The Bull  permalink

Royal Mail privatisation.

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 77
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by auldhairy (U14258268) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    I'll be sorry to see this go. Rip off time coming soon?

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/u...

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by hoddles off into the sunset (U14129169) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Rip off time has already started. The enormous hike in postage charges is the first step in fattening up our Royal Mail in order to make it attractive to the Tories' pals - the spivs and wideboys of the private sector.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Alsdouble (U524298) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Bet ebay buy it.

    Bought an item on eBay on the 28th, Friday..5 oclock. It was delievered, 8.30 SATURDAY morning , standard postal small packet serfvice.

    Amazing.

    eBay SHOULD buy it.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by malfunction (U1523018) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Already started hairy. I use the RM as little as possible now, because they have got greedy. I didn't send a single Christmas card by mail, and most important stuff I receive now comes by e-mail or by 3rd party delivery companies.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Tomas_Bosque (U2631536) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    I don't really understand this report in my local rag:

    www.thecnj.com/camde...

    as Shieldex has been running my local post office for several years, as far as I've known.

    You can't get half the forms obtainable from regular post offices and have to go down the road to Camden Town for them.

    They have lost at least two recorded delivery letters I've sent from there; tracking them one never seemed to leave the post office itself, the other never got further than Heathrow.

    At first the staff who replaced the regular PO employees were worse than useless, at least lately they seem to be better. However, the place has certainly gone downhill since Shieldex took over - b***** all in improvements as promised in this article.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Spartacus (U14762542) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Indeed it has. I found out just before Christmas that the splitting of Royal Mail and the Post office led to rules about postage have been changed in such a way that something I could have posted with insurance for under £3 a few months back went up to nearly £6.

    Very bad for a small business like mine that posts goods out to customers. We could see more small businesses going to the wall through this. I must investigate alternative delivery services!

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by londonplug (U13638089) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Rip off time has already started. The enormous hike in postage charges is the first step in fattening up our Royal Mail in order to make it attractive to the Tories' pals - the spivs and wideboys of the private sector.  REPLY............... Another peice of the UK gone, what next!!!!!!!

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Skyebird (U14198692) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    I don't understand all the complaints about Royal Mail. I am constantly amazed by the good value. I can send a small parcel from the middle of nowhere in the afternoon and it arrives in civilization the next day for less than a fiver. Our post arrives in our isolated township just like it did I our suburban home and for the same price. I for one dread the destruction of such an excellent service.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Indeed it has. I found out just before Christmas that the splitting of Royal Mail and the Post office led to rules about postage have been changed in such a way that something I could have posted with insurance for under £3 a few months back went up to nearly £6. 

    Hmm, I discovered this only yesterday. Posting a parcel back with goods valued at £140 I was told that for them to be insured, I had to send them special delivery, even though there was no urgency involved. Which cost £9-75.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by smeesue (U5496649) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    There's recently been a stink kicked up over postal charges to the Highlands & Islands - something which I can confirm. Just to be clear, it's not the post office, it's unscrupulous websites adding costs on top of the cost of postage. Happens to folks on the mainland in the far north, as well as to us. We generally say 'no thanks' and find somewhere else to buy from, once we've rung up and challenged it.

    My postage costs have gone up to the extent that I can no longer cover it generally and am having to charge folks for P&P now. I'm glad that the majority of business I do this year will be face to face, it's not something I have to worry about then.

    I don't expect services to improve and am tempted to see if the island network can be of any use. Things can be passed from person to person til they get where they're going. I wonder if that would work with the ML network? Could we set up such a thing? Not so folks go out of their way, particularly, but pass stuff along as part of their daily travels. It'd be cheaper and certainly a lot safer!

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by londonplug (U13638089) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    I don't understand all the complaints about Royal Mail. I am constantly amazed by the good value. I can send a small parcel from the middle of nowhere in the afternoon and it arrives in civilization the next day for less than a fiver. Our post arrives in our isolated township just like it did I our suburban home and for the same price. I for one dread the destruction of such an excellent service.  REPLY................ Thumbs Up !!!!!!!!!! notice the recent obcene hike in prices to stealth spin the justification for privatisation, there was no need for the price rise, IMO it all was all done to make customers feel they were being ripped off by the Royal mail and welcome privatisation

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Spartacus (U14762542) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    It was made as plain as day by the young lady at the post office that the fact that I my parcel would not now (as in the past) be insured without using special delivery was entirely due to privatisation and the splitting of the Royal Mail and the Post Office into two separate companies.

    All hail the wonders of privatisation, eh?

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Spartacus (U14762542) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Wonder how long the parcel I will be sending you in March would take to get there if routed via Mustardland, Sue? I suspect you'd be lucky to get it by Christmas!

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by smeesue (U5496649) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Lol, I think maybe a wee bit sooner, but at least you'd know it would definitely arrive! Maybe combine the island and ML network? I'd trust all of them far more than some of the posties I've met. I have to say that our posties are absolute gems and will often go above and beyond.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    All hail the wonders of privatisation, eh? 

    It always strikes me as ironic, that for all Margaret Thatcher's latter bonkersness, the two things she would never even consider privatising were the Royal Mail and the Railways.

    Perhaps she wasn't as barking as it seemed, after all.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by smeesue (U5496649) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Anyone who thinks that privatising utilities - water, power, etc - is a good idea is bonkers.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    It was made as plain as day by the young lady at the post office that the fact that I my parcel would not now (as in the past) be insured without using special delivery was entirely due to privatisation and the splitting of the Royal Mail and the Post Office into two separate companies.

    All hail the wonders of privatisation, eh? 
    What's more, the people in your local post office will get sacked if they don't meet their selling targets, which is why they are more pushy about offering additional and more expensive services.

    You get a much better deal on postal services if you have a direct contract with Royal Mail, rather than doings stuff through the post office. If a customer does enough business, Royal Mail will identify them and invite them to deal direct. Thus, having poached the local post office's best customers, they will close it because it is under-used.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by sthilda (U3612164) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Agree, time and again royal mail has been compared to other countries, which have higher prices and poorer service( not delivering to every single address for example).
    Not to mention the fact that posties were also a social connection, esp for in more rural areas...once more an excellent service is stamped on and sold off...
    On another threaddiscussing trains, people imsisted the trains were worse in the past...but oh used the trains to get to school , waiting in a waiting room that had a coal fire, on a station that was well stafffed and therefore safe for herto travel from a young age, alone....i think its too easy to use blinkers to not notice what is lost in human terms , when we throw away such services....

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Morse Lives (U1863548) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Anyone who thinks that privatising utilities - water, power, etc - is a good idea is bonkers.  

    Hear Hear.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Spartacus (U14762542) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Anyone who thinks that privatising utilities - water, power, etc - is a good idea is bonkers.   I think that case is already proven, innit? Deterioration in service and increased costs have been the inevitable censequence. So what on earth are they thinking of destroying the postal service as well?

    Our regular postie is a gem (he lived on our street as a kid and has known me since he was young - which always helps, I think) but the guy who delivers the larger parcels is unspeakable...

    You get good and bad everywhere, I suppose.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Anyone who thinks that privatising utilities - water, power, etc - is a good idea is bonkers.  

    Depends on the utilities IMO, and how you privatise them, and how you regulate them.

    As we have ended up now, the water companies are simply foreign-owned banknote printing machines who waste half our water because dividends come before investment in infrastructure.

    OTOH there is a lot to be said against the way the old water boards did things.

    The trouble is these companies are natural monopolies, it is very difficult and contrived to introduce competition satisfactorily, they end up as as effective oligopolies.

    The point about rail and mail, as I suspect Mrs T realised, is that they are inherently loss-making, and therefore cannot really be privatised successfully. I am not sure how much longer people will put up with year on year rail fare increases to keep Beardy and his mates in islands.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Spartacus (U14762542) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    censequence - censequence? wot on earth is censequence? should of course be consequence!

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by BryanLuc (U12989423) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Anyone who thinks that privatising utilities - water, power, etc - is a good idea is bonkers.  

    The only successful privatisation was BT
    For those of a certain age who remember the nightmare of dealing with them before, the endless wait for a telephone and possibly getting a shared line, the refusal to give you your phone number until the day of installation, and the usual indifferent service

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Capn Jack Mcferret (U8917649) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Agree with that Bryan, weeks or months to get a line in, and we have the delights of SWW too.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    The only successful privatisation was BT
    For those of a certain age who remember the nightmare of dealing with them before, the endless wait for a telephone and possibly getting a shared line, the refusal to give you your phone number until the day of installation, and the usual indifferent service 


    BT certainly, but British Airways, BP, BAA and a few others moved the management of essentially commercial entities away from the choking bureaucracy of the civil service.

    We should look at not for dividend but private companies like Network Rail to run essential but loss making utility infrastructures, however strangely enough they only come into existence out of crisis, because the City boys do not make any money from them.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by smeesue (U5496649) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    One time deal on the reply, BL, because I have experience in this area.


    The benefits of communication via phone, internet etc cannot be overstated. Unfortunately, a great many of them don't show up on the bottom of a balance sheet, rather spread around our communities. Up here, decent services are of an essential nature. Yet we don't have high speed broadband because BT won't upgrade our exchange; we can't keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed. We only have one off island hub - that's the bit that all mobile, phone and net communications go through - and it's seriously below the required capacity. The company that runs our broadband paid for an upgrade last year and it's still below capacity. When it goes down - and I do mean when, not if; lightning strikes and idiots going through cables, amongst other things - it takes out our 999 coms with it. That is, plain and simple, dangerous. It means that we have to call via the police in town, using the local number, should an ambulance be required. It also means that all coastguard aerial sites must be manually monitored, 24 hours a day, until it's back up again. The volunteers do it - and they don't get paid for it either.

    Privatising BT was a dreadful idea. Allowing one company to take control of the nations communication infrastructure is a monopoly - and one that doesn't do anyone any favours. If anything, it should have returned to the pre WWII status. In fact, there's still one area that doesn't belong to BT, as it was never absorbed.

    We shouldn't be putting profit before utilities.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by hoddles off into the sunset (U14129169) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    On another threaddiscussing trains, people imsisted the trains were worse in the past...but oh used the trains to get to school , waiting in a waiting room that had a coal fire, on a station that was well stafffed and therefore safe for herto travel from a young age, alone....i think its too easy to use blinkers to not notice what is lost in human terms , when we throw away such services.... 

    Accountants don't have budget lines for all the non-monetary benefits of public enterprises which we have lost. They know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Spartacus (U14762542) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Ain't that the truth.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    One time deal on the reply, BL, because I have experience in this area.


    The benefits of communication via phone, internet etc cannot be overstated. Unfortunately, a great many of them don't show up on the bottom of a balance sheet, rather spread around our communities. Up here, decent services are of an essential nature. Yet we don't have high speed broadband because BT won't upgrade our exchange; we can't keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed. We only have one off island hub - that's the bit that all mobile, phone and net communications go through - and it's seriously below the required capacity. The company that runs our broadband paid for an upgrade last year and it's still below capacity. When it goes down - and I do mean when, not if; lightning strikes and idiots going through cables, amongst other things - it takes out our 999 coms with it. That is, plain and simple, dangerous. It means that we have to call via the police in town, using the local number, should an ambulance be required. It also means that all coastguard aerial sites must be manually monitored, 24 hours a day, until it's back up again. The volunteers do it - and they don't get paid for it either.

    Privatising BT was a dreadful idea. Allowing one company to take control of the nations communication infrastructure is a monopoly - and one that doesn't do anyone any favours. If anything, it should have returned to the pre WWII status. In fact, there's still one area that doesn't belong to BT, as it was never absorbed.

    We shouldn't be putting profit before utilities.  
    smeesue...you obviously have a very short memory.
    The old BT was the worst telephone and communications service in the western world. |It was years, decades in technological innovation behind other European countries.
    Now it is probably the best.

    In the early 70s we moved to a new house on a new estate. The lines were in, just had to be connected to the houses.
    We ordered a phone for our new home.
    We waited about three months then three...yes three...men came to do the connection and put the box on the wall....a job that should take one man (or woman) a few minutes.
    We then waited another three weeks from memory for theactual phone to arrive.
    This was delivered and connected by two men!

    You must understand that Nationalised companies are not there to drive an industry forward, to give good service to it's customers, to be efficient or productive. It is there to give employment. Every nationalised industry needed huge subsidies....not to invest in new equipment, R & D, modernisation as with today's railways (remember the filthy run down obsolete trains of BR?) but to pay the wages of thousands of unnecessary staff and the civil servants to run it.

    If you disagree please tell me the title of a nationalised industry that was well run, efficient, invested in modernisation, not overstaffed and good value for money.

    From "Economics Online"

    By the late 1970s it became increasingly apparent that many of the industries nationalised between 1945 and 1951 were running into difficulties. The major problems that the industries faced were:

    They were being managed ineffectively and inefficiently. The principal-agent problem is highly relevant to public sector activities given that the managers of the utilities were generally not required to meet any efficiency objectives set by the state. There was growing criticism that, because these industries were protected from competition, they had become increasingly ‘X’ inefficient.

    Nationalised industries were also prone to suffer from moral hazard, which occurs whenever individuals or organisations are insured against the negative consequences of their own inefficient behaviour. For example, if a particular nationalised industry made operating losses, the government would simply cover those loses with subsidies. Knowing that the taxpayer would come to the rescue meant that the inefficient behaviour could continue. This is, perhaps, the most significant criticism of the recent 'bail out' of failing banks. Given that they know the taxpayer will bail them out this may be an encouragement to continue with their inefficient and highly risky lending activities.

    In addition, the nationalised industries had limited scope to raise capital for long term investment and modernisation because they would have to compete with other government spending departments, like education, health and defence. The result was a prolonged period of under-investment in these industries.

    NOTE..."under-investment"

    I suppose it is natural to remember the past through rose coloured glasses.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by idontbelieveit (U14276798) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Anyone who thinks that privatising utilities - water, power, etc - is a good idea is bonkers.

    Hear Hear. -

    Astonishing cogency of argument.
    Well done.
    No validation,no detail,just dogma.
    And 2 people believe the same thing!
    It is must be true!

    Anyone that proposes a company be run for ideology of governmental ownership above service is surely reprehensible yes?
    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by malfunction (U1523018) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    My gas and electric supplier is still government owned, the government of /France/.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by londonplug (U13638089) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Agree, time and again royal mail has been compared to other countries, which have higher prices and poorer service( not delivering to every single address for example).
    Not to mention the fact that posties were also a social connection, esp for in more rural areas...once more an excellent service is stamped on and sold off...
    On another threaddiscussing trains, people imsisted the trains were worse in the past...but oh used the trains to get to school , waiting in a waiting room that had a coal fire, on a station that was well stafffed and therefore safe for herto travel from a young age, alone....i think its too easy to use blinkers to not notice what is lost in human terms , when we throw away such services.... 
    REPLY.............. Thumbs up!!!!!!! Before the postman was rushed to death he /she was indeed performing a valued social service especialy for the elderly they used to have time to talk to people

    And as for trains you did have heated waiting rooms stations were well staffed and more to the point fares were affordable for all

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by BryanLuc (U12989423) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    If you disagree please tell me the title of a nationalised industry that was well run, efficient, invested in modernisation, not overstaffed and good value for money.  

    Those that were not run for profit only and provided a good service, and kept deliberately short staffed to increase profits

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by littlecandle (U2651900) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    It always strikes me as ironic, that for all Margaret Thatcher's latter bonkersness, the two things she would never even consider privatising were the Royal Mail and the Railways.

    Perhaps she wasn't as barking as it seemed, after all. 

    I agree!

    lc

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    "nd as for trains you did have heated waiting rooms stations were well staffed and more to the point fares were affordable for all"

    But they were heavily subsidised by everyone...even by those who didn't use the railways...and that subsidy didn't go towards modernisation, new rolling stock, new signal systems, new lines and destinations...it went towards paying wages and supporting civil servants!

    Fares have gone up above inflation for the last ten years and the difference between the trains I used to commute on and the present trains...and the punctuality...and most important the safety...is there to see.

    If you want a better rail system you have to pay for it. All we paid for under the nationalised system was to keep paying the wages of thousands of unnecessary people. Meanwhile the railways were getting worse and worse. I'm amazed at the short memories people have!

    Even though there are now far more cars on the road and there are better roads the number of people using the railways has been steadily increasing over the last few years, I believe the figure is around 20%. Doesn't that tell you something?

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by BryanLuc (U12989423) on Saturday, 5th January 2013


    Fares have gone up above inflation for the last ten years and the difference between the trains I used to commute on and the present trains...and the punctuality...and most important the safety...is there to see.  


    So you think they are safer today
    Squashed in cheek by jowl in seats that are worse than airline seats, again for more profit. The old trains with solid seats and compartments were much safer

    If you want a better rail system you have to pay for it. All we paid for under the nationalised system was to keep paying the wages of thousands of unnecessary people. Meanwhile the railways were getting worse and worse. I'm amazed at the short memories people have!  

    "Unnecessary people" to you provided a decent service, remember when you could find a porter, ready and willing to help you

    Even though there are now far more cars on the road and there are better roads the number of people using the railways has been steadily increasing over the last few years, I believe the figure is around 20%. Doesn't that tell you something?  

    Yes, the high cost of petrol, and parking if you can find a space

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by londonplug (U13638089) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    "If you want a better rail system you have to pay for it."

    REPLY..............Fat lot of use to you if you can not afford to use it

    And as for rolling stock that was the rolling stock of the time what is the point of trying to compare that with today very good if i remember just like my shiney new Granada 3 ltr ghia {Sweeny car} it was the bogs beeees in them days wouldnt compare very well against todays motors even a little ffiester would blow it away
    Are you trying to say that things wouldnt have moved on???

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Safety....just check the figures...infinitely better safety record.

    Comfort....what a short memory you have!

    cars....many times more carowners now than 30 or 40 years ago....yet passenger numbers up.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    ...and for your information I've looked up the"deaths on UK railways" figures....there have been 71 deaths since privatisation...and nearly half of those was Ladbroke Grove when a driver passed a danger signal.
    Under BR the figuren was several hundred...I gave up counting!

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by idontbelieveit (U14276798) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Perhaps she wasn't as barking as it seemed, after all.

    I agree! -

    Aaah.The ol' "Maggie was mad" argument.
    Roll it out when the barrel has no bottom left to scrape.

    Argue against her policies sure,point out how she allegedly split communities etc,but are you really happy to limit your argument to saying she seemed mad?
    It's offensive to mental health sufferers for a start,but that obviously isn't on your list of goodthink is it?


    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    But they were heavily subsidised by everyone...even by those who didn't use the railways...and that subsidy didn't go towards modernisation, new rolling stock, new signal systems, new lines and destinations...it went towards paying wages and supporting civil servants!

    Fares have gone up above inflation for the last ten years and the difference between the trains I used to commute on and the present trains...and the punctuality...and most important the safety...is there to see.

    If you want a better rail system you have to pay for it. All we paid for under the nationalised system was to keep paying the wages of thousands of unnecessary people. Meanwhile the railways were getting worse and worse. I'm amazed at the short memories people have!

    Even though there are now far more cars on the road and there are better roads the number of people using the railways has been steadily increasing over the last few years, I believe the figure is around 20%. Doesn't that tell you something? 


    Yes, yes, yes all true but not the point. It is a non-profit making entity, but we are allowing various entrepreneurs with or without beards to take enormous profits out of it, while the costs of infrastructure re-investment are split between tax payers and passengers. Or customers or clients or whatever.

    Not for dividend private companies like Network Rail (and LNER or whatever it's called this week) are actually an extremely sensible way of managing loss making necessary industries, without buying people yachts and islands in the caribbean.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    "If you want a better rail system you have to pay for it."

    REPLY..............Fat lot of use to you if you can not afford to use it

    And as for rolling stock that was the rolling stock of the time what is the point of trying to compare that with today very good if i remember just like my shiney new Granada 3 ltr ghia {Sweeny car} it was the bogs beeees in them days wouldnt compare very well against todays motors even a little ffiester would blow it away
    Are you trying to say that things wouldnt have moved on???  
    That's just the point ...it wasn't the rolling stock of the time...it was 30, 40 years old...some even pre-war!
    There wasn't the money or the inclination to buy up to date trains!

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by auldhairy (U14258268) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    On Monday I'm going to ask our postman, who is also a friend, what he and others who work for the Royal Mail what they think about the privatisation.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    On Monday I'm going to ask our postman, who is also a friend, what he and others who work for the Royal Mail what they think about the privatisation. 

    I suspect he will tell you. The ones I know around here are not silent on the subject.

    But they didn't tell me about this parcel crap, which is done by post office counters as far as I can see.

    It all seems to be deliberately obscure.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't "Royal Mail" the part not going to be privatised?

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by hoddles off into the sunset (U14129169) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    It's offensive to mental health sufferers for a start, 

    If the poster believes she was mad, and many do, in what way is it offensive to others with mental health issues?

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't "Royal Mail" the part not going to be privatised? 

    I genuinely don't know.

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Spartacus (U14762542) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    As I understand it both Royal Mail and the Post Office are being privatised as two separate companies, but I may have misunderstood. I shall check with my postie and the folk at the post office next week.

    I can tell you this much for sure - none of them are best pleased with the way things are going and the flack they expect from customers as a result...

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by Lucretzia (U5974342) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    I haven't forgiven them for getting rid of their bicycles.

    A postman just doesn't look right dragging a trolley.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by auldhairy (U14258268) on Saturday, 5th January 2013

    I haven't forgiven them for getting rid of their bicycles.

    A postman just doesn't look right dragging a trolley. 

    Our postman has a bicycle and when he is on holiday a postwoman uses his bicycle.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.