


I do agree with your comments generally, but there are still many
people who do not use a computer, or do but dont trust them, so
unfortunately there is going to be demand for paper post for some
time.

On 2007-09-29 09:19:31 +0100, geoffr said:

On 29 Sep, 05:17, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-09-29 00:10:28 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:

The first point is that while there has been a proportional shift to
various kinds of electronic messaging, there is still much more that
could be moved to it. There is really no need to have paper
versions of utility bills, bank statements and all of that. People
who emotionally "need" a piece of paper for this can receive a PDF file
and print the result. So called "important" documents such as legal
documents and the like can go via a courier service. If they are
*that* important, they are not sensitive to a £5-10 delivery charge.


I do agree with your comments generally, but there are still many
people who do not use a computer, or do but dont trust them, so
unfortunately there is going to be demand for paper post for some
time.

For the dwindling number of those, it would be cheaper to simply supply
a computer. This is being managed with inexpensive notebooks for
kids in the 3rd world after all.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I can't see any private firm wanting to take over RM's
responsibilities - providing post boxes etc and delivering to far
flung locations. Plenty will want the high volume stuff - and if
they're allowed to have it simply make the unprofitable bits of RM
even more so.

Exactly. They almost certainly wouldn't, and it's yet another
indication that the present position itself is untenable. If a
business is untenable, then so is that of its employees - they can't
expect even to stand still.

It indicates that it is really time to have a rethink about this so
called "responsibility" and to alter that.

The first point is that while there has been a proportional shift to
various kinds of electronic messaging, there is still much more that
could be moved to it. There is really no need to have paper
versions of utility bills, bank statements and all of that. People
who emotionally "need" a piece of paper for this can receive a PDF file
and print the result. So called "important" documents such as legal
documents and the like can go via a courier service. If they are
*that* important, they are not sensitive to a £5-10 delivery charge.

You may think this but I'd say most still want an important letter
delivered to their letterbox. Email etc is so full of junk and simply not
reliable enough for important stuff. It also relies on the user taking
action to receive that post. And then printing it out themselves if they
want hard copy.

A significant proportion of material delivered by post is various kinds
of marketing material and junk mail. If the senders of that really
find it so important to send it, then again having a higher charge will
sort out how essential that really is.

But bulk mail is very profitable. You may not like it - and few do - but
it's a different argument totally.

Very little is left after that. Perhaps a few magazines on
subscription, not much more.

For the remote areas, there are already services such as postbuses.
Already well developed in other countries, they could be extended in
scope and address at least two issues at once. RM doesn't need to
operate those particularly either.

RM doesn't need to exist at all. Leave it to private operators. With
water, railways, electricity, gas, telecoms etc they have proved to be
beyond any criticism and are only out to provide a service to the public.
Or in your dreams.

So the reality of the situation is that there isn't a need at all for
this imagined responsibility. Until that is realised, RM will
continue to decline into the inevitable abyss.

There's no way you'll get a choice of private operators giving the same
sort of delivery or collection service as RM. It would be split up into
districts so you'll end up with effectively a private monopoly replacing a
state one area by area. And this has proved in other areas to be simply no
better overall - after the initial flush of enthusiasm. Private firms can
be equally as badly managed as state ones and rely on their profits by
getting the staff in a labour intensive industry to work for less. Of
course this is great for those who don't see beyond the end of their nose
- but come a few years time when this workforce retires just who is going
to support them, since they'll not have had any company pension or the
spare money to provide for themselves. Etc.

--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

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

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:52:09 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

I do agree with your comments generally, but there are still many
people who do not use a computer, or do but dont trust them, so
unfortunately there is going to be demand for paper post for some
time.

For the dwindling number of those, it would be cheaper to simply supply
a computer. This is being managed with inexpensive notebooks for
kids in the 3rd world after all.

Intent on your crusade, you didn't read what he said. People who don't
trust a computer (and, I'd add, those who are too old or unable in other
ways to use one) are not going to be helped by supplying what, to them,
is a useless heap of junk. Not that your elitist approach entirely
surprises me...!

There are many relatively low value items that would be uneconomic to
send by courier.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I do agree with your comments generally, but there are still many
people who do not use a computer, or do but dont trust them, so
unfortunately there is going to be demand for paper post for some
time.

For the dwindling number of those, it would be cheaper to simply supply
a computer. This is being managed with inexpensive notebooks for
kids in the 3rd world after all.

Great. And get all their bank account etc details from them at a stroke
for the phishers.

Email and the net is a prime example of free unregulated communication.

Absolutely chock full of villains from all over the world trying to part
the unwary and their money. Because it costs nothing to mount a scam and
little is done to stop it.

You and I might see through such things. Those forced into using it
probably not.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

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

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:27:45 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


For the remote areas, there are already services such as postbuses.
Already well developed in other countries, they could be extended in
scope and address at least two issues at once. RM doesn't need to
operate those particularly either.

RM doesn't need to exist at all. Leave it to private operators. With
water, railways, electricity, gas, telecoms etc they have proved to be
beyond any criticism and are only out to provide a service to the public.
Or in your dreams.

So the reality of the situation is that there isn't a need at all for
this imagined responsibility. Until that is realised, RM will
continue to decline into the inevitable abyss.

There's no way you'll get a choice of private operators giving the same
sort of delivery or collection service as RM. It would be split up into
districts so you'll end up with effectively a private monopoly replacing a
state one area by area. And this has proved in other areas to be simply no
better overall - after the initial flush of enthusiasm. Private firms can
be equally as badly managed as state ones

They can and do go under.

Whereas our local Health Authority is effectively bankrupt, has been
for two years. The CEO had to leave his job and simply moved to head
up another Health Authority somewhere else.

and rely on their profits by
getting the staff in a labour intensive industry to work for less.

You are living in the past. Ca. 1955 I think.

Of
course this is great for those who don't see beyond the end of their nose
- but come a few years time when this workforce retires just who is going
to support them, since they'll not have had any company pension or the
spare money to provide for themselves. Etc.

Ach, away and don't talk pish.

For most people in this country the reason there is no such thing as
"spare money" is because being of sound mind it just gets spent on a
bigger car, a car for the wife, a more expensive holiday, a second
holiday etc etc. If a married couple have less than 190k (110k for a
single individual) in a pension fund then they are not better off one
iota for foregoing that spending when they would have been young
enough to enjoy it. This is because of this governments idiotic
"Pension Credits" scheme.

DG

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:25:02 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

It's entirely fair to malign it. The organisation is a shambles with
staff who still seem to believe that they can withdraw their labour in
order to improve their lot when their employer is a fundamentally
broken business.

And even when they are at work they CBA to work properly.

Just this week noticed a small label attached to our local postbox.
"As of first of October collections on Sundays and Bank Holidays will
be discontinued". Well, thanks for telling us.

Not, I suspect that they did anything with the letters they collected
on Sundays anyway.

All the postboxes in Leeds used to bear a notice which said that a
later collection was made from the postbox at the sorting office in
Stourton. One Sunday evening I had an urgent letter to post (a sprog
wanted a cheque to put a deposit down on a flat) and drove out there,
it was a large crinkly tin factory type building. The postbox didn't
show any collection times so I asked the security guard, he said he'd
never heard of late collections from the box and the "factory" was
empty - nobody working. :-((

The local one
simply dumps the mail if he's feeling a bit lazy, or sticks through any
old letterbox.

Wife's cousin was a postie in Glasgow. He used to shove them all back
in the postbox if it looked as if his round was likely to impinge on
his drinking time.


He doesn't deliver anything on Mondays, ever.

First post nowadays is usually about 2pm.

DG

Andy Hall wrote:

For the remote areas, there are already services such as postbuses.
Already well developed in other countries, they could be extended in
scope and address at least two issues at once. RM doesn't need to
operate those particularly either.


The Royal Mail attempted to cancel my local PostBus this summer. There
was a major email, letter-writing, and telephoning campaign, and they
kept it, but made the times extremely inconvenient - this way, of
course, if ridership numbers go down, they can say the service obviously
isn't needed. They've already reduced capacity from 11 passengers to 4.
Well, they _claim_ 4, but three of them would need to be very skinny
to fit in the back seat without squishing. People have been left
standing at the stop when the 'bus' comes by, already full. It's NOT a
bus, it's a dinky little car. But for many people, this is the ONLY
available means of transportation.

In article ,
Derek Geldard wrote:
and rely on their profits by
getting the staff in a labour intensive industry to work for less.

You are living in the past. Ca. 1955 I think.

I was around in 1955, although not working yet. And I can assure you the
way how badly many firms now treat staff hadn't even been thought of.
There were phrases like the 'dignity of labour' and a 'fair days pay for a
fair day's work'. All gone for ever in this grab it now society.
Luckily I won't be around when the present lot of 30 somethings - both UK
born and EU immigrants - get to the point when they can no longer work.
Leaving those still working to support them or starve. Dickensian
conditions will seem a luxury.

--
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

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

In article ,
S Viemeister wrote:
For the remote areas, there are already services such as postbuses.
Already well developed in other countries, they could be extended in
scope and address at least two issues at once. RM doesn't need to
operate those particularly either.


The Royal Mail attempted to cancel my local PostBus this summer. There
was a major email, letter-writing, and telephoning campaign, and they
kept it, but made the times extremely inconvenient - this way, of
course, if ridership numbers go down, they can say the service obviously
isn't needed. They've already reduced capacity from 11 passengers to 4.
Well, they _claim_ 4, but three of them would need to be very skinny
to fit in the back seat without squishing. People have been left
standing at the stop when the 'bus' comes by, already full. It's NOT a
bus, it's a dinky little car. But for many people, this is the ONLY
available means of transportation.

But you and others like you don't matter. The idea of any form of public
service is an anathema to many. You are supposed to just go out and buy a
car.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

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

On 2007-09-29 10:27:45 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:

The first point is that while there has been a proportional shift to
various kinds of electronic messaging, there is still much more that
could be moved to it. There is really no need to have paper
versions of utility bills, bank statements and all of that. People
who emotionally "need" a piece of paper for this can receive a PDF file
and print the result. So called "important" documents such as legal
documents and the like can go via a courier service. If they are
*that* important, they are not sensitive to a £5-10 delivery charge.

You may think this but I'd say most still want an important letter
delivered to their letterbox. Email etc is so full of junk and simply not
reliable enough for important stuff.

That's easily fixable.


It also relies on the user taking
action to receive that post. And then printing it out themselves if they
want hard copy.

They have to go to the letter box as it is, so that's still taking an
action, and proof of delivery always costs more anyway.



A significant proportion of material delivered by post is various kinds
of marketing material and junk mail. If the senders of that really
find it so important to send it, then again having a higher charge will
sort out how essential that really is.

But bulk mail is very profitable. You may not like it - and few do - but
it's a different argument totally.

That's fine. If they believe that they can build a business on it,
good luck to them. However it is a different issue from any kind of
universal service commitment.



Very little is left after that. Perhaps a few magazines on
subscription, not much more.

For the remote areas, there are already services such as postbuses.
Already well developed in other countries, they could be extended in
scope and address at least two issues at once. RM doesn't need to
operate those particularly either.

RM doesn't need to exist at all.

I think that that's true and will come to pass eventually.


Leave it to private operators. With
water, railways, electricity, gas, telecoms etc they have proved to be
beyond any criticism and are only out to provide a service to the public.
Or in your dreams.

There isn't a need for a "public service". If there is a need for
something, people are willing to pay for it. If there isn't, then
there is no point in doing it. The discussion is then only about
the mechanism to pay. Clearly the users of a postal delivery service
should pay according to the true cost to provide it.



So the reality of the situation is that there isn't a need at all for
this imagined responsibility. Until that is realised, RM will
continue to decline into the inevitable abyss.

There's no way you'll get a choice of private operators giving the same
sort of delivery or collection service as RM.

I'm sure. Hence my point that if something isn't commercially
interesting to offer because people are not willin g to pay then it
shouldn't be offered.


It would be split up into
districts so you'll end up with effectively a private monopoly replacing a
state one area by area. And this has proved in other areas to be simply no
better overall - after the initial flush of enthusiasm. Private firms can
be equally as badly managed as state ones and rely on their profits by
getting the staff in a labour intensive industry to work for less.

Yes they can, or they can charge the economic rate for the service.
People would then consider whether paper delivery really is necessary
in comparison with electronic delivery.



Of
course this is great for those who don't see beyond the end of their nose
- but come a few years time when this workforce retires just who is going
to support them, since they'll not have had any company pension or the
spare money to provide for themselves. Etc.

This is not a justification for continuing to operate a non-viable
business. If that's going to happen, then we might as well return to
the days of state run subsidised industries, a model which has already
failed in every country in which it has been operated.

Pension provision would be in a far better position had it not been for
Brown stealing from pension funds and essentially wrecking the pensions
industry.

On 2007-09-29 11:17:14 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I do agree with your comments generally, but there are still many
people who do not use a computer, or do but dont trust them, so
unfortunately there is going to be demand for paper post for some
time.

For the dwindling number of those, it would be cheaper to simply supply
a computer. This is being managed with inexpensive notebooks for
kids in the 3rd world after all.

Great. And get all their bank account etc details from them at a stroke
for the phishers.

Email and the net is a prime example of free unregulated communication.

Absolutely chock full of villains from all over the world trying to part
the unwary and their money. Because it costs nothing to mount a scam and
little is done to stop it.

You and I might see through such things. Those forced into using it
probably not.

It's simple enough to arrange secured communications including authentication.

Technology moves on. Always has done and always will.

On 2007-09-29 11:43:33 +0100, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
... There is really no need to have paper
versions of utility bills, bank statements and all of that.

Unfortunately there is an increasing demand for these to be produced as
'evidence of identity'.

I'm sure that there are plenty of other means, and utility bills are a
pretty weak one



For the dwindling number of those, it would be cheaper to simply supply
a computer. This is being managed with inexpensive notebooks for
kids in the 3rd world after all.

And the French did it with Minitel decades ago.



.... and, for its time, very good it was too. I can remember going
with a French colleague, must have been 20 years ago, to visit is
grandmother who had an apartment in 8eme in Paris. She was in her
late 80s and very proud of demonstrating the Minitel to us.

On 2007-09-29 12:51:34 +0100, S Viemeister said:

Andy Hall wrote:

For the remote areas, there are already services such as postbuses.
Already well developed in other countries, they could be extended in
scope and address at least two issues at once. RM doesn't need to
operate those particularly either.


The Royal Mail attempted to cancel my local PostBus this summer. There
was a major email, letter-writing, and telephoning campaign, and they
kept it, but made the times extremely inconvenient - this way, of
course, if ridership numbers go down, they can say the service
obviously isn't needed. They've already reduced capacity from 11
passengers to 4. Well, they _claim_ 4, but three of them would need
to be very skinny to fit in the back seat without squishing. People
have been left standing at the stop when the 'bus' comes by, already
full. It's NOT a bus, it's a dinky little car. But for many people,
this is the ONLY available means of transportation.

For the relatively small proportion of people actually needing such a
service, it would make sense to subsidise it out of taxation (a comment
I don't make lightly) because it would be cheaper than running a
universal system that is no longer needed.

On 2007-09-29 10:44:58 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:52:09 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

I do agree with your comments generally, but there are still many
people who do not use a computer, or do but dont trust them, so
unfortunately there is going to be demand for paper post for some
time.

For the dwindling number of those, it would be cheaper to simply supply
a computer. This is being managed with inexpensive notebooks for
kids in the 3rd world after all.

Intent on your crusade, you didn't read what he said.

Actually I did.

People who don't
trust a computer (and, I'd add, those who are too old or unable in other
ways to use one) are not going to be helped by supplying what, to them,
is a useless heap of junk. Not that your elitist approach entirely
surprises me...!

It's hardly elitist to suggest that when around 60% of the population
has internet access.

There is certainly an income factor with over 50% of adults earning
less than £10,400 never having used the internet. There's no reason
to believe that this is because they don't *want* to do so any more
than people in any other income group.

As to the factor of trust - technology moves on. When trains were
first introduced, there was a fear that people wouldn't be able to
survive a speed of more than a few miles per hour


There are many relatively low value items that would be uneconomic to
send by courier.

If there is a market then the demand is filled.

On 2007-09-29 22:03:32 +0100, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
Email and the net is a prime example of free unregulated communication.
Absolutely chock full of villains from all over the world trying to part
the unwary and their money. Because it costs nothing to mount a scam and
little is done to stop it.
It's simple enough to arrange secured communications including authentication.
Technology moves on. Always has done and always will.

Yes, but the government's alternative to the postal service would
probably be Microsoft Trusted Computing.

Frankly I'd rather trust my entire savings in cash to the Nigerian
postal authorities for safe-keeping.



Under those circumstances I would agree with you, but am more
optimistic that open standards will address the need.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:10:41 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-09-29 10:44:58 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

People who don't
trust a computer (and, I'd add, those who are too old or unable in other
ways to use one) are not going to be helped by supplying what, to them,
is a useless heap of junk. Not that your elitist approach entirely
surprises me...!

It's hardly elitist to suggest that when around 60% of the population
has internet access.

.... Which means that about 40% of the population (quite a lot of
people - well over 20 million) *don't* have internet access... :-)

--
Frank Erskine

On 2007-09-29 23:30:03 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:10:41 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-09-29 10:44:58 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

People who don't
trust a computer (and, I'd add, those who are too old or unable in other
ways to use one) are not going to be helped by supplying what, to them,
is a useless heap of junk. Not that your elitist approach entirely
surprises me...!

It's hardly elitist to suggest that when around 60% of the population
has internet access.

... Which means that about 40% of the population (quite a lot of
people - well over 20 million) *don't* have internet access... :-)

5 years ago it was around the other way.......

That's before considering other technologies such as TV based terminal
solutions.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
S Viemeister wrote:
The Royal Mail attempted to cancel my local PostBus this summer. There
was a major email, letter-writing, and telephoning campaign, and they
kept it, but made the times extremely inconvenient - this way, of
course, if ridership numbers go down, they can say the service obviously
isn't needed. They've already reduced capacity from 11 passengers to 4.
Well, they _claim_ 4, but three of them would need to be very skinny
to fit in the back seat without squishing. People have been left
standing at the stop when the 'bus' comes by, already full. It's NOT a
bus, it's a dinky little car. But for many people, this is the ONLY
available means of transportation.


But you and others like you don't matter. The idea of any form of public
service is an anathema to many. You are supposed to just go out and buy a
car.

I thought we were supposed to be using public transport?

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:05:07 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


That's before considering other technologies such as TV based terminal
solutions.
~~~~~~~~~

Urghhh :-)

--
Frank Erskine

On 2007-09-30 08:17:44 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:05:07 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


That's before considering other technologies such as TV based terminal
solutions.
~~~~~~~~~

Urghhh :-)

I agree.

However, people do buy these devices and services because it does
eliminate the need to deal with "a computer".

99% of households have a TV set and 98% a telephone, according to ONS.
When one then considers the migration to digital television and
introduction of flat screen HDTVs, it would be reasonable to say that a
very high proportion of households will be equipped with the means to
access such services and that they can be provided with better quality
than today.

Several retailers specifically mention TV sales figures in their
results as saving their bacon across the summer - even Argos managed
that - so there is certainly a substantial uptake.

On 2007-09-30 14:06:21 +0100, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
There is certainly an income factor with over 50% of adults earning
less than £10,400 never having used the internet. There's no reason
to believe that this is because they don't *want* to do so any more
than people in any other income group.

A lot of them are probably pensioners on the state pension, so many of
them probably have no idea what this internet thing is and aren't
interested. Some of them will have yet to master push-button telephones.

Owain

Some probably have gas lighting or candles as well. More
realistically, some probably have analogue only TV setups. Ways will
be found for them to have a dgital TV solution because analogue
services will have been tturned off over the next five years. It
wasn't going to be a realistic prospect not to do this in order to
safeguard a small part of the population. Instead, there are
reasonable means to migrate. If this can be achieved for this
technology, it can be achieved for others, so I don't really buy the
little old lady argument.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-09-30 14:06:21 +0100, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
There is certainly an income factor with over 50% of adults earning
less than £10,400 never having used the internet. There's no
reason to believe that this is because they don't *want* to do so any
more than people in any other income group.

A lot of them are probably pensioners on the state pension, so many of
them probably have no idea what this internet thing is and aren't
interested. Some of them will have yet to master push-button telephones.

Owain

Some probably have gas lighting or candles as well. More
realistically, some probably have analogue only TV setups. Ways will
be found for them to have a dgital TV solution because analogue
services will have been tturned off over the next five years. It
wasn't going to be a realistic prospect not to do this in order to
safeguard a small part of the population. Instead, there are
reasonable means to migrate. If this can be achieved for this
technology, it can be achieved for others, so I don't really buy the
little old lady argument.


By then most people will have decided not to watch tv, finding staring
at the wall infinitely more interesting

On Sep 29, 8:44 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
Pension provision would be in a far better position had it not been for
Brown stealing from pension funds and essentially wrecking the pensions
industry.

How did he do that, then? Pension funds collapsed due to the collapse
of shares after the .com boom and 9/11. The removal of dividend tax
credits can easily be compensated for by a small increase in
contributions, which employees or employers have had plenty of
opportunity to do.

Brown may have changed the way tax is applied to pension funds but no
one stole from the funds. It suits some people and sections of the
media to use very emotive language.

MBQ

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:29:42 -0700, "
wrote:

On Sep 29, 8:44 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
Pension provision would be in a far better position had it not been for
Brown stealing from pension funds and essentially wrecking the pensions
industry.

How did he do that, then? Pension funds collapsed due to the collapse
of shares after the .com boom and 9/11. The removal of dividend tax
credits can easily be compensated for by a small increase in
contributions, which employees or employers have had plenty of
opportunity to do.

You mean actually *put even more money in than the regular
contribution* to the fund as the bottom is dropping out of the market
and Gordon Brown increasing his tax take, whilst the Financial
Services "Industry" keeps on collecting their charges unabated as the
funds go down and down?

No thank you. We might be E.S.N. in here but were not bloody daft.


Brown may have changed the way tax is applied to pension funds but no
one stole from the funds.

In the sense that the government took the money and the government
writes the laws ...

It suits some people and sections of the media to use very emotive language.

DG

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:11:19 +0100 Derek Geldard wrote :
You mean actually *put even more money in than the regular
contribution* to the fund as the bottom is dropping out of the market
and Gordon Brown increasing his tax take, whilst the Financial
Services "Industry" keeps on collecting their charges unabated as the
funds go down and down?

The same pension funds had no problem with the notion that when returns
were better than expected they could pay less or nothing at all, paying
the money out to the shareholders. The converse should have been true:
as soon as they saw that their return would be lower they should have
increased their contributions. When sensible people see harder times
ahead they make provisions for them; the rest do nothing and then blame
everyone else for their failure to do so.

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

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:56:51 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:11:19 +0100 Derek Geldard wrote :
You mean actually *put even more money in than the regular
contribution* to the fund as the bottom is dropping out of the market
and Gordon Brown increasing his tax take, whilst the Financial
Services "Industry" keeps on collecting their charges unabated as the
funds go down and down?

The same pension funds had no problem with the notion that when returns
were better than expected they could pay less or nothing at all, paying
the money out to the shareholders.

You seem to be confabulating :

Big pension funds run by big companies themselves with Pension schemes
run by insurance companies that small companies use.

We never took any pension holidays.

My pension scheme was started in 1987, and the pensions adviser said
it was all overseen by the inland revenue and was perfectly safe.
Neither I nor the company had any access to the fund. The pension
scheme was a 30 -40 year contract but GB changed the rules in the
middle and started raiding the fund. The pension provider continued to
take his fees even as the fund went down, and yet we couldn't change
providers without paying IIRC 10% of the fund in exit charges.

My analysis is that GB raided the pension funds (To the extent of 150
Maxwells) at the height of the dot com boom, and then proceeded to
spend the money, as is his want. When the dot com crash came he wasn't
in a position to forego the income.

The converse should have been true:
as soon as they saw that their return would be lower they should have
increased their contributions.

The pension funds were going down, it wasn't just the dot com crash
BTW, there was Sept 11th and Enron. & more. It would have been good
money after bad.

When sensible people see harder times
ahead they make provisions for them; the rest do nothing and then blame
everyone else for their failure to do so.

IIAC 66% of Council Tax revenue goes to shoring up local government
pension schemes. Would you say that all these local authorities have
been just as imprudent.

DG

On Oct 1, 3:29 pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:56:51 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:11:19 +0100 Derek Geldard wrote :
You mean actually *put even more money in than the regular
contribution* to the fund as the bottom is dropping out of the market
and Gordon Brown increasing his tax take, whilst the Financial
Services "Industry" keeps on collecting their charges unabated as the
funds go down and down?

The same pension funds had no problem with the notion that when returns
were better than expected they could pay less or nothing at all, paying
the money out to the shareholders.

You seem to be confabulating :

Big pension funds run by big companies themselves with Pension schemes
run by insurance companies that small companies use.

We never took any pension holidays.

My pension scheme was started in 1987, and the pensions adviser said
it was all overseen by the inland revenue and was perfectly safe.
Neither I nor the company had any access to the fund. The pension
scheme was a 30 -40 year contract but GB changed the rules in the
middle and started raiding the fund. The pension provider continued to
take his fees even as the fund went down, and yet we couldn't change
providers without paying IIRC 10% of the fund in exit charges.

My analysis is that GB raided the pension funds (To the extent of 150
Maxwells) at the height of the dot com boom, and then proceeded to
spend the money, as is his want. When the dot com crash came he wasn't
in a position to forego the income.

GB *did not* raid or "rape" any pension funds. He altered the tax
rules so that a small proportion of the money going into those funds
(i.e. dividend payments) were taxed. In very rough figures, it's
something like 10% (dividend tax credit) of 10% (a generous dividend
rate) or 1% reduction in the money going into the fund. That could
easily be made up by increased contributions by employer or employee.

There are, of course, individual cases where the company collapses
leaving a hole in the pension fund that could have been made up over
time if the company survived. They are usually down to bad management
rather than anything the treasury does.


The converse should have been true:
as soon as they saw that their return would be lower they should have
increased their contributions.

The pension funds were going down, it wasn't just the dot com crash
BTW, there was Sept 11th and Enron. & more. It would have been good
money after bad.

So, you admit it had little to do with loss of dividend tax credits
and more to do with the general malaise in the economy.


When sensible people see harder times
ahead they make provisions for them; the rest do nothing and then blame
everyone else for their failure to do so.

IIAC 66% of Council Tax revenue goes to shoring up local government
pension schemes. Would you say that all these local authorities have
been just as imprudent.

The Fire brigade pension fund, for one, is a *huge* money pit. That's
a different issue caused by schemes that allow members to retire well
before the normal retirement age on a (all things being equal) very
good pension.

MBQ