So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...

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

On 16/01/2019 13:26, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...

It is, even for politicians, a no brainer.


--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 16/01/2019 13:26, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...

It is, even for politicians, a no brainer.

I wasn't sure whether this was a fictitious bill, but it really does exist.
It makes a lot of sense for houses to have letter boxes that are more at
hand height as the postman is standing at the door. Shame it doesn't also
mandate a minimum height of the hole, to accommodate thicker packages
without the postman having to ring the bell or take the package back to the
sorting office for you to collect. At our old house I cut a larger hole for
a larger letter box, and the postman commented on several occasions how much
easier it made his life as he rarely had to take anything back to the
sorting office. Shame that modern UPVC doors (unlike wooden ones) don't make
it easy to fit a larger box than the small ones that the doors usually come
with.

On 16/01/2019 13:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect,Â* masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

.....and expressed by a writer whose sentence doesn't parse.


Please tell them that ought to be:

.....masquerading as public service which doesn't serve the public.

or:

.....self-legalising protection racketeers who don't protect.....

but not a mixture of both -ugh!

Nick

On 16/01/2019 13:58, Nick Odell wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem
that doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets
that don't protect,Â* masquerading as public servants who don't serve
the public.

....and expressed by a writer whose sentence doesn't parse.

It does,



Please tell them that ought to be:

....masquerading as public service which doesn't serve the public.

No, you cannot have 'self legalising protection rackets' (plural)
'masquareading as a public service' (singular)


or:

....self-legalising protection racketeers who don't protect.....

but not a mixture of both -ugh!

Why not. Many rackets, one per country, is what we have.


Nick


--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

In article ,
NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 16/01/2019 13:26, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...

It is, even for politicians, a no brainer.

I wasn't sure whether this was a fictitious bill, but it really does
exist. It makes a lot of sense for houses to have letter boxes that are
more at hand height as the postman is standing at the door. Shame it
doesn't also mandate a minimum height of the hole, to accommodate
thicker packages without the postman having to ring the bell or take the
package back to the sorting office for you to collect. At our old house
I cut a larger hole for a larger letter box, and the postman commented
on several occasions how much easier it made his life as he rarely had
to take anything back to the sorting office. Shame that modern UPVC
doors (unlike wooden ones) don't make it easy to fit a larger box than
the small ones that the doors usually come with.

But hasn't the country voted to leave the EU - primarily to stop being
told what to do?

--
*El nino made me do it

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

On 16/01/2019 13:44, NY wrote:
Shame it
doesn't also mandate a minimum height of the hole, to accommodate
thicker packages without the postman having to ring the bell or take the
package back to the sorting office for you to collect.

It doesn't seem to make much difference where I live. On multiple
occasions I've had the card instructing me to go to the distribution
centre to pick up a package that is too large. On collecting the
"package" I find that it is two or more packages held together with a
red rubber band and if removed they would have all individually fitted
through my letter box with ease.


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

On 16/01/2019 15:17, alan_m wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:44, NY wrote:
Shame it doesn't also mandate a minimum height of the hole, to
accommodate thicker packages without the postman having to ring the
bell or take the package back to the sorting office for you to collect.

It doesn't seem to make much difference where I live. On multiple
occasions I've had the card instructing me to go to the distribution
centre to pick up a package that is too large. On collecting the
"package" I find that it is two or more packages held together with a
red rubber band and if removed they would have all individually fitted
through my letter box with ease.



There really ought to be a standard letterbox size. Much stuff could
then be packaged so as to fit through that size. There's no reason, in
principle, why say whisky bottles could not be shaped to go through a
letterbox. But, there's no point doing that unless there's a standard
size AND many houses have that size.

Will this Bill require changing existing letterboxes? If so, it should
go the whole hog and mandate size, as well as height.

(Andrew Gabriel) Wrote in message:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...


See! Who says they're all crap now?
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

In article ,
GB wrote:
On 16/01/2019 15:17, alan_m wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:44, NY wrote:
Shame it doesn't also mandate a minimum height of the hole, to
accommodate thicker packages without the postman having to ring the
bell or take the package back to the sorting office for you to collect.

It doesn't seem to make much difference where I live. On multiple
occasions I've had the card instructing me to go to the distribution
centre to pick up a package that is too large. On collecting the
"package" I find that it is two or more packages held together with a
red rubber band and if removed they would have all individually fitted
through my letter box with ease.



There really ought to be a standard letterbox size. Much stuff could
then be packaged so as to fit through that size. There's no reason, in
principle, why say whisky bottles could not be shaped to go through a
letterbox.


If you're going to put whisky through a letterbox there will need to be a
"catcher" on the other side, there's a 4ft drop behind my letterbox.

But, there's no point doing that unless there's a standard
size AND many houses have that size.

Will this Bill require changing existing letterboxes? If so, it should
go the whole hog and mandate size, as well as height.

The has been a Post Office preferred size for a great many years =
certainly since before we moved into this house - and that was 41 years ago.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

GB wrote:

There really ought to be a standard letterbox size. Much stuff could
then be packaged so as to fit through that size.

I suppose the nearest we get to that is specifying the size
limits for various postage classes, so that larger becomes
significantly more expensive.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 16/01/2019 13:26, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...

It is, even for politicians, a no brainer.

I wasn't sure whether this was a fictitious bill, but it really does
exist. It makes a lot of sense for houses to have letter boxes that are
more at hand height as the postman is standing at the door. Shame it
doesn't also mandate a minimum height of the hole, to accommodate
thicker packages without the postman having to ring the bell or take the
package back to the sorting office for you to collect. At our old house
I cut a larger hole for a larger letter box, and the postman commented
on several occasions how much easier it made his life as he rarely had
to take anything back to the sorting office. Shame that modern UPVC
doors (unlike wooden ones) don't make it easy to fit a larger box than
the small ones that the doors usually come with.

But hasn't the country voted to leave the EU - primarily to stop being
told what to do?

To stop being told what to do *by anyone other than their own elected
government*.

On 16/01/2019 13:26, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...


50 attacks by cats every year:-)

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2019...p-of-approval/



--
Adam

On 16/01/2019 16:45, charles wrote:

If you're going to put whisky through a letterbox there will need to be a
"catcher" on the other side, there's a 4ft drop behind my letterbox.


You haven't seen how many carriers handle your parcels. The 4 ft drop
behind the letter box will be the least of your worries.



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

ARW wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:26, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...


50 attacks by cats every year:-)

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2019...p-of-approval/

Do TPTB really imagine that cats can't reach higher up letter boxes?
In reality it would just add to the sport, they'd dig their claws in
harder to stay attached to the 'intruder'.

--
Chris Green
·

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 16/01/2019 16:45, charles wrote:

If you're going to put whisky through a letterbox there will need to be a
"catcher" on the other side, there's a 4ft drop behind my letterbox.


You haven't seen how many carriers handle your parcels. The 4 ft drop
behind the letter box will be the least of your worries.

If they drop the parcel en-route, I claim it hasn't been delivered and they
send another one, if it drops on my on floor , I have the problem of
clearing it and not getting the contents in a way I can make use of them.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 16/01/2019 16:16, GB wrote:
On 16/01/2019 15:17, alan_m wrote:
snip


Will this Bill require changing existing letterboxes? If so, it should
go the whole hog and mandate size, as well as height.



It's not a real Bill. It's a 10 minute rule Bill. That's a procedure
which lets MPs speak for 10 minutes on an idea they'd like to see
legislated by (usually) the government. So there's no detail behind the
substance. But on the face of it the Bill was to "amend building
regulations to require letter boxes in new buildings to be positioned
above a certain height" (NB not even new doors.) But that'd all be for
consultation/discussion/debate come a real Bill with proposals worked up
by officials.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 16/01/2019 13:44, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 16/01/2019 13:26, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...

It is, even for politicians, a no brainer.

I wasn't sure whether this was a fictitious bill, but it really does
exist.

About 11 years ago, we were looking at moving to Ireland (it fell
through because of me suffering a health problem and by the time I'd
recovered, the economy had collapsed). At the time we looked into
everything that we coulkd think of and one was acompariosn of building
regulations - IIRC mid-level letterboxes were in their version that long
ago, but the rest was pretty much the same as ours.

It makes a lot of sense for houses to have letter boxes that are
more at hand height as the postman is standing at the door.

The only problem I can see is that it would make replacement of
full-glass porch door, like for like, impossible or require a ridiculous
looking hole in the middle of the glass.

SteveW

On 16/01/2019 19:49, Chris Green wrote:
ARW wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:26, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...


50 attacks by cats every year:-)

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2019...p-of-approval/

Do TPTB really imagine that cats can't reach higher up letter boxes?
In reality it would just add to the sport, they'd dig their claws in
harder to stay attached to the 'intruder'.

Back in the days where I ddi friends' newspaper rounds when they were on
holiday (I never had one myself). I simpy made sure that my fingers
stayed outside the box. Postmen are even issued with push-sticks to push
items through in safety.

The back bending is another matter.

SteveW

On 16/01/2019 20:56, Steve Walker wrote:
On 16/01/2019 19:49, Chris Green wrote:
ARW wrote:
On 16/01/2019 13:26, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...


50 attacks by cats every year:-)

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2019...p-of-approval/


Do TPTB really imagine that cats can't reach higher up letter boxes?
In reality it would just add to the sport, they'd dig their claws in
harder to stay attached to the 'intruder'.

Back in the days where I ddi friends' newspaper rounds when they were on
holiday (I never had one myself). I simpy made sure that my fingers
stayed outside the box. Postmen are even issued with push-sticks to push
items through in safety.

The back bending is another matter.


When I had a paper round I had one customer with a Yorkshire terrier
that always attacked. A rolled up copy of the newspaper through the
letterbox delivered at high velocity usually sent it yelping down the
hall way if you waited until you could see it's eyes.


--
Adam

On 16/01/2019 20:50, Robin wrote:
On 16/01/2019 16:16, GB wrote:
On 16/01/2019 15:17, alan_m wrote:
snip


Will this Bill require changing existing letterboxes? If so, it should
go the whole hog and mandate size, as well as height.



It's not a real Bill.Â* It's a 10 minute rule Bill.Â* That's a procedure
which lets MPs speak for 10 minutes on an idea they'd like to see
legislated by (usually) the government.Â* So there's no detail behind the
substance.Â* But on the face of it the Bill was to "amend building
regulations to require letter boxes in new buildings to be positioned
above a certain height" (NB not even new doors.)Â* But that'd all be for
consultation/discussion/debate come a real Bill with proposals worked up
by officials.

Yes, I'm sure that they could spend millions working on it ... or they
could simply copy the Irish rules, probably substituting BS-EN13724 for
the Irish standard!

"Building Regulations 2000
Technical Guidance Document D
Materials and Workmanship

Section 1.6 - Letter Plates

Letter plates should be designed, manufactured and installed in
accordance with I.S. 195:1976, subject to the following (see also
Diagram 1):
(a) the minimum length of the aperture of a letter plate should be 250
mm (+/- 10 mm) and the minimum height should be 38 mm (+/- 1.5 mm);
(b) the unit of torque (listed in the standard) should be N mm."

This is followed by a diagram showing a minumum mounting height of 760mm
to the lower edge, a maximum of 1450 to the upper edge and an ideal of
1070 to the centre.

On 16/01/2019 21:29, Steve Walker wrote:
On 16/01/2019 20:50, Robin wrote:
On 16/01/2019 16:16, GB wrote:
On 16/01/2019 15:17, alan_m wrote:
snip


Will this Bill require changing existing letterboxes? If so, it
should go the whole hog and mandate size, as well as height.



It's not a real Bill.Â* It's a 10 minute rule Bill.Â* That's a procedure
which lets MPs speak for 10 minutes on an idea they'd like to see
legislated by (usually) the government.Â* So there's no detail behind
the substance.Â* But on the face of it the Bill was to "amend building
regulations to require letter boxes in new buildings to be positioned
above a certain height" (NB not even new doors.)Â* But that'd all be
for consultation/discussion/debate come a real Bill with proposals
worked up by officials.

Yes, I'm sure that they could spend millions working on it ... or they
could simply copy the Irish rules, probably substituting BS-EN13724 for
the Irish standard!

"Building Regulations 2000
Technical Guidance Document D
Materials and Workmanship

Section 1.6 - Letter Plates

Letter plates should be designed, manufactured and installed in
accordance with I.S. 195:1976, subject to the following (see also
Diagram 1):
(a) the minimum length of the aperture of a letter plate should be 250
mm (+/- 10 mm) and the minimum height should be 38 mm (+/- 1.5 mm);
(b) the unit of torque (listed in the standard) should be N mm."

This is followed by a diagram showing a minumum mounting height of 760mm
to the lower edge, a maximum of 1450 to the upper edge and an ideal of
1070 to the centre.

You may be happy with legislation introduced without consultation, and
without the usual impact assessments, but many people have thought that
to be a "bad thing" for so long that it's not in the gift of officials
to skip it all. Of course that work will be quick and cheap easier if
the Irish addressed and documented issues such the needs of disabled.

I'd have thought that stakeholders might also want to look at regulation
by reference to BS EN 13724:2013 (the European standard for mail slots).
And also ask if the Scots et al could join in discussions with a view
to common regulations across the UK.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 16/01/2019 22:38, Robin wrote:
On 16/01/2019 21:29, Steve Walker wrote:
On 16/01/2019 20:50, Robin wrote:
On 16/01/2019 16:16, GB wrote:
On 16/01/2019 15:17, alan_m wrote:
snip


Will this Bill require changing existing letterboxes? If so, it
should go the whole hog and mandate size, as well as height.



It's not a real Bill.Â* It's a 10 minute rule Bill.Â* That's a
procedure which lets MPs speak for 10 minutes on an idea they'd like
to see legislated by (usually) the government.Â* So there's no detail
behind the substance.Â* But on the face of it the Bill was to "amend
building regulations to require letter boxes in new buildings to be
positioned above a certain height" (NB not even new doors.)Â* But
that'd all be for consultation/discussion/debate come a real Bill
with proposals worked up by officials.

Yes, I'm sure that they could spend millions working on it ... or they
could simply copy the Irish rules, probably substituting BS-EN13724
for the Irish standard!

"Building Regulations 2000
Technical Guidance Document D
Materials and Workmanship

Section 1.6 - Letter Plates

Letter plates should be designed, manufactured and installed in
accordance with I.S. 195:1976, subject to the following (see also
Diagram 1):
(a) the minimum length of the aperture of a letter plate should be 250
mm (+/- 10 mm) and the minimum height should be 38 mm (+/- 1.5 mm);
(b) the unit of torque (listed in the standard) should be N mm."

This is followed by a diagram showing a minumum mounting height of
760mm to the lower edge, a maximum of 1450 to the upper edge and an
ideal of 1070 to the centre.

You may be happy with legislation introduced without consultation, and
without the usual impact assessments, but many people have thought that
to be a "bad thing" for so long that it's not in the gift of officials
to skip it all.

And this is why the state costs so much. The Irish have had this in
place for at least 18 years and there is no outcry due to problems
caused by it, but instead of adopting an eminently sensible solution,
with only minimal overview, we'll have to come up with our own version,
after a couple of years of consulting all and sundry at great cost.
Sometimes the simple and cheap option, even if not the best, is good enough.

A local example: Our local library (now closed despite it costing a 5th
of the cost per book loaned of the other libraries), had a copy of a
report in. It'd obviously cost many thousands of pounds and a lot of
time to prepare, with a huge list of stakeholders. It was concerned with
the upgrade of a local car park. All they were doing was repairing the
exisisting surface, repainting the markings and cutting back a tree that
was shading the pedestrian access and discouraging women from using it
at night. It went in depth into possible increased effects on wildlife,
local people, even whether water run-off would affect an artifical lake
3 miles away ... yet there was no change to the surface area, drainage,
use or anything else and therefore no possible change in the existing
effects. A total waste of money.

SteveW

On 16/01/2019 20:50, Steve Walker wrote:

The only problem I can see is that it would make replacement of
full-glass porch door, like for like, impossible or require a ridiculous
looking hole in the middle of the glass.


Vertical positioned letterbox on the edge of the door nominally on the
centre line of the height.


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

On 16/01/2019 23:49, alan_m wrote:
On 16/01/2019 20:50, Steve Walker wrote:

The only problem I can see is that it would make replacement of
full-glass porch door, like for like, impossible or require a
ridiculous looking hole in the middle of the glass.


Vertical positioned letterbox on the edge of the door nominally on the
centre line of the height.

The sides of such doors are not usually wide enough and would be severly
weakened by a large hole. Widening the sides would make the glass
narrower and look very odd.

SteveW

Royal mail support a gradual change to the US style of box at the end of a
drive or outside of a flat.

Besides if you have a very low box, surely if there is a flood you are in
trouble in any case.
Bring on the drones.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 16/01/2019 13:44, NY wrote:
Shame it doesn't also mandate a minimum height of the hole, to
accommodate thicker packages without the postman having to ring the bell
or take the package back to the sorting office for you to collect.

It doesn't seem to make much difference where I live. On multiple
occasions I've had the card instructing me to go to the distribution
centre to pick up a package that is too large. On collecting the "package"
I find that it is two or more packages held together with a red rubber
band and if removed they would have all individually fitted through my
letter box with ease.


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

On 16/01/2019 23:43, Steve Walker wrote:
On 16/01/2019 22:38, Robin wrote:
On 16/01/2019 21:29, Steve Walker wrote:
On 16/01/2019 20:50, Robin wrote:
On 16/01/2019 16:16, GB wrote:
On 16/01/2019 15:17, alan_m wrote:
snip


Will this Bill require changing existing letterboxes? If so, it
should go the whole hog and mandate size, as well as height.



It's not a real Bill.Â* It's a 10 minute rule Bill.Â* That's a
procedure which lets MPs speak for 10 minutes on an idea they'd like
to see legislated by (usually) the government.Â* So there's no detail
behind the substance.Â* But on the face of it the Bill was to "amend
building regulations to require letter boxes in new buildings to be
positioned above a certain height" (NB not even new doors.)Â* But
that'd all be for consultation/discussion/debate come a real Bill
with proposals worked up by officials.

Yes, I'm sure that they could spend millions working on it ... or
they could simply copy the Irish rules, probably substituting
BS-EN13724 for the Irish standard!

"Building Regulations 2000
Technical Guidance Document D
Materials and Workmanship

Section 1.6 - Letter Plates

Letter plates should be designed, manufactured and installed in
accordance with I.S. 195:1976, subject to the following (see also
Diagram 1):
(a) the minimum length of the aperture of a letter plate should be
250 mm (+/- 10 mm) and the minimum height should be 38 mm (+/- 1.5 mm);
(b) the unit of torque (listed in the standard) should be N mm."

This is followed by a diagram showing a minumum mounting height of
760mm to the lower edge, a maximum of 1450 to the upper edge and an
ideal of 1070 to the centre.

You may be happy with legislation introduced without consultation, and
without the usual impact assessments, but many people have thought
that to be a "bad thing" for so long that it's not in the gift of
officials to skip it all.

And this is why the state costs so much. The Irish have had this in
place for at least 18 years and there is no outcry due to problems
caused by it, but instead of adopting an eminently sensible solution,
with only minimal overview, we'll have to come up with our own version,
after a couple of years of consulting all and sundry at great cost.
Sometimes the simple and cheap option, even if not the best, is good
enough.


I'm not saying the regulations would be a big and expensive job, only
that the "I don't need advice, it's simple, JFDI" approach to
legislation carries risks. Much like assorted DIY jobs.

Let's pretend you are the Minister responsible. You tell your officials
you want to copy the Irish regulations and that's it. (Up to you if you
do so in Speaker Bercow style.) What is your answer to the firm in your
constituency that goes on local radio and says "we're going to have
spend thousands to change all our designs just 'cos Walker wants an
extra couple of mm[1] - WTF does he know about it?". To Questions in
the house asking "did you ask the views of disability groups and if not
why not?". To the CWU who say "Walker should have dealt with external
boxes at the same time but he didn't ask us"?

The usual process is designed - among other things, such as giving
better law - to avoid such questions or to give plausible answers to them.

[1] you prescribe a height of 38 mm +/- 1.5; BS EN 13724 has 30-35mm


--
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

I'd often wondered why it is popular to have low level post type letter box
thingies.
After all you will get flooded faster that way!
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jim K.." wrote in message
o.uk...
(Andrew Gabriel) Wrote in message:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...


See! Who says they're all crap now?
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
I'd often wondered why it is popular to have low level post type letter
box thingies. After all you will get flooded faster that way! Brian

I've only come across them when the doors have a lot of glass.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 13:26:45 UTC, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So, the Low Level Letterbox Prohibition Bill got an unusually large
viewing today, and cross party support...

In not many years time I think letter boxes will be completely obsolete as all correspondence and journalism is done online.

Perhaps all new developments should have external *parcel* boxes though.

Owain

On 17/01/2019 08:51, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd often wondered why it is popular to have low level post type letter box
thingies.

If they include a door knocker, cats can knock to come in. My sister
found that the next door's cat would try it on.

--
Max Demian

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:27:45 +0000, ARW
wrote:

snip

When I had a paper round I had one customer with a Yorkshire terrier
that always attacked.

We seem to now be part-time minders for what could be a 'Borkie'
(Beagle / Yorkshire terrier cross (rescue)) and have to say this (or
they) seem to have an 'interesting' temperament. [1]

It (or this one of unknown background etc) seems to be the most
friendly companion anyone could hope for but also seem to have it's
own agenda.

Like, if it sees another dog it could either take no notice of it, or
want to shout at it, initially at least (and size / gender / colour
doesn't seem to play a part). With most of the ones he wants to shout
at, once they have been close for a while and sniffed etc he seems to
go back to being just a friendly little dog, mostly.

I don't think he has any particular issues with the postman but does
seem to want to announce the presence of anyone at the door ... and
will generally bark at them if they aren't 'known', at least till we
start talking and then he accepts them as 'friend' (and so I guess
he's just doing his job).

A known visitor turned up for the first time wearing motorcycle gear
(inc wearing helmet) and he barked at him till he spoke, then he was
accepted again as 'friend'. ;-)

He pays no interest to any mail poking through the door. ;-)

Took him to a dog training class the other day and again, had little
issue with most of the people but did have an issue with one of the
other dogs (who was another Terrier of some sort).

Another family member has a dog half his size who regularly play bites
and chases him about and he takes much of it before just voicing his
disapproval. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] We are more used to whippets / lurchers who haven't generally
shown any aggressive signs to people or other dogs (other than to cats
and that's ok with us). ;-)

p.s. This Borkie seemed *very* interested in daughters rabbits, till
he found out their electric fence was on (twice). Since then we have
seen them nose to nose though the bars and that was because he wanted
whatever treats we were giving them. ;-)

On 16/01/2019 22:38, Robin wrote:
Of course that work will be quick and cheap easier if the Irish
addressed and documented issues such the needs of disabled.


The absolutely worst and most useless building regulations are those
addressing the 'needs of the disabled'

Ther are no such unique needs. Every disabled person is different. And
you need to in general adapt a house at considerable expense to meet
those needs.


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 17/01/2019 11:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2019 22:38, Robin wrote:
Of course that work will be quick and cheap easier if the Irish
addressed and documented issues such the needs of disabled.


The absolutely worst and most useless building regulations are those
addressing the 'needs of the disabled'

Ther are no such unique needs. Every disabled person is different. And
you need to in general adapt a house at considerable expense to meet
those needs.


Who said "unique"?

But as the Minister responsible would you say wheelchair users (and e.g.
the elderly) don't care how low - or high - letterboxes are? Or that you
don't care what they think?

If not, why adopt Irish figures from 2001 without even asking if
something else would be practicable and better - e.g. the "maximum"
common reaching zone?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 17/01/2019 12:30, Robin wrote:
On 17/01/2019 11:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2019 22:38, Robin wrote:
Of course that work will be quick and cheap easier if the Irish
addressed and documented issues such the needs of disabled.


The absolutely worst and most useless building regulations are those
addressing the 'needs of the disabled'

Ther are no such unique needs. Every disabled person is different. And
you need to in general adapt a house at considerable expense to meet
those needs.


Who said "unique"?

But as the Minister responsible would you say wheelchair users (and e.g.
the elderly) don't care how low - or high - letterboxes are? Or that you
don't care what they think?

Wheelchair users and the elderly do not normally post letters into
letter boxes.

Anymoer than they change ligthbulbs or use angle grinders or even
vaccuum cleaners.


If not, why adopt Irish figures from 2001 without even asking if
something else would be practicable and better - e.g. the "maximum"
common reaching zone?


Letter boxes drop letters on te floor ir into a box begind te door, The
convenuenbec is for those who post.

It's up to them to decide what they want.

In short it has NOTHING to do with 'disability' regulations.



--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 17/01/2019 12:36, Tim Streater wrote:
Vertical ****ing letterboxes are also a pain.

well don't do it then!


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 16/01/2019 14:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

But hasn't the country voted to leave the EU - primarily to stop being
told what to do?


There'd be nothing wrong, going forward, with this country adopting the
decent ideas of others.

In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 17/01/2019 11:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2019 22:38, Robin wrote:
Of course that work will be quick and cheap easier if the Irish
addressed and documented issues such the needs of disabled.


The absolutely worst and most useless building regulations are those
addressing the 'needs of the disabled'

Ther are no such unique needs. Every disabled person is different. And
you need to in general adapt a house at considerable expense to meet
those needs.


Who said "unique"?

But as the Minister responsible would you say wheelchair users (and e.g.
the elderly) don't care how low - or high - letterboxes are? Or that you
don't care what they think?

But surely. to comply with the DDA, letterboxes need to be of a height so
that a wheelchair bound postie can deliver to them

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 17/01/2019 12:30, Robin wrote:
On 17/01/2019 11:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2019 22:38, Robin wrote:
Of course that work will be quick and cheap easier if the Irish
addressed and documented issues such the needs of disabled.


The absolutely worst and most useless building regulations are those
addressing the 'needs of the disabled'

Ther are no such unique needs. Every disabled person is different. And
you need to in general adapt a house at considerable expense to meet
those needs.


Who said "unique"?

But as the Minister responsible would you say wheelchair users (and
e.g. the elderly) don't care how low - or high - letterboxes are? Or
that you don't care what they think?

Wheelchair users and the elderly do not normally post letters into
letter boxes.

How elderly is "elderly"?

Anymoer than they change ligthbulbs or use angle grinders or even
vaccuum cleaners.

same question.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 17/01/2019 12:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/01/2019 12:30, Robin wrote:
On 17/01/2019 11:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2019 22:38, Robin wrote:
Of course that work will be quick and cheap easier if the Irish
addressed and documented issues such the needs of disabled.


The absolutely worst and most useless building regulations are those
addressing the 'needs of the disabled'

Ther are no such unique needs. Every disabled person is different.
And you need to in general adapt a house at considerable expense to
meet those needs.


Who said "unique"?

But as the Minister responsible would you say wheelchair users (and
e.g. the elderly) don't care how low - or high - letterboxes are? Or
that you don't care what they think?

Wheelchair users and the elderly do not normally post letters into
letter boxes.

Most of them _receive_ post through their doors.

Anymoer than they change ligthbulbs or use angle grinders or even
vaccuum cleaners.

Oddly wheelchair users and elderly people don't all have carers, pay
cleaners, or take the Quentin Crisp approach to housework. And there
many reviews by and for them of what is and isn't a good machine for them.

If not, why adopt Irish figures from 2001 without even asking if
something else would be practicable and better - e.g. the "maximum"
common reaching zone?


Letter boxes drop letters on te floor ir into a box begind te door, The
convenuenbec is for those who post.

It's up to them to decide what they want.

In short it has NOTHING to do with 'disability' regulations.
Of course, you must be right.

('E pur si muove.)



[1] 'There is no need to do any housework at all. After the first four
years the dirt doesn't get any worse.'

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid