Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable town
deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable locations at
the same price as anywhere else. And they've now discovered this can't be
done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

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

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:04:22 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable
town deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable
locations at the same price as anywhere else. And they've now discovered
this can't be done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...

Since when was there a monopoly on parcel deliveries, anyway?

Privatised couriers have been treading on the toes of nationalised postal
services since City Link started to take some of the business from Red
Star (remember them...?) in 1969, only six years after Red Star was
formed in the first place.

In message , Adrian
writes
Since when was there a monopoly on parcel deliveries, anyway?

Privatised couriers have been treading on the toes of nationalised
postal services since City Link started to take some of the business
from Red Star (remember them...?) in 1969, only six years after Red
Star was formed in the first place.

That's as maybe, but I have been selected as the person to receive
whatever my son orders online for his house upgrade. He's away working
during the week.
Yesterday it was 4 different packages from 4 different carriers, but
luckily a neighbour signed for one and another was squeezed through the
letterbox, so only 2 round trips to collect and no idea which supplier
used which carrier, so no idea how big or heavy anything was likely to
be.

If I wasn't old, I'd despair. I have nothing against privatisation, but
we need nationally organised basics - national grid, national postal
service, national rail system. Now they are talking about local mayors
all over the place to add another layer of in- or mal-decision and
confusion.

Ever since I shouted at the politician who came and rang the doorbell
even though he must have seen I was up the stepladder behind the front
door, no one seeking election has ever come here canvassing my views.
--
Bill

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:04:22 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable
town deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable
locations at the same price as anywhere else. And they've now
discovered this can't be done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...

Since when was there a monopoly on parcel deliveries, anyway?

I was talking about mail - not parcels. I doubt the numbers involved these
days were envisaged when the one cost to send a letter anywhere in the UK
principle was established.

Privatised couriers have been treading on the toes of nationalised
postal services since City Link started to take some of the business
from Red Star (remember them...?) in 1969, only six years after Red
Star was formed in the first place.

Well, Parcel Force was sort of split off from letter post ages ago anyway.

--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

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

On Wednesday, 19 November 2014 13:00:55 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:04:22 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable
town deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable
locations at the same price as anywhere else. And they've now
discovered this can't be done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...

Since when was there a monopoly on parcel deliveries, anyway?

I was talking about mail - not parcels.

What's the differnece or rather which is which.
Here where I work they have decided that in general women can only collect post not parcels, it seems it's up to the men to collect parcels.

We are an equal oppotunity employer and if I wanted to give up my lunch hour I could attend the athena swan meeting about glass cieling/cliffs which only women and minority groups are affected by.

if anyone wants to understand glass ceilings or glass cliffs
http://psychology.exeter.ac.uk/research/glasscliff/

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable town
deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable locations at
the same price as anywhere else. And they've now discovered this can't be
done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...


Of course not, and the RM management are well aware of the long-term
trends in their markets. The problem they face is in trying to persuade
the government to regulate the inevitable change such that RM can
prosper as a commercial player in the growth markets while still
maintaining the universal penny post for granny's birthday cards.

--
Les

In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
Of course not, and the RM management are well aware of the long-term
trends in their markets. The problem they face is in trying to persuade
the government to regulate the inevitable change such that RM can
prosper as a commercial player in the growth markets while still
maintaining the universal penny post for granny's birthday cards.

Very logical, that. Allow 'competition' for the profitable bits and get
the taxpayer to subsidise the loss making part. Thus the taxpayer is in
effect subsidising all that junk mail from Virgin.

--
*Hang in there, retirement is only thirty years away! *

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

You cannot force people to get an online system though, as we know only too
well. Many visually impaired people just do not fancy the steep learning
curve and possible expence of software.
We use the free articles for the Blind post which is subsidised by the
government in most countries.
If they cannot deliver what is the point?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:04:22 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable
town deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable
locations at the same price as anywhere else. And they've now discovered
this can't be done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...

Meanwhile, in other news, the government is sneaking towards insisting
everything is done online - thus removing the excuse for the universal
delivery obligation

Ah Mayors, these are very powerful people in France. rule 1 if you are going
to live there, buy him something nice and make a point of talking to him,
and it is predominantly a him from what i can tell.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill" wrote in message
...
In message , Adrian
writes
Since when was there a monopoly on parcel deliveries, anyway?

Privatised couriers have been treading on the toes of nationalised postal
services since City Link started to take some of the business from Red
Star (remember them...?) in 1969, only six years after Red Star was formed
in the first place.

That's as maybe, but I have been selected as the person to receive
whatever my son orders online for his house upgrade. He's away working
during the week.
Yesterday it was 4 different packages from 4 different carriers, but
luckily a neighbour signed for one and another was squeezed through the
letterbox, so only 2 round trips to collect and no idea which supplier
used which carrier, so no idea how big or heavy anything was likely to be.

If I wasn't old, I'd despair. I have nothing against privatisation, but
we need nationally organised basics - national grid, national postal
service, national rail system. Now they are talking about local mayors all
over the place to add another layer of in- or mal-decision and confusion.

Ever since I shouted at the politician who came and rang the doorbell even
though he must have seen I was up the stepladder behind the front door, no
one seeking election has ever come here canvassing my views.
--
Bill

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
Of course not, and the RM management are well aware of the long-term
trends in their markets. The problem they face is in trying to persuade
the government to regulate the inevitable change such that RM can
prosper as a commercial player in the growth markets while still
maintaining the universal penny post for granny's birthday cards.

Very logical, that. Allow 'competition' for the profitable bits and get
the taxpayer to subsidise the loss making part.

Well, yes. If granny (aka the taxpayer) insists on having a universal
letter delivery service, with the stamps priced at far below cost, then
it is logical that the taxpayer subsidises it.

The profitable bit - parcel deliveries and bulk commercial mailings -
can look after itself, given adequate regulation.

Thus the taxpayer is in
effect subsidising all that junk mail from Virgin.

I think it's the other way round. Commercial junk mail delivered by RM
helps to keep down the cost of stamps - or the level of government
subsidies for letter deliveries, whichever way you want to look at it.

--
Les

In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
If you can move all of that to a non paper-based system, then there is
no reason to mandate universal post.

Assuming someone has a place a letter can be delivered to and can read, it
is no cost to the recipient.

A paperless system assumes the recipient has some method of downloading
and reading it - neither of which is free.

--
*Women like silent men; they think they're listening.

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

In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
Very logical, that. Allow 'competition' for the profitable bits and get
the taxpayer to subsidise the loss making part.

Well, yes. If granny (aka the taxpayer) insists on having a universal
letter delivery service, with the stamps priced at far below cost, then
it is logical that the taxpayer subsidises it.

The original idea was *not* to provide a subsidised service at all - just
a single price regardless of location. Of course you could argue those
sending a letter a short distance subsidise those sending one afar - but
truly fair differential pricing would be impossible to implement anyway.
So there would always be a degree of one 'subsidising' another.

--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

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

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable town
deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable locations at
the same price as anywhere else. And they've now discovered this can't be
done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...


Of course not, and the RM management are well aware of the long-term
trends in their markets. The problem they face is in trying to persuade
the government to regulate the inevitable change such that RM can prosper
as a commercial player in the growth markets while still maintaining the
universal penny post for granny's birthday cards.

--
Les

In lots of third world countries there is no posta delivery up sticks.
You have a mail box in the local post office.
That's what they're working towards..

Oh ****, most of the post offices have disappeared.

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Well, yes. If granny (aka the taxpayer) insists on having a universal
letter delivery service, with the stamps priced at far below cost, then
it is logical that the taxpayer subsidises it.

The original idea was *not* to provide a subsidised service at all - just
a single price regardless of location. Of course you could argue those
sending a letter a short distance subsidise those sending one afar - but
truly fair differential pricing would be impossible to implement anyway.
So there would always be a degree of one 'subsidising' another.

What a damned good idea! :-P As Bill has said: "If I wasn't old, I'd
despair".

John

In article ,
"Brian Gaff" wrote:

You cannot force people to get an online system though, as we know only too
well. Many visually impaired people just do not fancy the steep learning
curve and possible expence of software.

It occurs to me, in this age of feminism, racism, ageism, heightism,
etcetcetc-ism ..... shirley it's only a matter of time before someone
brings a case of "technoism"[1] against a company (or even government)
for trying to force them into using IT.

I have several neighbours (some of them rather younger than me) who have
never used IT, don't have any means of using it, and are extremely
reluctant to do so. None of them are disabled in any way: they've
avoided IT because by the late 90s (when it really took off thanks to
Business recognizing the commercial possibilities of the Internet), the
older ones were retired, and the younger ones had left school and had
jobs which didn't involve sitting at an effing PC. And (for some
incomprehensible reason) they have never wanted to discover the
unbounded delights of Facebook, Twitter, online betting, or even bloody
computer games!

J.

[1] I'm sure a more cleverer name will come along soon ...

On 19/11/2014 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable town
deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable locations at
the same price as anywhere else. And they've now discovered this can't be
done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...


But in my experience the Royal Mail cannot provide a decent service in
areas where the others are picking the low hanging fruit. If the RM
improved their service perhaps they would get more of the custom.



--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

The original idea was *not* to provide a subsidised service at all - just
a single price regardless of location. Of course you could argue those
sending a letter a short distance subsidise those sending one afar - but
truly fair differential pricing would be impossible to implement anyway.
So there would always be a degree of one 'subsidising' another.

And what's more .... (the other point I was going to make, above): the
price of a First Class stamp is now 62p. For as long as I can
remember, "The Media" have gone and on on and ON about tpoaFCs, when
it's gone up, as though "the ******* Royal Mail"[1] were stealing the
bread out of our mouths.

To which my response has always been: what else can you buy in this
country for 62pence which gives such incredibly good value?

Of course now that we're in the wonderful world of market forces, the
price will shoot up, as well as the services plummeting. We'll always
be free to choose TNT, G4S, Centrica or whoever the hell else has
grabbed a fat slice of the pie: I'm sure their prices will be
"competitive"[2].

John

[1] Not their words, but their crystal-clear insinuation.
[2] Within the strict meaning of the word when used by cartels.

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
Very logical, that. Allow 'competition' for the profitable bits and get
the taxpayer to subsidise the loss making part.

Well, yes. If granny (aka the taxpayer) insists on having a universal
letter delivery service, with the stamps priced at far below cost, then
it is logical that the taxpayer subsidises it.

The original idea was *not* to provide a subsidised service at all - just
a single price regardless of location. Of course you could argue those
sending a letter a short distance subsidise those sending one afar - but
truly fair differential pricing would be impossible to implement anyway.
So there would always be a degree of one 'subsidising' another.


Yes, that was the original idea. But since then, e-mail has been
invented. The result is that the vast majority of communications that
used to be done by paper delivery are now done by email. The rump -
which I have caricatured as Granny's birthday cards - is not enough to
keep the universal delivery service viable at a single stamp price that
anyone is prepared to pay.

RM know this perfectly well. For decades they have employed some of the
most intelligent people in the universe to inform their policy, one of
them being Richard Hooper, who published a report on the topic in
September 2010:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-mails-univers
al-postal-service-in-the-digital-age-an-update-of-the-2008-independent-re
view

But knowing about this trend isn't the same as stopping it happening.
Obviously it can't be stopped. So RM is now in a phase of managing the
decline of paper letter delivery, with as much support from government
as it can get. In the meantime it has to make its other activities more
profitable.

--
Les

In message , harryagain
writes
Oh ****, most of the post offices have disappeared.

Our magnificent Post Office is now a charity shop (with a small area at
one end where you collect the parcels and signed-for stuff. The sorting
and the little red vans still operate from the back). The Post Office
counter is across town where the parking is worst, in the back of a
sweet-shop.
--
Bill

On 19/11/2014 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable town
deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable locations at
the same price as anywhere else. And they've now discovered this can't be
done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...

I take it that you are referring to RM's dropping share price because
they can't compete with the competition, or something like that.

They get no sympathy from me, as they are too damn expensive to send
anything more than a standard letter.

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable town
deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable locations at
the same price as anywhere else. And they've now discovered this can't be
done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...

Of course not, and the RM management are well aware of the
long-term trends in their markets. The problem they face is in
trying to persuade the government to regulate the inevitable change
RM can prosper as a commercial player in the growth markets while
still maintaining the universal penny post for granny's birthday cards.

In lots of third world countries there is no posta delivery up sticks.
You have a mail box in the local post office.
That's what they're working towards..
Oh ****, most of the post offices have disappeared.

If the person running it (the shop-owner) can't make a profit that's
unsurprising. People don't use them like they presumably used to.

Car tax now mostly on line, pensions mostly paid into bank accounts. I
use letter post so infrequently that a universal service is of no
interest to me. About 80% [1]of people who live in rural areas have
chosen to do so why should I pay for their mail deliveries - or their
broadband or their bus services etc?

[1] Survey by NFU Insurance.
--
bert

On 19/11/2014 20:31, BobH wrote:


They get no sympathy from me, as they are too damn expensive to send
anything more than a standard letter.

The price differential between RM/PF and others can be astonishing. A
recent parcel, very light and something like a pizza box in shape, RM/PF
offered £11.99 (IIRC - or at least close to that), Hermes £3.79.

However much I might want some aspects of the RM/PF service to continue
in existence, that level is not something anyone can ignore or swallow.

--
Rod

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 19:00:07 +0000 Another John wrote :
And what's more .... (the other point I was going to make, above): the
price of a First Class stamp is now 62p. For as long as I can
remember, "The Media" have gone and on on and ON about tpoaFCs, when
it's gone up, as though "the ******* Royal Mail"[1] were stealing the
bread out of our mouths.

For all its hysteria on this (and everything else), there seems to be a
pretty close correlation between the price of a stamp and the Daily Mail -
both were 3d when I was a child in the early 1960s.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:58:28 +0000, bert wrote:

About 80% [1]of people who live in rural areas have chosen to do so why
should I pay for their mail deliveries - or their broadband or their bus
services etc?

Why should the rural dwellers pay for your street lights, policing of
the town centre binge drinkers,

Broadband is a bad example, rural dwellers pay the same subs for a
generally much poorer service:

http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2014/superfast-bb-surge/

Nov 2013 average speeds:
Urban: 31.9 Mbps
Sub-urban: 21.8 Mbps
Rural: 11.3 Mbps

If you are thinking of the rollout of FTTC, that has been paid for by
BDUK and county councils but covers both builtup and rural areas.
Note that builtup areas tend to get FTTC first and rural areas second
or even not at all. Many places are stuck with ADSL2 ("up to 8 Mbps")
and even then whole villages may only get 2 Mbps or less. iPlayer no
chance...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Broadband is a bad example, rural dwellers pay the same subs for a
generally much poorer service:

Or pay more if you're in an exchange area classed as "market 1".

On 19/11/2014 23:13, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:58:28 +0000, bert wrote:

About 80% [1]of people who live in rural areas have chosen to do so why
should I pay for their mail deliveries - or their broadband or their bus
services etc?

Why should the rural dwellers pay for your street lights, policing of
the town centre binge drinkers,

Broadband is a bad example, rural dwellers pay the same subs for a
generally much poorer service:

http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2014/superfast-bb-surge/

Nov 2013 average speeds:
Urban: 31.9 Mbps
Sub-urban: 21.8 Mbps
Rural: 11.3 Mbps

If you are thinking of the rollout of FTTC, that has been paid for by
BDUK and county councils but covers both builtup and rural areas.
Note that builtup areas tend to get FTTC first and rural areas second
or even not at all. Many places are stuck with ADSL2 ("up to 8 Mbps")
and even then whole villages may only get 2 Mbps or less. iPlayer no
chance...


iplayer desktop works fine on slow links (just select download rather
than stream).
If that doesn't work then bypass the restrictions on pirate bay and
download a torrent version of the program you want.

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:58:28 +0000, bert wrote:

About 80% [1]of people who live in rural areas have chosen to do so why
should I pay for their mail deliveries - or their broadband or their bus
services etc?

Why should the rural dwellers pay for your street lights, policing of
the town centre binge drinkers,

Broadband is a bad example, rural dwellers pay the same subs for a
generally much poorer service:

http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2014/superfast-bb-surge/

Nov 2013 average speeds:
Urban: 31.9 Mbps
Sub-urban: 21.8 Mbps
Rural: 11.3 Mbps

If you are thinking of the rollout of FTTC, that has been paid for by
BDUK and county councils but covers both builtup and rural areas.
Note that builtup areas tend to get FTTC first and rural areas second
or even not at all. Many places are stuck with ADSL2 ("up to 8 Mbps")
and even then whole villages may only get 2 Mbps or less. iPlayer no
chance...

So move.
--
bert

On 19/11/2014 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable town
deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable locations at
the same price as anywhere else. And they've now discovered this can't be
done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...


Share were discounted by around 25% at the time of the float (or even
more than that, depends who you believe), so I would let the
shareholders lose a little more before entertaining any change to their
obligations.

In article ,
JoeJoe wrote:
On 19/11/2014 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable
town deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable
locations at the same price as anywhere else. And they've now
discovered this can't be done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...


Share were discounted by around 25% at the time of the float (or even
more than that, depends who you believe), so I would let the
shareholders lose a little more before entertaining any change to their
obligations.

I'm not really much interested in their shareholders. Only in the service
provided.

--
*Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam

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

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
JoeJoe wrote:
On 19/11/2014 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable
town deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable
locations at the same price as anywhere else. And they've now
discovered this can't be done.

As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...


Share were discounted by around 25% at the time of the float (or even
more than that, depends who you believe), so I would let the
shareholders lose a little more before entertaining any change to their
obligations.

I'm not really much interested in their shareholders. Only in the service
provided.

That's one of the benefits of privatisation. No interfering politicians
throwing taxpayers money at it.
--
bert

In article ,
bert ] wrote:
I'm not really much interested in their shareholders. Only in the
service provided.

That's one of the benefits of privatisation. No interfering politicians
throwing taxpayers money at it.

Really? Lots of once publicly owned now privatized companies get taxpayers
money thrown at them.

--
*If God dropped acid, would he see people?

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
bert ] wrote:
I'm not really much interested in their shareholders. Only in the
service provided.

That's one of the benefits of privatisation. No interfering
politicians throwing taxpayers money at it.

Really? Lots of once publicly owned ...

Not sure why you refer to them as "publicly owned". They were wholly
owned by an entity called "the Government" and the public had no say in
the matter.

... now privatised companies ...

You mean "publicly owned", as in by members of the public (with some
exceptions, where that "Government" thingy has bought up all the
shares).



Collins GEM English Dictionary
public n. the community, people in general. ˜adj. of or concerning the
people as a whole; for use by everyone; well-known; performed or made
openly. ˜publicly adv. ˜publican n. person who owns or runs a pub.
˜public house pub. ˜public relations promotion of a favourable opinion
towards an organization among the public. ˜public school private
fee-paying school in England. ˜public-spirited adj. having or showing an
active interest in the good of the community.

--
*Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.

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

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
I'm not really much interested in their shareholders. Only in the
service provided.

That's one of the benefits of privatisation. No interfering politicians
throwing taxpayers money at it.

Really? Lots of once publicly owned now privatized companies get taxpayers
money thrown at them.

No the utilities, and not the telecoms companies other than to provide
broadband and mobile phone access to winging ex-townies in rural areas -
which is where I came in.
--
bert

In article ,
bert ] wrote:
and not the telecoms companies other than to provide
broadband and mobile phone access to winging ex-townies in rural areas -
which is where I came in.

I take it you haven't understood this thread?

--
*America is so advanced that even the chairs are electric.

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

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
and not the telecoms companies other than to provide
broadband and mobile phone access to winging ex-townies in rural areas -
which is where I came in.

I take it you haven't understood this thread?

Perhaps you should get yourself a decent newsreader.
--
bert

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
Really? Lots of once publicly owned ...

Not sure why you refer to them as "publicly owned". They were wholly
owned by an entity called "the Government" and the public had no say in
the matter.

... now privatised companies ...

You mean "publicly owned", as in by members of the public (with some
exceptions, where that "Government" thingy has bought up all the
shares).

You *are* taking the ****, aren't you Tim?

This is as twisted a view of British society as I've ever seen (matched
only by your version of "public schools", lower down, which is what made
me decide that you are, in fact, taking the ****).

J.

polygonum wrote:

RM/PF offered £11.99 (IIRC - or at least close to that),
Hermes £3.79.

And Hermes collect it too, not just deliver it ...

On 19/11/2014 22:14, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 19:00:07 +0000 Another John wrote :
And what's more .... (the other point I was going to make, above): the
price of a First Class stamp is now 62p. For as long as I can
remember, "The Media" have gone and on on and ON about tpoaFCs, when
it's gone up, as though "the ******* Royal Mail"[1] were stealing the
bread out of our mouths.

For all its hysteria on this (and everything else), there seems to be a
pretty close correlation between the price of a stamp and the Daily Mail -
both were 3d when I was a child in the early 1960s.

For those of us who don't know, how much is the DM now?

--
Rod

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:50:38 +0000 Polygonum wrote :
For all its hysteria on this (and everything else), there seems to be a
pretty close correlation between the price of a stamp and the Daily Mail -
both were 3d when I was a child in the early 1960s.

For those of us who don't know, how much is the DM now?

Mail 60p Mon-Fri, 90p Saturday

First class letter 62p (makes the current Oz 70c=39p look cheap)

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On 19/11/2014 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...


Locally the RM have just introduced the D2N service and to partake you
have to fill in a D2N request form.

If you don't know what D2N is then you haven't studied internal RM
jargon and their "text speak".


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk