Give The Postie A Medal...

18 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2006-08-30 13:27

It appears a postie has been carpeted for daring to inform householders that they can demand to be removed from the list of victims who live under the hail of junk circulars that come through their letter boxes on a daily basis. The Royal Mail deliberately conceal this information, because they make millions out of delivering this crap every year. My dislike of the Daily Wail was suspended for a few minutes yesterday as I read the news report, and made note of the means to be removed from the list.

You would think that considering the numbers of people who hate this crap, (I even remove the leaflets from my newspaper, and leave them in the newsagents for THEM to dispose of), that advertisers would work out that they're wasting their money having the stuff delivered anyway. On a point of principal I would NEVER buy any goods/services as a result of junk mail; that just encourages them.

Those wishing to opt out can do so by email at, 'optout@royalmail.co.uk', or phone; 08457950950.

There is also a snail mail address;

Door to Door Opt Outs,
Royal Mail Door to Door,
Kingsmead House,
Oxpens Road,
Oxford.
OX1 1RX

Since the details were published it seem that the numbers of those wishing to be 'excused' is so large that the email address has crashed, and the phone number grid-locked.

In an effort to persuade people to reconsider, the RM are saying that those 'excusing' themselves will not receive legitimate mail such as government circulars, as removal from the list will mean NO unaddressed mail will get through!

Fucking good job too, if you ask me. If the government can't be arsed to put my name on the envelope I reckon it can't be to my advantage to open it anyway.

In this age in which we are constantly battered around the head to recycle everything in order to save the planet, I'm surprised the government haven't completely banned junk mail in order to save a few trees.

My local council has just embarked on the latest stage of its recycling efforts. Yesterday I came home to find a large roll of CLEAR polythene bags on my doorstep wrapped in a label exhorting me to place plastic bottles (but no caps), out for collection on the same day as the WHITE sack of newspapers. That is the alternate weeks to the large BROWN wheelie bin containing garden waste, (it used to also contain food scraps, until they were freaked out by health scares, and we were told to put the food scraps in the large GREY wheelie bin, which goes out EVERY week. The BROWN bin, which (doesn't go out between late October and sometime around March the following year), is accompanied by the GREEN box containing jars and cans. Are you still with me? Good, can someone please tell me what I have to put out next week?

The whole point IS, if the government want to save the planet, (though christ knows why, collectively they've been destroying it for 200 years), they could make a good start by, as I say above, banning junk mail and forcing manufacturers to reduce packaging, which in some cases must cost more than the contents to produce, (cornflakes for instance).

As it happens, a survey of the local recycling effort found that the recycling cost more than it saved, but I guess they perpetuate it on the basis that it keeps conservation in householders minds.

The RM obviously don't give a shit about rain forest preservation as they continue to make millions by pushing trees through our doors every fucking day.

I shall be insisting they take me off their list and I don't give a dogs dick what I'll miss out on.

Wed, 2006-08-30 14:09

yan

Thanks for the info. Totally agree. There's also a free service you can join that re-directs witheld number calls to your phone to a "f**k off" message, but I can't rem what the number is. I detest people who ring me and withold their number - so disrespectful. There's nothing worse than a neighbour with crap wind chimes

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Wed, 2006-08-30 14:15

poetjude

...too bloody right jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Wed, 2006-08-30 14:36

maddan

I love how Royal Mail have completely screwed themselves by disciplining the postman. Worried about a few people opting out of junk mail they set in to motion a series of events which has resulted in millions (well, quite a lot) of people opting out of junk mail. I believe it's called the Streisland effect.

Wed, 2006-08-30 14:52

Jack Cade

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Royal Mail, being wholly government owned and lacking any shareholders, is not out to 'make millions' in the way a private company would be. There's no incentive for any of its employees to rake in more money, because it wouldn't affect their own wages. Ergo (and maybe I'm buying into their excuse here, but I see no reason at present to disbelieve it) the purpose of making money from junkmail is primarily to keep the cost of postage down, and without it we'll all have to pay more for stamps. Personally, I'd rather put up with the crap - it's easy enough to shove in the recycle box. Added to that, the vast majority of junkmail I've received over the past few years has had a name and address on it - not my name, but that of a previous resident. So I don't think stopping the 'unaddressed/to the occupier' segment will make a whole lot of difference anyway. Not a good excuse for reprimanding the postman, but something to consider. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Wed, 2006-08-30 14:58

joe glass

Is the Royal Mail government owned? I thought it was all private now. At least, that's why they keep hoiking up the prices and cutting back services. No?

Wed, 2006-08-30 15:20

maddan

Its a wholly government owned plc, it still has to make money somehow, something it's struggled with recently.

Wed, 2006-08-30 15:40

mississippi

Jon, you are not wrong about the ownership, as Dan says BUT, it DOES have shareholders, they are usually referred to as 'taxpayers', and as the guy in charge of that area of government, (that greasy bastard, Gordon Brown), has to somehow show he's balancing the books, he raises as much money as he can, every which way he can. He's in the envious position that allows him to lose money on one project and cover it on another, hence the revenue accruing from junk mail doesn't necessarily result in lower postage costs, in fact the recent re-jigging of postal charges will actually result in an overall postage increase, (though the RM, yet again, make much of crap like, most mail will be cheaper). Apparently the charges go something like this. There's a minimum charge of Â£500 for setting up the account, plus a fixed fee (I can't remember exactly what it was) for each 1000 pieces of crap delivered. Brown wouldn't even consider scrapping a fund-raiser like that, when it's not even a bone of contention with anyone. The cash raised goes into the money jar and so it's almost impossible to say WHERE it goes, maybe it buys bombs and bullets to kill those children in Lebanon! My point IS, if governments are going to take conservation seriously they need to start banning stuff like this that does absolutely no good to the planet at all.

Wed, 2006-08-30 15:47

Jack Cade

It's true that it's not very environmentally friendly, but it's hard to see how you could ban it altogether. If you take away the option for companies to do it through Royal Mail, they'll use mailing lists instead. It'll then become a case of making it impossible to differentiate junkmail from genuine correspondence with customers without opening the mail up. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe Just to avoid me (and

Wed, 2006-08-30 15:49

#10

camus

Personally, we couldn't have survived the last 4 years (and most especially the past year or so when the Royal Mail wage structure changed) when I was not working if it weren't for the extra cash that my husband earnt delivering door to doors (junk mail) and the same goes for alot of the other posties and their families that we know.

Wed, 2006-08-30 15:57

#11

poetjude

I understand Camus. But if a family relies on the wage earned by one member carrying out something that I don't agree with, I still don't agree with it. It is a bit like the chuggers. I always tell them in London why I do not believe that people should be allowed to accost other people on the street no matter how noble the cause. There has to be a separation. I think it is wrong that I have to cross the street to avoid a chugger who I know will try and stop me to get me to sign up to a direct debit even if the result is a life is saved. I also think it is wrong that I have to clear up a handful of junkmail every evening even if somebody earns a living from it. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Wed, 2006-08-30 15:59

#12

mississippi

The wage structure of the RM is a different issue, Â£13000 per annum for a 48hr week is crap, but then so is Â£78,000 for a wanky MP! There needs to be some serious re-alignment of wages in this country. Part of my point regarding junk mail is that no one wants it through their door, and if like me, they throw it straight into the rubbish bin, its purpose is neutralised. So WHY do so many companies indulge in it anyway? It's pointless, annoying, wasteful, and just forces up prices of everything.

Wed, 2006-08-30 16:02

#13

mississippi

Never heard the term 'chugger' before, Jude, but it sounds about right. I won't cross the street but depending on my mood will either tell them, 'You don't want to talk to me, trust me, I know', that's on a good day. 'Fuck off' usually works on the bad days.

Wed, 2006-08-30 16:08

#14

maddan

The RM is hardly a cash cow for the government, it's only just turned profitable after a long period of losing money.

Wed, 2006-08-30 16:10

#15

poetjude

Tis an amalgum of Charity-Mugger. I have nothing against street evangelisation or even somebody collecting with a tin or some kind of invitation to approach them. But I don't think an aggressive emotive sell on the street is appropriate for charity fund raising. Chugging was hugely success when it began. The baby boomer generation believed that any decent person who earned enough would make some donation from their salary to good causes. Generation X did not do three things; vote, go to Church and give to Charity on a regular basis. Whilst the political parties and Religions failed in combating this, the charities suceeded. The success of the chugger proving that generation X was lazy rather than selfish. I still think it wrong because - being hassled on the street is just wrong, full-stop -you should be able to consider which charity you wish to donate to (often for personal reasons), and we can't donate to them all, and then make a choice, not be sold it with a sob-story on the street

Wed, 2006-08-30 16:17

#16

mississippi

I never said it was a cash cow Dan, I merely meant it was a relatively lucrative way of making extra money from a service that we need anyway. I also don't believe that every public service should HAVE to make a profit. If that was the case, the armed forces would be even further in the shit than they are already. Hospitals would all close, (except the private ones), schools and universities also. Some things in society are desirable for the betterment of that society, and I see no reason why we shouldn't fund them whatever the cost. What I resent are domestic activities that are foisted upon me and which I would never support.

Wed, 2006-08-30 16:26

#17

Jack Cade

"Part of my point regarding junk mail is that no one wants in through their door, and if like me, they throw it straight into the rubbish bin, its purpose is neutralised. So WHY do so many companies indulge in it anyway?" It works. Just like cold-calling. Even though 95% plus of people throw it away, it makes business sense purely on the basis of the very small number of people who will In the company I worked for until recently, they sent out mail-drops all the time (to people whose addresses they'd acquired through competitions, or who'd contacted them before) and there was always a strong response to them. You could expect maybe 10 calls from a primetime TV advert, but about 40-50, over the course of a morning, from people who'd "just been reading this flyer you posted through the door and it sounds very interesting." My friend is thinking of becoming a chugger. He reckons he can take the hate, and also believes it's justified because people can generally afford to give more to charity than they do, and if you can convince a few people a day to sign up for just a couple of months (the vast majority will cancel the direct debit after that) it can make all the difference. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Wed, 2006-08-30 16:29

#18

maddan

As far as I understand it the reason that the RM is a company rather than a service is that all the other companies that deliver things for money would be a bit put out if the RM was funded by the taxpayer. At least that's the philosphy.

Topic locked