Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Accuracy of scales at the Post Office
848 views
Skip to first unread message
Roland Perry
Jun 13, 2012, 1:45:02 PM6/13/12
to
I was sending a parcel today that I knew was very close to 2kg
(according to my kitchen scales).
The first Sub Post Office I went to measured it on an analogue (dial)
scale behind the counter and declared it to be over 2kg and thus £8.80
I wasn't convinced, so took it to a second Sub Post Office which has
digital scales on the customer side of the counter. 1.936kg and £5.30
Given that the difference is at least 3%, is that within the required
accuracy?
--
Roland Perry
(according to my kitchen scales).
The first Sub Post Office I went to measured it on an analogue (dial)
scale behind the counter and declared it to be over 2kg and thus £8.80
I wasn't convinced, so took it to a second Sub Post Office which has
digital scales on the customer side of the counter. 1.936kg and £5.30
Given that the difference is at least 3%, is that within the required
accuracy?
--
Roland Perry
TTman
Jun 13, 2012, 5:05:01 PM6/13/12
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1H1ETsMg...@perry.co.uk...
AFAIR the scales are supposed to be 'calibrated' once a week with 'standard'
weights. ( The analogue one, not digital, although they may have the same
requirement.)
Roland Perry
Jun 13, 2012, 5:40:02 PM6/13/12
to
In message <jrav97$hnf$1...@dont-email.me>, at 22:05:01 on Wed, 13 Jun
2012, TTman <pcw1...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
to be easily readable within a couple of grammes.
--
Roland Perry
2012, TTman <pcw1...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>I was sending a parcel today that I knew was very close to 2kg
>(according to my kitchen scales).
>
>The first Sub Post Office I went to measured it on an analogue (dial)
>scale behind the counter and declared it to be over 2kg and thus £8.80
>
>I wasn't convinced, so took it to a second Sub Post Office which has
>digital scales on the customer side of the counter. 1.936kg and £5.30
>
>Given that the difference is at least 3%, is that within the required
>accuracy?
>--
>Roland Perry
>
>Perhaps not a question of accuracy, more of parallax with the analogue dial?
The dial is about a foot across and the pointer very thin. I'd expect it
>(according to my kitchen scales).
>
>The first Sub Post Office I went to measured it on an analogue (dial)
>scale behind the counter and declared it to be over 2kg and thus £8.80
>
>I wasn't convinced, so took it to a second Sub Post Office which has
>digital scales on the customer side of the counter. 1.936kg and £5.30
>
>Given that the difference is at least 3%, is that within the required
>accuracy?
>--
>Roland Perry
>
>Perhaps not a question of accuracy, more of parallax with the analogue dial?
to be easily readable within a couple of grammes.
--
Roland Perry
Percy Picacity
Jun 13, 2012, 6:35:01 PM6/13/12
to
Thin pointers can be misread if the operator does not understand how to
use them. It may be that the scales are both accurate and precise, but
the user less so.
--
Percy Picacity
Nthkentman
Jun 13, 2012, 6:00:05 PM6/13/12
to
1) It annoys the staff immensely
2) It holds up the queue of whinging pensioners
3) They "Err" on the side of caution and usually ask you to pay less given
the hassle from the rest of the queue
4) If all of the above fails ask for the calibration sheet for the day. If
not provided ask them for manufacturers proof of accuracy
5) Go elsewhere
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2012, 2:50:02 AM6/14/12
to
In message <5n7psm....@news.alt.net>, at 23:35:01 on Wed, 13 Jun
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
packet and parcel they handle (they have three windows, usually one or
two manned).
Yesterday, I gave them over a dozen in the space of five minutes, and
it's like that all day (they rarely don't have a queue). All they need
to be able to do is see which side of the "2kg" line the pointer is.
It's so fundamental to their business I don't believe they would get
that wrong. Which just leaves the scales not reading the same as the
ones elsewhere.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>Thin pointers can be misread if the operator does not understand how to
>use them. It may be that the scales are both accurate and precise, but
>the user less so.
The staff seem well trained. They use the one set of scales for every
>use them. It may be that the scales are both accurate and precise, but
>the user less so.
packet and parcel they handle (they have three windows, usually one or
two manned).
Yesterday, I gave them over a dozen in the space of five minutes, and
it's like that all day (they rarely don't have a queue). All they need
to be able to do is see which side of the "2kg" line the pointer is.
It's so fundamental to their business I don't believe they would get
that wrong. Which just leaves the scales not reading the same as the
ones elsewhere.
--
Roland Perry
Chris R
Jun 14, 2012, 4:40:02 AM6/14/12
to
>
>
> "Nthkentman" wrote in message
> news:99udnQIZ6snmkUTS...@bt.com...
>
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1H1ETsMg...@perry.co.uk...
> I was sending a parcel today that I knew was very close to 2kg
> (according to my kitchen scales).
>
> The first Sub Post Office I went to measured it on an analogue (dial)
> scale behind the counter and declared it to be over 2kg and thus �8.80
>
> I wasn't convinced, so took it to a second Sub Post Office which has
> digital scales on the customer side of the counter. 1.936kg and �5.30
>
....
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1H1ETsMg...@perry.co.uk...
> I was sending a parcel today that I knew was very close to 2kg
> (according to my kitchen scales).
>
> The first Sub Post Office I went to measured it on an analogue (dial)
> scale behind the counter and declared it to be over 2kg and thus �8.80
>
> I wasn't convinced, so took it to a second Sub Post Office which has
> digital scales on the customer side of the counter. 1.936kg and �5.30
>
> 3) They "Err" on the side of caution and usually ask you to pay less given
> the hassle from the rest of the queue
....
> the hassle from the rest of the queue
> 5) Go elsewhere
Is there no danger that the item will be re-weighed during the delivery
process and charged excess postage?
--
Chris R
Sara
Jun 14, 2012, 4:50:03 AM6/14/12
to
In article <TLydneloktEvP0TS...@brightview.co.uk>,
would assume that no one else will feel the need to check, which is not
the case if you buy stamps and stick them on yourself.
--
Armageddon can be louder than expected for such a small cat.
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Nthkentman" wrote in message
> > news:99udnQIZ6snmkUTS...@bt.com...
> >
> > "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1H1ETsMg...@perry.co.uk...
> > I was sending a parcel today that I knew was very close to 2kg
> > (according to my kitchen scales).
> >
> > The first Sub Post Office I went to measured it on an analogue (dial)
> > scale behind the counter and declared it to be over 2kg and thus Ł8.80
> >
> >
> > "Nthkentman" wrote in message
> > news:99udnQIZ6snmkUTS...@bt.com...
> >
> > "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1H1ETsMg...@perry.co.uk...
> > I was sending a parcel today that I knew was very close to 2kg
> > (according to my kitchen scales).
> >
> > The first Sub Post Office I went to measured it on an analogue (dial)
> >
> > I wasn't convinced, so took it to a second Sub Post Office which has
> > digital scales on the customer side of the counter. 1.936kg and Ł5.30
> > I wasn't convinced, so took it to a second Sub Post Office which has
> >
> ....
> > 3) They "Err" on the side of caution and usually ask you to pay less given
> > the hassle from the rest of the queue
> ....
> > 5) Go elsewhere
>
> Is there no danger that the item will be re-weighed during the delivery
> process and charged excess postage?
If it's got a Post Office generated sticker on it showing price paid, I
> ....
> > 3) They "Err" on the side of caution and usually ask you to pay less given
> > the hassle from the rest of the queue
> ....
> > 5) Go elsewhere
>
> Is there no danger that the item will be re-weighed during the delivery
> process and charged excess postage?
would assume that no one else will feel the need to check, which is not
the case if you buy stamps and stick them on yourself.
--
Armageddon can be louder than expected for such a small cat.
David McNeish
Jun 14, 2012, 4:55:02 AM6/14/12
to
On Jun 14, 9:40 am, "Chris R" <inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> Is there no danger that the item will be re-weighed during the delivery
> process and charged excess postage?
If you've already put on your own stamps, possibly, but it seems
> Is there no danger that the item will be re-weighed during the delivery
> process and charged excess postage?
unlikely if the postage is (as seems the norm these days for weighed
items) a label printed by the counter staff.
Graeme
Jun 14, 2012, 2:50:02 AM6/14/12
to
In message <1H1ETsMg...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
are checked weekly, and both are subject to random checks by the local
trading standards people, as are the weights used for checking. The
last trading standards check was a few weeks ago, when both scales and
the weights were deemed accurate, although I was not told the 'required
accuracy' figure.
--
Graeme
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>
>Given that the difference is at least 3%, is that within the required
>accuracy?
I am a sub postmaster, and have both digital and analogue scales. Both
>Given that the difference is at least 3%, is that within the required
>accuracy?
are checked weekly, and both are subject to random checks by the local
trading standards people, as are the weights used for checking. The
last trading standards check was a few weeks ago, when both scales and
the weights were deemed accurate, although I was not told the 'required
accuracy' figure.
--
Graeme
Graeme
Jun 14, 2012, 5:05:09 AM6/14/12
to
In message
<saramerriman-2EE6...@news.eternal-september.org>, Sara
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
Sadly, that is not the case, although whether or not the parcel itself
would be subject to 'underpaid' surcharges is not known.
Since the formal split of RM and POL a couple of months ago, you may be
aware that there is now an Inter Business Agreement between the two
companies. One result of this is that mail arriving at RM from POL is
subject to random checking, for both correct segregation, and pricing.
In the event of errors, POL are fined by RM. POL are intending to pass
those fines to sub postmasters.
I would suggest that, if an item has a POL generated sticker rather than
stamps, that will be the end of the matter, the fault being deemed not
the responsibility of the sender.
--
Graeme
<saramerriman-2EE6...@news.eternal-september.org>, Sara
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
would be subject to 'underpaid' surcharges is not known.
Since the formal split of RM and POL a couple of months ago, you may be
aware that there is now an Inter Business Agreement between the two
companies. One result of this is that mail arriving at RM from POL is
subject to random checking, for both correct segregation, and pricing.
In the event of errors, POL are fined by RM. POL are intending to pass
those fines to sub postmasters.
I would suggest that, if an item has a POL generated sticker rather than
stamps, that will be the end of the matter, the fault being deemed not
the responsibility of the sender.
--
Graeme
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2012, 5:10:02 AM6/14/12
to
In message <TLydneloktEvP0TS...@brightview.co.uk>, at
09:40:02 on Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as it's got
one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels, rather than a
frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had been properly weighed
when posted and not bother.
--
Roland Perry
09:40:02 on Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
>Is there no danger that the item will be re-weighed during the delivery
>process and charged excess postage?
There is a danger, but as I have a receipt with the weight printed on
>process and charged excess postage?
it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as it's got
one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels, rather than a
frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had been properly weighed
when posted and not bother.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2012, 5:15:04 AM6/14/12
to
In message <ITn8wqi5...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 07:50:02 on Thu,
14 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
I'd guess that it's about 10cm from zero to 2kg, so that would be 3.5mm.
--
Roland Perry
14 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>>Given that the difference is at least 3%, is that within the required
>>accuracy?
>
>I am a sub postmaster, and have both digital and analogue scales. Both
>are checked weekly, and both are subject to random checks by the local
>trading standards people, as are the weights used for checking. The
>last trading standards check was a few weeks ago, when both scales and
>the weights were deemed accurate, although I was not told the 'required
>accuracy' figure.
On your analogue scales, what length of scale is represented by 35g?
>>accuracy?
>
>I am a sub postmaster, and have both digital and analogue scales. Both
>are checked weekly, and both are subject to random checks by the local
>trading standards people, as are the weights used for checking. The
>last trading standards check was a few weeks ago, when both scales and
>the weights were deemed accurate, although I was not told the 'required
>accuracy' figure.
I'd guess that it's about 10cm from zero to 2kg, so that would be 3.5mm.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2012, 5:35:02 AM6/14/12
to
In message <vJciAqrF...@perry.co.uk>, at 10:15:04 on Thu, 14 Jun
2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>Given that the difference is at least 3%, is that within the required
>>>accuracy?
>>
>>I am a sub postmaster, and have both digital and analogue scales. Both
>>are checked weekly, and both are subject to random checks by the local
>>trading standards people, as are the weights used for checking. The
>>last trading standards check was a few weeks ago, when both scales and
>>the weights were deemed accurate, although I was not told the
>>'required accuracy' figure.
>
>On your analogue scales, what length of scale is represented by 35g?
Sorry, divide by two error, that should have been 70g.
>>>accuracy?
>>
>>I am a sub postmaster, and have both digital and analogue scales. Both
>>are checked weekly, and both are subject to random checks by the local
>>trading standards people, as are the weights used for checking. The
>>last trading standards check was a few weeks ago, when both scales and
>>the weights were deemed accurate, although I was not told the
>>'required accuracy' figure.
>
>On your analogue scales, what length of scale is represented by 35g?
Ophelia
Jun 14, 2012, 5:45:03 AM6/14/12
to
"Sara" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:saramerriman-2EE6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <TLydneloktEvP0TS...@brightview.co.uk>,
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Nthkentman" wrote in message
>> > news:99udnQIZ6snmkUTS...@bt.com...
>> >
>> > "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:1H1ETsMg...@perry.co.uk...
>> > I was sending a parcel today that I knew was very close to 2kg
>> > (according to my kitchen scales).
>> >
>> > The first Sub Post Office I went to measured it on an analogue (dial)
>> > scale behind the counter and declared it to be over 2kg and thus £8.80
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Nthkentman" wrote in message
>> > news:99udnQIZ6snmkUTS...@bt.com...
>> >
>> > "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:1H1ETsMg...@perry.co.uk...
>> > I was sending a parcel today that I knew was very close to 2kg
>> > (according to my kitchen scales).
>> >
>> > The first Sub Post Office I went to measured it on an analogue (dial)
>> >
>> > I wasn't convinced, so took it to a second Sub Post Office which has
>> > digital scales on the customer side of the counter. 1.936kg and £5.30
>> > I wasn't convinced, so took it to a second Sub Post Office which has
>> >
>> ....
>> > 3) They "Err" on the side of caution and usually ask you to pay less
>> > given
>> > the hassle from the rest of the queue
>> ....
>> > 5) Go elsewhere
>>
>> Is there no danger that the item will be re-weighed during the delivery
>> process and charged excess postage?
>
> If it's got a Post Office generated sticker on it showing price paid, I
> would assume that no one else will feel the need to check, which is not
> the case if you buy stamps and stick them on yourself.
I have twice sent cards to my son which I had given over the counter to
>> ....
>> > 3) They "Err" on the side of caution and usually ask you to pay less
>> > given
>> > the hassle from the rest of the queue
>> ....
>> > 5) Go elsewhere
>>
>> Is there no danger that the item will be re-weighed during the delivery
>> process and charged excess postage?
>
> If it's got a Post Office generated sticker on it showing price paid, I
> would assume that no one else will feel the need to check, which is not
> the case if you buy stamps and stick them on yourself.
check postage and he has received cards telling him the postage was
underpaid. Now I just stick on two of those 'large card' stamps!
--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Jethro_uk
Jun 14, 2012, 5:05:17 AM6/14/12
to
their maximum displayed weight, and the accuracy up to that weight (e.g.
5Kg/1g) and must be working within that stated tolerance. Trading
standards are the first port of call for Weights & Measures.
TTman
Jun 14, 2012, 5:15:03 AM6/14/12
to
"Graeme" <uk...@binnsroad.net> wrote in message
news:ITn8wqi5...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk...
find out what the quoted design accuracy is.
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2012, 7:20:18 AM6/14/12
to
In message <jrc9p8$8rb$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:03 on Thu, 14 Jun
2012, TTman <pcw1...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
there.
--
Roland Perry
2012, TTman <pcw1...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>If you were to google the make and model of the digital scales, you will
>find out what the quoted design accuracy is.
I'm not sure they are visible, but I'll take a look next time I'm in
>find out what the quoted design accuracy is.
there.
--
Roland Perry
RobertL
Jun 14, 2012, 8:20:02 AM6/14/12
to
Robert
Jethro_uk
Jun 14, 2012, 7:45:02 AM6/14/12
to
Graeme
Jun 14, 2012, 9:05:03 AM6/14/12
to
In message <jrcblh$ig6$1...@dont-email.me>, Ophelia
<Oph...@elsinore.me.uk> writes
that a standard letter should 'drop through' the smaller of the two
slots in the template. However, POL have supplied and fixed templates
in all POs, such that the template is almost vertical, not horizontal,
as it should be. How can anything 'drop through' a slot which is
vertical, not horizontal?
This has caused me all sorts of problems. Items which easily pass
through the slot are often surcharged, yet customers quite rightly
refuse to purchase a large letter stamp if the item passes through the
slot. Many items will pass through without any force, yet will not drop
through.
--
Graeme
<Oph...@elsinore.me.uk> writes
>
>I have twice sent cards to my son which I had given over the counter to
>check postage and he has received cards telling him the postage was
>underpaid. Now I just stick on two of those 'large card' stamps!
Yet another anomaly. The definition of large (apart from weight) is
>I have twice sent cards to my son which I had given over the counter to
>check postage and he has received cards telling him the postage was
>underpaid. Now I just stick on two of those 'large card' stamps!
that a standard letter should 'drop through' the smaller of the two
slots in the template. However, POL have supplied and fixed templates
in all POs, such that the template is almost vertical, not horizontal,
as it should be. How can anything 'drop through' a slot which is
vertical, not horizontal?
This has caused me all sorts of problems. Items which easily pass
through the slot are often surcharged, yet customers quite rightly
refuse to purchase a large letter stamp if the item passes through the
slot. Many items will pass through without any force, yet will not drop
through.
--
Graeme
Graeme
Jun 14, 2012, 9:15:05 AM6/14/12
to
In message <jrc9p8$8rb$1...@dont-email.me>, TTman <pcw1...@ntlworld.com>
writes
accurate, but what I don't know is how Trading Standards define
accurate. Knowing POL, I doubt the two match.
From POL instructions, for the electronic (digital) scales :
Place the 1kg weight on the scale
Check that 1000g is displayed
Place the 1kg and 2kg weights (a total of 3kg) on the scale
Check that 3000g is displayed
Please note : The acceptable weight variance for these types of scales
is plus or minus 1g. If the scales are within these limits, they may
continue to be used.
--
Graeme
writes
>> I am a sub postmaster, and have both digital and analogue scales. Both
>> are checked weekly, and both are subject to random checks by the local
>> trading standards people, as are the weights used for checking. The last
>> trading standards check was a few weeks ago, when both scales and the
>> weights were deemed accurate, although I was not told the 'required
>> accuracy' figure.
>
>> are checked weekly, and both are subject to random checks by the local
>> trading standards people, as are the weights used for checking. The last
>> trading standards check was a few weeks ago, when both scales and the
>> weights were deemed accurate, although I was not told the 'required
>> accuracy' figure.
>
>If you were to google the make and model of the digital scales, you will
>find out what the quoted design accuracy is.
Sorry. Poor choice of words on my part. I know what POL defines as
>find out what the quoted design accuracy is.
accurate, but what I don't know is how Trading Standards define
accurate. Knowing POL, I doubt the two match.
From POL instructions, for the electronic (digital) scales :
Place the 1kg weight on the scale
Check that 1000g is displayed
Place the 1kg and 2kg weights (a total of 3kg) on the scale
Check that 3000g is displayed
Please note : The acceptable weight variance for these types of scales
is plus or minus 1g. If the scales are within these limits, they may
continue to be used.
--
Graeme
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2012, 9:25:02 AM6/14/12
to
In message <HWZvRNsB...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 14:05:03 on Thu,
14 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
would "pass through" but not "drop through". (I have bought my own
gauge, as it happens).
Even the ones that do just about drop through, might shift inside in
transit.
I don't want to get negged by my customers on a technicality like that,
so usually quote, collect and pay £2.20 postage on everything regardless
(even though one Post Office I used almost refuses to "overcharge" me.
As a result the Post Office is getting a great deal of "corner case"
revenue from me, which is why I get annoyed when they want 2kg worth of
postage on a 1.94kg package. It also means I'm not shy about posting
some really quite large "parcels" that are under 1kg (and below the
relevant size limits) by 2nd Class, even though I'm sure the delivery
postman curses me.
--
Roland Perry
14 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>Yet another anomaly. The definition of large (apart from weight) is
>that a standard letter should 'drop through' the smaller of the two
>slots in the template. However, POL have supplied and fixed templates
>in all POs, such that the template is almost vertical, not horizontal,
>as it should be. How can anything 'drop through' a slot which is
>vertical, not horizontal?
>
>This has caused me all sorts of problems. Items which easily pass
>through the slot are often surcharged, yet customers quite rightly
>refuse to purchase a large letter stamp if the item passes through the
>slot. Many items will pass through without any force, yet will not
>drop through.
It's surprising how many things I sell on eBay end up in jiffy bags that
>that a standard letter should 'drop through' the smaller of the two
>slots in the template. However, POL have supplied and fixed templates
>in all POs, such that the template is almost vertical, not horizontal,
>as it should be. How can anything 'drop through' a slot which is
>vertical, not horizontal?
>
>This has caused me all sorts of problems. Items which easily pass
>through the slot are often surcharged, yet customers quite rightly
>refuse to purchase a large letter stamp if the item passes through the
>slot. Many items will pass through without any force, yet will not
>drop through.
would "pass through" but not "drop through". (I have bought my own
gauge, as it happens).
Even the ones that do just about drop through, might shift inside in
transit.
I don't want to get negged by my customers on a technicality like that,
so usually quote, collect and pay £2.20 postage on everything regardless
(even though one Post Office I used almost refuses to "overcharge" me.
As a result the Post Office is getting a great deal of "corner case"
revenue from me, which is why I get annoyed when they want 2kg worth of
postage on a 1.94kg package. It also means I'm not shy about posting
some really quite large "parcels" that are under 1kg (and below the
relevant size limits) by 2nd Class, even though I'm sure the delivery
postman curses me.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2012, 9:30:03 AM6/14/12
to
In message <74kCr.82630$sD5....@fx03.am4>, at 12:45:02 on Thu, 14 Jun
2012, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
are not a "normal" company and as I understand it sending something
isn't a normal contract either.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>>If you were to google the make and model of the digital scales, you will
>>>find out what the quoted design accuracy is.
>>
>> I'm not sure they are visible, but I'll take a look next time I'm in
>> there.
>
>Scales for trade should be clearly marked for the customer.
With make and model? And is the Post Office "trade", seeing as how they
>>>find out what the quoted design accuracy is.
>>
>> I'm not sure they are visible, but I'll take a look next time I'm in
>> there.
>
>Scales for trade should be clearly marked for the customer.
are not a "normal" company and as I understand it sending something
isn't a normal contract either.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2012, 9:30:11 AM6/14/12
to
In message <EWrvx1sJ...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 14:15:05 on Thu,
14 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
beyond that kind of limit.
--
Roland Perry
14 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>Please note : The acceptable weight variance for these types of scales
>is plus or minus 1g. If the scales are within these limits, they may
>continue to be used.
Thanks for that. So my experience of (at least) 64g variation is way
>is plus or minus 1g. If the scales are within these limits, they may
>continue to be used.
beyond that kind of limit.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2012, 9:40:03 AM6/14/12
to
In message <21347581-d2fe-4c9e...@googlegroups.com>, at
13:20:02 on Thu, 14 Jun 2012, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:
side of the counter. You can see the weight yourself. Although they do
take the ritual to extremes... I posted a packet this morning that was
0.087g, so way below the 0.750g first step up for a second class packet
(and as described earlier, was only just too thick to be a "Large
Letter" that would have cost only 69p) but they insisted I weigh it
before charging me the £2.20
That extra perhaps 20% thickness cost my buyer 320% the postage (it was
still under the 100g limit for the 69p rate).
And the Post Office wonders why people are fleeing in droves (or maybe
they do realise and are merely suicidal).
--
Roland Perry
13:20:02 on Thu, 14 Jun 2012, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>It might not have been an error in the scales. We gave up using our local sub post office because they so often 'bumped up' the weight and
>overcharged us. We had an accurate set of digital scales at home and would often make up parcels close to, but definitely below, one of the
>weight boudaries. Typically the scales in the PO would show the correct weight but afterwards we would discover from the receipt they had
>charged the postage for the next band up.
Perhaps that's a reason to use those with digital scales on the customer
>overcharged us. We had an accurate set of digital scales at home and would often make up parcels close to, but definitely below, one of the
>weight boudaries. Typically the scales in the PO would show the correct weight but afterwards we would discover from the receipt they had
>charged the postage for the next band up.
side of the counter. You can see the weight yourself. Although they do
take the ritual to extremes... I posted a packet this morning that was
0.087g, so way below the 0.750g first step up for a second class packet
(and as described earlier, was only just too thick to be a "Large
Letter" that would have cost only 69p) but they insisted I weigh it
before charging me the £2.20
That extra perhaps 20% thickness cost my buyer 320% the postage (it was
still under the 100g limit for the 69p rate).
And the Post Office wonders why people are fleeing in droves (or maybe
they do realise and are merely suicidal).
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
Jun 14, 2012, 9:50:02 AM6/14/12
to
that it's underfranked?
(I know from a relative's experience that the US Postal Service will,
at least sometimes, send stuff back to the originating PO to contact
the sender & get the payment topped up because the originating PO
misweighed the parcel or read the International Mail Manual wrong.)
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2012, 10:05:03 AM6/14/12
to
In message <oo5pa9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:50:02 on Thu, 14
Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
mis-weighed it (in the sense that their scales gave me a receipt saying
it was OK).
--
Roland Perry
Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>>Is there no danger that the item will be re-weighed during the delivery
>>>process and charged excess postage?
>>
>> There is a danger, but as I have a receipt with the weight printed on
>> it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as it's got
>> one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels, rather than a
>> frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had been properly weighed
>> when posted and not bother.
>
>But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
>that it's underfranked?
Do I care? I'll just claim damages from the Sub Post Office that
>>>process and charged excess postage?
>>
>> There is a danger, but as I have a receipt with the weight printed on
>> it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as it's got
>> one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels, rather than a
>> frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had been properly weighed
>> when posted and not bother.
>
>But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
>that it's underfranked?
mis-weighed it (in the sense that their scales gave me a receipt saying
it was OK).
--
Roland Perry
Ian Jackson
Jun 14, 2012, 9:55:01 AM6/14/12
to
In article <dH1OTEAh...@perry.co.uk>,
I'm impressed that you didn't lose your 87mg parcel amongst your
pocket lint. Do you expect it not to disintegrate on the way ?
> so way below the 0.750g first step up for a second class packet
Have they reduced the weight limit by a factor of 1000 while I wasn't
looking ?
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
I'm impressed that you didn't lose your 87mg parcel amongst your
pocket lint. Do you expect it not to disintegrate on the way ?
> so way below the 0.750g first step up for a second class packet
looking ?
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Jethro_uk
Jun 14, 2012, 9:55:01 AM6/14/12
to
Ancient Egyptians had scales for checking tax receipts 3,000 years ago.
Hence it is one of oldest legislated parts of the statute book. It is
also taken very seriously. Almost all offences involving dodgy W&M are
criminal - as the Metric Martyrs found out to their cost.
Make and model are irrelevant. But they should have a type certification
stamp which should display the maximum weight, maximum tare (if
available) and weighing intervals (usually in the wording "To weigh xxx
by yyy". They need to be certified according to manufacturers
specification, and are subject to inspection by Trading Standards. And
you should be able to see that stamp. Unless the post office has some
exemption by statute, if they are providing a service by weight, they
need to have the appropriate equipment. As alluded to above, it goes
without saying that all such equipment must be capable of displaying
results in metric. From memory, there are also various additional
requirements when weights are taken in certain circumstances.
If scales are electronic, then software must also be type-approved.
This is why you sometimes see scales (like the self-weigh ones
supermarkets used to use) which were clearly marked "Not for trade sale"
or similar.
Adam Funk
Jun 14, 2012, 3:35:02 PM6/14/12
to
On 2012-06-14, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:30:03 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <74kCr.82630$sD5....@fx03.am4>, at 12:45:02 on Thu, 14 Jun
>> 2012, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:30:03 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <74kCr.82630$sD5....@fx03.am4>, at 12:45:02 on Thu, 14 Jun
>> 2012, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>>Scales for trade should be clearly marked for the customer.
>>
>> With make and model? And is the Post Office "trade", seeing as how they
>> are not a "normal" company and as I understand it sending something
>> isn't a normal contract either.
>
> Metrology (Weights and Measures) is one of mankinds oldest professions.
> Ancient Egyptians had scales for checking tax receipts 3,000 years ago.
> Hence it is one of oldest legislated parts of the statute book. It is
> also taken very seriously. Almost all offences involving dodgy W&M are
> criminal - as the Metric Martyrs found out to their cost.
IIRC, the Code of Hammurabi had pretty nasty penalties for selling bad
>>
>> With make and model? And is the Post Office "trade", seeing as how they
>> are not a "normal" company and as I understand it sending something
>> isn't a normal contract either.
>
> Metrology (Weights and Measures) is one of mankinds oldest professions.
> Ancient Egyptians had scales for checking tax receipts 3,000 years ago.
> Hence it is one of oldest legislated parts of the statute book. It is
> also taken very seriously. Almost all offences involving dodgy W&M are
> criminal - as the Metric Martyrs found out to their cost.
beer.
dochol...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2012, 2:05:10 PM6/14/12
to
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:25:02 PM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
<snip>
OK, in theory I could have posted the payment to them and had them redeliver, but there was nothing on the card to say whether it would fit through my letter plate.
<snip>
>
> It's surprising how many things I sell on eBay end up in jiffy bags that
> would "pass through" but not "drop through". (I have bought my own
> gauge, as it happens).
>
> Even the ones that do just about drop through, might shift inside in
> transit.
>
> I don't want to get negged by my customers on a technicality like that,
> so usually quote, collect and pay £2.20 postage on everything regardless
> (even though one Post Office I used almost refuses to "overcharge" me.
>
Technicality it may be, but when I bought a (£1.50 with free postage) pack of nuts (things you put on screws, not the sort you eat) I was definitely feeling rather negative after having to have to shell out the difference in postage, plus £1 handling fee, plus petrol for a 6 mile round trip to the sorting office to pay the fee and collect, just because the package didn't quite drop through the standard letter slot...
> It's surprising how many things I sell on eBay end up in jiffy bags that
> would "pass through" but not "drop through". (I have bought my own
> gauge, as it happens).
>
> Even the ones that do just about drop through, might shift inside in
> transit.
>
> I don't want to get negged by my customers on a technicality like that,
> so usually quote, collect and pay £2.20 postage on everything regardless
> (even though one Post Office I used almost refuses to "overcharge" me.
>
OK, in theory I could have posted the payment to them and had them redeliver, but there was nothing on the card to say whether it would fit through my letter plate.
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2012, 5:20:02 PM6/14/12
to
In message <386fc149-fa14-4080...@googlegroups.com>, at
19:05:10 on Thu, 14 Jun 2012, dochol...@gmail.com remarked:
I can't possibly sell anything for £1.50 and free postage.
And your bag of nuts would have gone through the slot when I posted it,
if it only had 69p postage on it, so comes into the "shifted in transit"
category.
Although the rates for people with contracts and/or franking machines
are a bit lower, but it means I can't ever get less than £2.20 + 0.99p
for anything I list (I don't list anything below 99p).
--
Roland Perry
19:05:10 on Thu, 14 Jun 2012, dochol...@gmail.com remarked:
>> I don't want to get negged by my customers on a technicality like that,
>> so usually quote, collect and pay £2.20 postage on everything regardless
>> (even though one Post Office I used almost refuses to "overcharge" me.
>>
>Technicality it may be, but when I bought a (£1.50 with free postage) pack of nuts (things you put on screws, not the sort you eat) I was
>definitely feeling rather negative after having to have to shell out the difference in postage, plus £1 handling fee, plus petrol for a 6 mile
>round trip to the sorting office to pay the fee and collect, just because the package didn't quite drop through the standard letter slot...
>OK, in theory I could have posted the payment to them and had them redeliver, but there was nothing on the card to say whether it would fit
>through my letter plate.
That's exactly why I almost always quote £2.20 postage, and which means
>> so usually quote, collect and pay £2.20 postage on everything regardless
>> (even though one Post Office I used almost refuses to "overcharge" me.
>>
>Technicality it may be, but when I bought a (£1.50 with free postage) pack of nuts (things you put on screws, not the sort you eat) I was
>definitely feeling rather negative after having to have to shell out the difference in postage, plus £1 handling fee, plus petrol for a 6 mile
>round trip to the sorting office to pay the fee and collect, just because the package didn't quite drop through the standard letter slot...
>OK, in theory I could have posted the payment to them and had them redeliver, but there was nothing on the card to say whether it would fit
>through my letter plate.
I can't possibly sell anything for £1.50 and free postage.
And your bag of nuts would have gone through the slot when I posted it,
if it only had 69p postage on it, so comes into the "shifted in transit"
category.
Although the rates for people with contracts and/or franking machines
are a bit lower, but it means I can't ever get less than £2.20 + 0.99p
for anything I list (I don't list anything below 99p).
--
Roland Perry
Graeme
Jun 15, 2012, 8:30:03 AM6/15/12
to
In message <No764X+b...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>It also means I'm not shy about posting some really quite large
>"parcels" that are under 1kg (and below the relevant size limits) by
>2nd Class, even though I'm sure the delivery postman curses me.
Why do you think the postman curses you? The item still has to be
delivered, irrespective of the service chosen.
--
Graeme
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>It also means I'm not shy about posting some really quite large
>"parcels" that are under 1kg (and below the relevant size limits) by
>2nd Class, even though I'm sure the delivery postman curses me.
delivered, irrespective of the service chosen.
--
Graeme
Graeme
Jun 15, 2012, 8:40:02 AM6/15/12
to
In message <oo5pa9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
<a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
Underpaid items are caught at the main RM sorting office, and sent to
me, as sub postmaster, in a sealed pouch. I then write the grey card
with which most people are familiar, and pass the card to the local
postie for delivery. I then store the underpaid items in a secure area,
awaiting payment/collection.
The point of this story is that, in ten years, I have never received an
underpaid item on which there was a Post Office generated label. All
underpaid items that I see are franked, or have (insufficient) stamps
or, more often, no postage at all. This leads me to suggest, without a
shred of hard evidence, that RM do not bother checking labelled items.
I mentioned yesterday that RM are now undertaking random checks of items
collected from POs, and doubtless some underpaid-with-labels items will
be found. I really cannot imagine that RM will penalise the customer.
Much more likely is a surcharge payable by POL, to RM, with POL then
contacting the individual office for reimbursement. Once again, my
theory, with no evidence.
--
Graeme
<a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
>On 2012-06-14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> There is a danger, but as I have a receipt with the weight printed on
>> it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as it's got
>> one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels, rather than a
>> frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had been properly weighed
>> when posted and not bother.
>
>But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
>that it's underfranked?
(Reading underfranked as underpaid - franking is entirely different)
>>
>> There is a danger, but as I have a receipt with the weight printed on
>> it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as it's got
>> one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels, rather than a
>> frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had been properly weighed
>> when posted and not bother.
>
>But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
>that it's underfranked?
Underpaid items are caught at the main RM sorting office, and sent to
me, as sub postmaster, in a sealed pouch. I then write the grey card
with which most people are familiar, and pass the card to the local
postie for delivery. I then store the underpaid items in a secure area,
awaiting payment/collection.
The point of this story is that, in ten years, I have never received an
underpaid item on which there was a Post Office generated label. All
underpaid items that I see are franked, or have (insufficient) stamps
or, more often, no postage at all. This leads me to suggest, without a
shred of hard evidence, that RM do not bother checking labelled items.
I mentioned yesterday that RM are now undertaking random checks of items
collected from POs, and doubtless some underpaid-with-labels items will
be found. I really cannot imagine that RM will penalise the customer.
Much more likely is a surcharge payable by POL, to RM, with POL then
contacting the individual office for reimbursement. Once again, my
theory, with no evidence.
--
Graeme
Graeme
Jun 15, 2012, 8:45:03 AM6/15/12
to
In message <Uov84O$LZe2...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
Absolutely. Not only way beyond, but amazing.
--
Graeme
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
--
Graeme
Roland Perry
Jun 15, 2012, 8:50:02 AM6/15/12
to
In message <s9lVbmwx...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 13:30:03 on Fri,
15 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
and Second Class has to be hand-carried.
Maybe the £5.30 entry level for a parcel is to take account of delivery
by van, but to avoid over-filling the postie's sack they really ought to
have a 1kg parcel too (at around £3).
--
Roland Perry
15 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>>It also means I'm not shy about posting some really quite large
>>"parcels" that are under 1kg (and below the relevant size limits) by
>>2nd Class, even though I'm sure the delivery postman curses me.
>
>Why do you think the postman curses you? The item still has to be
>delivered, irrespective of the service chosen.
Round here the Parcel Post (and Special Delivery) comes in a van. First
>>"parcels" that are under 1kg (and below the relevant size limits) by
>>2nd Class, even though I'm sure the delivery postman curses me.
>
>Why do you think the postman curses you? The item still has to be
>delivered, irrespective of the service chosen.
and Second Class has to be hand-carried.
Maybe the £5.30 entry level for a parcel is to take account of delivery
by van, but to avoid over-filling the postie's sack they really ought to
have a 1kg parcel too (at around £3).
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
Jun 15, 2012, 9:05:09 AM6/15/12
to
On 2012-06-15, Graeme wrote:
> In message <oo5pa9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
><a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
>>On 2012-06-14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a danger, but as I have a receipt with the weight printed on
>>> it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as it's got
>>> one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels, rather than a
>>> frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had been properly weighed
>>> when posted and not bother.
>>
>>But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
>>that it's underfranked?
>
> (Reading underfranked as underpaid - franking is entirely different)
(I was referring to items weighed & priced at a PO.)
> In message <oo5pa9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
><a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
>>On 2012-06-14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a danger, but as I have a receipt with the weight printed on
>>> it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as it's got
>>> one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels, rather than a
>>> frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had been properly weighed
>>> when posted and not bother.
>>
>>But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
>>that it's underfranked?
>
> (Reading underfranked as underpaid - franking is entirely different)
> Underpaid items are caught at the main RM sorting office, and sent to
> me, as sub postmaster, in a sealed pouch. I then write the grey card
> with which most people are familiar, and pass the card to the local
> postie for delivery. I then store the underpaid items in a secure area,
> awaiting payment/collection.
>
> The point of this story is that, in ten years, I have never received an
> underpaid item on which there was a Post Office generated label. All
> underpaid items that I see are franked, or have (insufficient) stamps
> or, more often, no postage at all. This leads me to suggest, without a
> shred of hard evidence, that RM do not bother checking labelled items.
errors.
> I mentioned yesterday that RM are now undertaking random checks of items
> collected from POs, and doubtless some underpaid-with-labels items will
> be found. I really cannot imagine that RM will penalise the customer.
> Much more likely is a surcharge payable by POL, to RM, with POL then
> contacting the individual office for reimbursement. Once again, my
> theory, with no evidence.
I take it the term "franked" properly refers only to what's done by
private machines, not at a PO?
Roland Perry
Jun 15, 2012, 9:15:03 AM6/15/12
to
In message <kunra9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:05:09 on Fri, 15
Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
[I also assume our friend runs a rural sub PO, here in the big city Sub
Post Offices have no role in delivering post].
>I take it the term "franked" properly refers only to what's done by
>private machines
Yes. And judging by RM's literature, the golden labels issued at POs are
classed as "stamps".
--
Roland Perry
Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>> The point of this story is that, in ten years, I have never received an
>> underpaid item on which there was a Post Office generated label. All
>> underpaid items that I see are franked, or have (insufficient) stamps
>> or, more often, no postage at all. This leads me to suggest, without a
>> shred of hard evidence, that RM do not bother checking labelled items.
>
>Of course, it could mean your PO is well-run & doesn't produce those
>errors.
The errors are made at the sending (not receiving) end.
>> underpaid item on which there was a Post Office generated label. All
>> underpaid items that I see are franked, or have (insufficient) stamps
>> or, more often, no postage at all. This leads me to suggest, without a
>> shred of hard evidence, that RM do not bother checking labelled items.
>
>Of course, it could mean your PO is well-run & doesn't produce those
>errors.
[I also assume our friend runs a rural sub PO, here in the big city Sub
Post Offices have no role in delivering post].
>I take it the term "franked" properly refers only to what's done by
>private machines
classed as "stamps".
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
Jun 15, 2012, 9:30:04 AM6/15/12
to
Graeme wrote:
> In message <oo5pa9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
> <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
>> On 2012-06-14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a danger, but as I have a receipt with the weight printed
>>> on it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as
>>> it's got one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels,
>>> rather than a frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had
>>> been properly weighed when posted and not bother.
>>
>> But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
>> that it's underfranked?
>
> (Reading underfranked as underpaid - franking is entirely different)
>
> Underpaid items are caught at the main RM sorting office, and sent to
> me, as sub postmaster, in a sealed pouch. I then write the grey card
> with which most people are familiar, and pass the card to the local
> postie for delivery. I then store the underpaid items in a secure
> area, awaiting payment/collection.
Since you're a sub-postmaster, can I ask you a different question? Can
> In message <oo5pa9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
> <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
>> On 2012-06-14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a danger, but as I have a receipt with the weight printed
>>> on it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as
>>> it's got one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels,
>>> rather than a frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had
>>> been properly weighed when posted and not bother.
>>
>> But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
>> that it's underfranked?
>
> (Reading underfranked as underpaid - franking is entirely different)
>
> Underpaid items are caught at the main RM sorting office, and sent to
> me, as sub postmaster, in a sealed pouch. I then write the grey card
> with which most people are familiar, and pass the card to the local
> postie for delivery. I then store the underpaid items in a secure
> area, awaiting payment/collection.
you use stamps marked 2nd on a birthday card to Europe say, or on a
small packet to the UK, in combination with some value denominated
stamps that you have? If so, how much value can be ascribed to each 2nd
class stamp?
Adam Funk
Jun 15, 2012, 10:20:02 AM6/15/12
to
On 2012-06-15, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <kunra9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:05:09 on Fri, 15
> Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>> The point of this story is that, in ten years, I have never received an
>>> underpaid item on which there was a Post Office generated label. All
>>> underpaid items that I see are franked, or have (insufficient) stamps
>>> or, more often, no postage at all. This leads me to suggest, without a
>>> shred of hard evidence, that RM do not bother checking labelled items.
>>
>>Of course, it could mean your PO is well-run & doesn't produce those
>>errors.
>
> The errors are made at the sending (not receiving) end.
Oops, I misread Graeme's post. I see now that the means the underpaid
> In message <kunra9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:05:09 on Fri, 15
> Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>> The point of this story is that, in ten years, I have never received an
>>> underpaid item on which there was a Post Office generated label. All
>>> underpaid items that I see are franked, or have (insufficient) stamps
>>> or, more often, no postage at all. This leads me to suggest, without a
>>> shred of hard evidence, that RM do not bother checking labelled items.
>>
>>Of course, it could mean your PO is well-run & doesn't produce those
>>errors.
>
> The errors are made at the sending (not receiving) end.
item & alert would go to the receiving end.
> [I also assume our friend runs a rural sub PO, here in the big city Sub
> Post Offices have no role in delivering post].
>
>>I take it the term "franked" properly refers only to what's done by
>>private machines
>
> Yes. And judging by RM's literature, the golden labels issued at POs are
> classed as "stamps".
Roland Perry
Jun 15, 2012, 10:55:02 AM6/15/12
to
In message <2rrra9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 15:20:02 on Fri, 15
--
Roland Perry
Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>> Yes. And judging by RM's literature, the golden labels issued at POs are
>> classed as "stamps".
>
>I'm surprised there isn't a special term for them.
The price list has only three categories: Stamps, Online and Franking.
>> classed as "stamps".
>
>I'm surprised there isn't a special term for them.
--
Roland Perry
S
Jun 15, 2012, 1:25:01 PM6/15/12
to
> > In message <TLydneloktEvP0TSnZ2dnUVZ7t-dn...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> > 09:40:02 on Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Chris R <inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
overfranked mail if it was the post office's fault.
> > 09:40:02 on Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Chris R <inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
> > remarked:
> >>Is there no danger that the item will be re-weighed during the delivery
> >>process and charged excess postage?
>
> > There is a danger, but as I have a receipt with the weight printed on
> > it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as it's got
> > one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels, rather than a
> > frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had been properly weighed
> > when posted and not bother.
>
> But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
> that it's underfranked?
Morally they should, or they should also refund the excess on
> >>Is there no danger that the item will be re-weighed during the delivery
> >>process and charged excess postage?
>
> > There is a danger, but as I have a receipt with the weight printed on
> > it, I don't think they've got much of a leg to stand on. And as it's got
> > one of those gold Post-Office-Printed postage paid labels, rather than a
> > frank or adhesive stamps, they might decide it had been properly weighed
> > when posted and not bother.
>
> But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
> that it's underfranked?
overfranked mail if it was the post office's fault.
Graeme
Jun 15, 2012, 5:15:02 PM6/15/12
to
In message <S3FNfQxg...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
by the same postie.
--
Graeme
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>In message <s9lVbmwx...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 13:30:03 on
>Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>>
>Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>>
>>Why do you think the postman curses you? The item still has to be
>>delivered, irrespective of the service chosen.
>
>Round here the Parcel Post (and Special Delivery) comes in a van. First
>and Second Class has to be hand-carried.
Oh, I see. Here, everything, including Parcelforce items, is delivered
>>delivered, irrespective of the service chosen.
>
>Round here the Parcel Post (and Special Delivery) comes in a van. First
>and Second Class has to be hand-carried.
by the same postie.
--
Graeme
Graeme
Jun 15, 2012, 5:15:10 PM6/15/12
to
In message <kunra9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
<a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
The items to which I referred and receive are items for delivery within
my area, but could have been posted anywhere.
means a private franking machine. Items posted using any other method
are not normally referred to as franked.
--
Graeme
<a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
>On 2012-06-15, Graeme wrote:
>>
>> The point of this story is that, in ten years, I have never received an
>> underpaid item on which there was a Post Office generated label. All
>> underpaid items that I see are franked, or have (insufficient) stamps
>> or, more often, no postage at all. This leads me to suggest, without a
>> shred of hard evidence, that RM do not bother checking labelled items.
>
>Of course, it could mean your PO is well-run & doesn't produce those
>errors.
Wrong end of the story :-)
>>
>> The point of this story is that, in ten years, I have never received an
>> underpaid item on which there was a Post Office generated label. All
>> underpaid items that I see are franked, or have (insufficient) stamps
>> or, more often, no postage at all. This leads me to suggest, without a
>> shred of hard evidence, that RM do not bother checking labelled items.
>
>Of course, it could mean your PO is well-run & doesn't produce those
>errors.
The items to which I referred and receive are items for delivery within
my area, but could have been posted anywhere.
>
>> I mentioned yesterday that RM are now undertaking random checks of items
>> collected from POs, and doubtless some underpaid-with-labels items will
>> be found. I really cannot imagine that RM will penalise the customer.
>> Much more likely is a surcharge payable by POL, to RM, with POL then
>> contacting the individual office for reimbursement. Once again, my
>> theory, with no evidence.
>
>Interesting, thanks.
>
>I take it the term "franked" properly refers only to what's done by
>private machines, not at a PO?
I'm not sure how universal these things are but yes, to me, franked
>> I mentioned yesterday that RM are now undertaking random checks of items
>> collected from POs, and doubtless some underpaid-with-labels items will
>> be found. I really cannot imagine that RM will penalise the customer.
>> Much more likely is a surcharge payable by POL, to RM, with POL then
>> contacting the individual office for reimbursement. Once again, my
>> theory, with no evidence.
>
>Interesting, thanks.
>
>I take it the term "franked" properly refers only to what's done by
>private machines, not at a PO?
means a private franking machine. Items posted using any other method
are not normally referred to as franked.
--
Graeme
Graeme
Jun 15, 2012, 5:20:02 PM6/15/12
to
In message <LLGCr.114136$2B2....@fx30.am4>, Norman Wells
<h...@unseen.ac.am> writes
You can use any combination of post decimal stamps, but a stamp for,
say, 2.5p only counts as 2p. However, two stamps at 2.5p count as 5p.
--
Graeme
<h...@unseen.ac.am> writes
>Graeme wrote:
>
>Since you're a sub-postmaster, can I ask you a different question? Can
>you use stamps marked 2nd on a birthday card to Europe say, or on a
>small packet to the UK, in combination with some value denominated
>stamps that you have? If so, how much value can be ascribed to each
>2nd class stamp?
Yes, and currently 50p
>
>Since you're a sub-postmaster, can I ask you a different question? Can
>you use stamps marked 2nd on a birthday card to Europe say, or on a
>small packet to the UK, in combination with some value denominated
>stamps that you have? If so, how much value can be ascribed to each
>2nd class stamp?
You can use any combination of post decimal stamps, but a stamp for,
say, 2.5p only counts as 2p. However, two stamps at 2.5p count as 5p.
--
Graeme
Roland Perry
Jun 16, 2012, 1:45:03 AM6/16/12
to
In message <HEbP1V1K...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 22:15:02 on Fri,
(literally). I'm a bit surprised the postie can carry something that
big, or does he have a van rather than a pushbike?
And given the existence of "Before 9am" Special Delivery, how does that
work if the property is towards the end of his round. It's supposed to
be delivered "Specially", hence the name, so does the order of the round
get changed.
[Posted to illustrate that business models vary, and one size doesn't
fit all].
ps My snail mail arrived at 5pm yesterday, which might be considered odd
given that the postmen are only paid until 1pm[1]. However, it was a
double-shift by someone standing in for our regular chap who had the day
off.
[1] Which no doubt accounts for the "by 1pm" version of Special
Delivery, which perhaps isn't "Specially" delivered at all, just put in
wit the regular items.
--
Roland Perry
15 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>>>Why do you think the postman curses you? The item still has to be
>>>delivered, irrespective of the service chosen.
>>
>>Round here the Parcel Post (and Special Delivery) comes in a van.
>>First and Second Class has to be hand-carried.
>
>Oh, I see. Here, everything, including Parcelforce items, is delivered
>by the same postie.
The last thing I had delivered by Parcelforce was a kitchen sink
>>>Why do you think the postman curses you? The item still has to be
>>>delivered, irrespective of the service chosen.
>>
>>Round here the Parcel Post (and Special Delivery) comes in a van.
>>First and Second Class has to be hand-carried.
>
>Oh, I see. Here, everything, including Parcelforce items, is delivered
>by the same postie.
(literally). I'm a bit surprised the postie can carry something that
big, or does he have a van rather than a pushbike?
And given the existence of "Before 9am" Special Delivery, how does that
work if the property is towards the end of his round. It's supposed to
be delivered "Specially", hence the name, so does the order of the round
get changed.
[Posted to illustrate that business models vary, and one size doesn't
fit all].
ps My snail mail arrived at 5pm yesterday, which might be considered odd
given that the postmen are only paid until 1pm[1]. However, it was a
double-shift by someone standing in for our regular chap who had the day
off.
[1] Which no doubt accounts for the "by 1pm" version of Special
Delivery, which perhaps isn't "Specially" delivered at all, just put in
wit the regular items.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme
Jun 16, 2012, 4:00:04 AM6/16/12
to
In message <eqFeYMJmzB3PFA$b...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>>
rather than bikes.
does not exist. The posties rarely leave the sorting office before
09.00, and cover an area 50 miles long.
--
Graeme
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Oh, I see. Here, everything, including Parcelforce items, is
>>delivered by the same postie.
>
>The last thing I had delivered by Parcelforce was a kitchen sink
>(literally). I'm a bit surprised the postie can carry something that
>big, or does he have a van rather than a pushbike?
Yes, this is a rural area (Aberdeenshire), so the posties use 4WD vans
>>delivered by the same postie.
>
>The last thing I had delivered by Parcelforce was a kitchen sink
>(literally). I'm a bit surprised the postie can carry something that
>big, or does he have a van rather than a pushbike?
rather than bikes.
>
>And given the existence of "Before 9am" Special Delivery, how does that
>work if the property is towards the end of his round. It's supposed to
>be delivered "Specially", hence the name, so does the order of the
>round get changed.
SD here is guaranteed by 17.30, not 13.00, and the 'by 09.00 service'
>And given the existence of "Before 9am" Special Delivery, how does that
>work if the property is towards the end of his round. It's supposed to
>be delivered "Specially", hence the name, so does the order of the
>round get changed.
does not exist. The posties rarely leave the sorting office before
09.00, and cover an area 50 miles long.
--
Graeme
Roland Perry
Jun 16, 2012, 4:20:03 AM6/16/12
to
In message <Zt9Yfc3X...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 09:00:04 on Sat,
16 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
By 9am
By 9am including Saturdays
By 1pm
By 1pm including Saturdays
...but I see the online version has a note that excludes some parts of
the "Highlands and Islands".
In my last house, which was on a busy road, SD would arrive reliably at
7am, because they wanted to be sure they could stop outside the house
(later in the morning they'd be competing with parked cars) and I think
7am was the earliest they regarded it as polite to call. I wonder if
there's a regulation about the earliest time?
--
Roland Perry
16 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>SD here is guaranteed by 17.30, not 13.00, and the 'by 09.00 service'
>does not exist. The posties rarely leave the sorting office before
>09.00, and cover an area 50 miles long.
The RM price list clearly describes four options:
>does not exist. The posties rarely leave the sorting office before
>09.00, and cover an area 50 miles long.
By 9am
By 9am including Saturdays
By 1pm
By 1pm including Saturdays
...but I see the online version has a note that excludes some parts of
the "Highlands and Islands".
In my last house, which was on a busy road, SD would arrive reliably at
7am, because they wanted to be sure they could stop outside the house
(later in the morning they'd be competing with parked cars) and I think
7am was the earliest they regarded it as polite to call. I wonder if
there's a regulation about the earliest time?
--
Roland Perry
Graeme
Jun 16, 2012, 1:20:03 PM6/16/12
to
In message <dH1OTEAh...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>
that is accepted across the counter. Does not matter whether it is a
two inch square of rice paper or a box large enough for a washing
machine, it is supposed to be checked. You will guess that the
operative word is supposed ...
Just out of interest, is anyone aware that we can only accept oblong
postcards? Those clever shaped ones are supposed to be accepted only
within an oblong envelope.
--
Graeme
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>
>Perhaps that's a reason to use those with digital scales on the
>customer side of the counter. You can see the weight yourself. Although
>they do take the ritual to extremes...
<grin> We are supposed to use the template for anything and everything
>customer side of the counter. You can see the weight yourself. Although
>they do take the ritual to extremes...
that is accepted across the counter. Does not matter whether it is a
two inch square of rice paper or a box large enough for a washing
machine, it is supposed to be checked. You will guess that the
operative word is supposed ...
Just out of interest, is anyone aware that we can only accept oblong
postcards? Those clever shaped ones are supposed to be accepted only
within an oblong envelope.
--
Graeme
Janet
Jun 16, 2012, 1:40:02 PM6/16/12
to
In article <tG6llN5J...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, uk...@binnsroad.net
says...
> Just out of interest, is anyone aware that we can only accept oblong
> postcards?
Well, of course that is logical, given that letterboxes are oblong not
square. But what about square Christmas cards?
>Those clever shaped ones are supposed to be accepted only
> within an oblong envelope.
Why not go the whole hog and insist cards are posted in a rectangular
cardboard box?
Janet
says...
> Just out of interest, is anyone aware that we can only accept oblong
> postcards?
square. But what about square Christmas cards?
>Those clever shaped ones are supposed to be accepted only
> within an oblong envelope.
cardboard box?
Janet
Graham Murray
Jun 16, 2012, 4:20:02 PM6/16/12
to
Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> writes:
> Just out of interest, is anyone aware that we can only accept oblong
> postcards? Those clever shaped ones are supposed to be accepted only
> within an oblong envelope.
Do you have a reference to that? Looking at the post office web site, I
> Just out of interest, is anyone aware that we can only accept oblong
> postcards? Those clever shaped ones are supposed to be accepted only
> within an oblong envelope.
can only see reference to length, width and thickness restrictions -
nothing about the shape of a 'letter' or 'large letter'.
What would happen to a non-rectangular postcard that is posted in a
postbox rather than handed over the counter? Would it be delivered?
Adam Funk
Jun 16, 2012, 5:05:03 PM6/16/12
to
On 2012-06-15, Graeme wrote:
> In message <kunra9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
><a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
>>On 2012-06-15, Graeme wrote:
>>>
>>> The point of this story is that, in ten years, I have never received an
>>> underpaid item on which there was a Post Office generated label. All
>>> underpaid items that I see are franked, or have (insufficient) stamps
>>> or, more often, no postage at all. This leads me to suggest, without a
>>> shred of hard evidence, that RM do not bother checking labelled items.
>>
>>Of course, it could mean your PO is well-run & doesn't produce those
>>errors.
>
> Wrong end of the story :-)
>
> The items to which I referred and receive are items for delivery within
> my area, but could have been posted anywhere.
Yes, sorry (again) for misreading that.
> In message <kunra9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
><a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
>>On 2012-06-15, Graeme wrote:
>>>
>>> The point of this story is that, in ten years, I have never received an
>>> underpaid item on which there was a Post Office generated label. All
>>> underpaid items that I see are franked, or have (insufficient) stamps
>>> or, more often, no postage at all. This leads me to suggest, without a
>>> shred of hard evidence, that RM do not bother checking labelled items.
>>
>>Of course, it could mean your PO is well-run & doesn't produce those
>>errors.
>
> Wrong end of the story :-)
>
> The items to which I referred and receive are items for delivery within
> my area, but could have been posted anywhere.
I think my misreading was affected by the US experience that I
mentioned earlier, where the underpaid item was sent back to the
sender's PO (with instructions to contact the sender for more money).
Mark Goodge
Jun 16, 2012, 5:05:10 PM6/16/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:20:02 +0100, Graham Murray put finger to keyboard
and typed:
I posted a circular beermat from Belgium to the UK once. It got delivered.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
and typed:
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Nick Leverton
Jun 16, 2012, 6:25:02 PM6/16/12
to
In article <51tpt7hj9ct5ehivv...@news.markshouse.net>,
I've heard of stranger things being delivered throughout the years,
unfortunately the rest of the album is offline since the fotopic crash ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmightycat/5991799674/
Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
unfortunately the rest of the album is offline since the fotopic crash ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmightycat/5991799674/
Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
the Omrud
Jun 16, 2012, 6:55:01 PM6/16/12
to
posted him a blown hen's egg with the address written on in ink, and the
correct postage stamp stuck on. It was delivered, correctly franked.
This would have been in the 20s, I suppose - my dad has it now.
--
David
Lobster
Jun 16, 2012, 7:00:04 PM6/16/12
to
On 16/06/2012 18:20, Graeme wrote:
> In message <dH1OTEAh...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
> <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>>
>> Perhaps that's a reason to use those with digital scales on the
>> customer side of the counter. You can see the weight yourself.
>> Although they do take the ritual to extremes...
>
> <grin> We are supposed to use the template for anything and everything
> that is accepted across the counter. Does not matter whether it is a two
> inch square of rice paper or a box large enough for a washing machine,
> it is supposed to be checked. You will guess that the operative word is
> supposed ...
I once had a right old row once with the counter clerk about whether my
> In message <dH1OTEAh...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
> <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>>
>> Perhaps that's a reason to use those with digital scales on the
>> customer side of the counter. You can see the weight yourself.
>> Although they do take the ritual to extremes...
>
> <grin> We are supposed to use the template for anything and everything
> that is accepted across the counter. Does not matter whether it is a two
> inch square of rice paper or a box large enough for a washing machine,
> it is supposed to be checked. You will guess that the operative word is
> supposed ...
letter was 'large' or not. She was 'demonstrating' that it was too large
to fit through the template slot by trying to shove it through at a 45
degrees; which as m'learned friend Pythogoras will tell you, narrows the
effective aperture considerably. I was not a happy bunny!
David
Lobster
Jun 16, 2012, 7:05:10 PM6/16/12
to
On 14/06/2012 14:25, Roland Perry wrote:
> As a result the Post Office is getting a great deal of "corner case"
> revenue from me, which is why I get annoyed when they want 2kg worth of
> postage on a 1.94kg package. It also means I'm not shy about posting
http://www.collectplus.co.uk
4 GBP for a 2 kg parcel; 5 GBP for 5 kg; 7 GBP for 10 kg (including
tracking)
There are some size restrictions; however for certain weights it beats
the PO hands down, and there's usually much less queuing too...
David
> As a result the Post Office is getting a great deal of "corner case"
> revenue from me, which is why I get annoyed when they want 2kg worth of
> postage on a 1.94kg package. It also means I'm not shy about posting
> some really quite large "parcels" that are under 1kg (and below the
> relevant size limits) by 2nd Class, even though I'm sure the delivery
> postman curses me.
Have you tried Collect Plus from your local corner shop?
> relevant size limits) by 2nd Class, even though I'm sure the delivery
> postman curses me.
http://www.collectplus.co.uk
4 GBP for a 2 kg parcel; 5 GBP for 5 kg; 7 GBP for 10 kg (including
tracking)
There are some size restrictions; however for certain weights it beats
the PO hands down, and there's usually much less queuing too...
David
Iain Archer
Jun 16, 2012, 8:05:04 PM6/16/12
to
the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Jun 2012 at
23:55:01:
http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/tag/w-reginald-bray/
The associated podcast talk seems to be a 60 minute one, btw.
--
Iain
23:55:01:
>My grandfather was an amateur naturalist. One of his friends once
>posted him a blown hen's egg with the address written on in ink, and
>the correct postage stamp stuck on. It was delivered, correctly
>franked. This would have been in the 20s, I suppose - my dad has it now.
Anything to do with this man?
>posted him a blown hen's egg with the address written on in ink, and
>the correct postage stamp stuck on. It was delivered, correctly
>franked. This would have been in the 20s, I suppose - my dad has it now.
http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/tag/w-reginald-bray/
The associated podcast talk seems to be a 60 minute one, btw.
--
Iain
Roland Perry
Jun 17, 2012, 4:25:02 AM6/17/12
to
In message <1f8Dr.136893$MP5.1...@fx27.am4>, at 00:05:10 on Sun, 17
Jun 2012, Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> remarked:
Yes, I have. Used it last week (although the newsagent in question told
me it was only for 'contract customers', you can send ad-hoc parcels).
However, only a very small number of the things I ship are over 1kg
(which is the second class weight limit).
--
Roland Perry
Jun 2012, Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> remarked:
me it was only for 'contract customers', you can send ad-hoc parcels).
However, only a very small number of the things I ship are over 1kg
(which is the second class weight limit).
--
Roland Perry
the Omrud
Jun 17, 2012, 2:00:06 PM6/17/12
to
On 17/06/2012 01:05, Iain Archer wrote:
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Jun 2012 at 23:55:01:
>> My grandfather was an amateur naturalist. One of his friends once
>> posted him a blown hen's egg with the address written on in ink, and
>> the correct postage stamp stuck on. It was delivered, correctly
>> franked. This would have been in the 20s, I suppose - my dad has it now.
>
> Anything to do with this man?
> http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/tag/w-reginald-bray/
Unlikely, as this man seems to be a Londoner and my granddad rarely
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Jun 2012 at 23:55:01:
>> My grandfather was an amateur naturalist. One of his friends once
>> posted him a blown hen's egg with the address written on in ink, and
>> the correct postage stamp stuck on. It was delivered, correctly
>> franked. This would have been in the 20s, I suppose - my dad has it now.
>
> Anything to do with this man?
> http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/tag/w-reginald-bray/
strayed far from Coventry.
--
David
Graeme
Jun 18, 2012, 9:00:05 AM6/18/12
to
In message <MPG.2a46d3e09...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Janet <H...@invalid.net> writes
is the die cut strange shapes that we are not supposed to accept without
an envelope. There are post cards shaped like clouds, faces, sporrans
and all manner of bright ideas.
--
Graeme
Janet <H...@invalid.net> writes
>In article <tG6llN5J...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, uk...@binnsroad.net
>says...
>
>> Just out of interest, is anyone aware that we can only accept oblong
>> postcards?
>
> Well, of course that is logical, given that letterboxes are oblong not
>square. But what about square Christmas cards?
Poor choice of words on my part. Oblong and square are both fine - it
>says...
>
>> Just out of interest, is anyone aware that we can only accept oblong
>> postcards?
>
> Well, of course that is logical, given that letterboxes are oblong not
>square. But what about square Christmas cards?
is the die cut strange shapes that we are not supposed to accept without
an envelope. There are post cards shaped like clouds, faces, sporrans
and all manner of bright ideas.
--
Graeme
Graeme
Jun 18, 2012, 9:05:02 AM6/18/12
to
In message <87bokjx...@einstein.gmurray.org.uk>, Graham Murray
<news...@gmurray.org.uk> writes
think RM just prefer to discourage such things and, as you say, there is
nothing to stop people putting them in a postbox.
--
Graeme
<news...@gmurray.org.uk> writes
>Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> writes:
>
>> Just out of interest, is anyone aware that we can only accept oblong
>> postcards? Those clever shaped ones are supposed to be accepted only
>> within an oblong envelope.
>
>Do you have a reference to that? Looking at the post office web site, I
>can only see reference to length, width and thickness restrictions -
>nothing about the shape of a 'letter' or 'large letter'.
I'll see what I can find.
>
>> Just out of interest, is anyone aware that we can only accept oblong
>> postcards? Those clever shaped ones are supposed to be accepted only
>> within an oblong envelope.
>
>Do you have a reference to that? Looking at the post office web site, I
>can only see reference to length, width and thickness restrictions -
>nothing about the shape of a 'letter' or 'large letter'.
>
>What would happen to a non-rectangular postcard that is posted in a
>postbox rather than handed over the counter? Would it be delivered?
Put it this way. I have never heard of one not being delivered. I
>What would happen to a non-rectangular postcard that is posted in a
>postbox rather than handed over the counter? Would it be delivered?
think RM just prefer to discourage such things and, as you say, there is
nothing to stop people putting them in a postbox.
--
Graeme
Graeme
Jun 18, 2012, 9:05:11 AM6/18/12
to
In message <F58Dr.146429$n02.1...@fx02.am4>, the Omrud
<usenet...@gmail.com> writes
Australia (ten pounds?), and posting a coconut back home. It arrived
safely, with the address hand written, and a stamp on it.
--
Graeme
<usenet...@gmail.com> writes
>
>My grandfather was an amateur naturalist. One of his friends once
>posted him a blown hen's egg with the address written on in ink, and
>the correct postage stamp stuck on. It was delivered, correctly
>franked. This would have been in the 20s, I suppose - my dad has it now.
>
I remember, in the early 60s, the brother of a friend emigrating to
>My grandfather was an amateur naturalist. One of his friends once
>posted him a blown hen's egg with the address written on in ink, and
>the correct postage stamp stuck on. It was delivered, correctly
>franked. This would have been in the 20s, I suppose - my dad has it now.
>
Australia (ten pounds?), and posting a coconut back home. It arrived
safely, with the address hand written, and a stamp on it.
--
Graeme
Graeme
Jun 18, 2012, 9:10:12 AM6/18/12
to
In message <Ha8Dr.219561$Qh7.1...@fx14.am4>, Lobster
<davidlobs...@hotmail.com> writes
through the slot. I hold the template horizontally, and drop the letter
vertically, i.e. at 90 degrees to the template.
--
Graeme
<davidlobs...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>I once had a right old row once with the counter clerk about whether my
>letter was 'large' or not. She was 'demonstrating' that it was too
>large to fit through the template slot by trying to shove it through at
>a 45 degrees; which as m'learned friend Pythogoras will tell you,
>narrows the effective aperture considerably. I was not a happy bunny!
That is a huge problem. My understanding is that the letter should drop
>I once had a right old row once with the counter clerk about whether my
>letter was 'large' or not. She was 'demonstrating' that it was too
>large to fit through the template slot by trying to shove it through at
>a 45 degrees; which as m'learned friend Pythogoras will tell you,
>narrows the effective aperture considerably. I was not a happy bunny!
through the slot. I hold the template horizontally, and drop the letter
vertically, i.e. at 90 degrees to the template.
--
Graeme
Serena Blanchflower
Jun 18, 2012, 9:20:02 AM6/18/12
to
other than card? I send, and receive, a lot postcards and have
received a wooden card, shaped like Taiwan, one made of a layer of
cork (that one was a normal shape and size) and a seed packet (printed
as a postcard, as a school fundraising idea). None of those
originated from the UK though; how would the PO react to any of those?
--
Cheers, Serena
One of the universal rules of happiness is: always be wary of any
helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual.
(Terry Pratchett)
Message has been deleted
Graeme
Jun 18, 2012, 2:30:03 PM6/18/12
to
In message <VOqdnedgV4nnt0LS...@brightview.co.uk>, Serena
Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
paper or cardboard. Were I to receive a wooden postcard, for example, I
would just weigh it and check the size, and apply postage as
appropriate.
Not quite the same thing, but it is not really different to accepting a
container - does not matter if the container is a plastic bag, cardboard
box or wooden crate.
--
Graeme
Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
>
>Out of interest, are you supposed to accept cards made of anything
>other than card? I send, and receive, a lot postcards and have
>received a wooden card, shaped like Taiwan, one made of a layer of cork
>(that one was a normal shape and size) and a seed packet (printed as a
>postcard, as a school fundraising idea). None of those originated from
>the UK though; how would the PO react to any of those?
I'm certainly not aware of any ban on letters or cards which are not
>Out of interest, are you supposed to accept cards made of anything
>other than card? I send, and receive, a lot postcards and have
>received a wooden card, shaped like Taiwan, one made of a layer of cork
>(that one was a normal shape and size) and a seed packet (printed as a
>postcard, as a school fundraising idea). None of those originated from
>the UK though; how would the PO react to any of those?
paper or cardboard. Were I to receive a wooden postcard, for example, I
would just weigh it and check the size, and apply postage as
appropriate.
Not quite the same thing, but it is not really different to accepting a
container - does not matter if the container is a plastic bag, cardboard
box or wooden crate.
--
Graeme
Graeme
Jun 18, 2012, 2:35:02 PM6/18/12
to
In message <SmLd7DFb...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>In message <oo5pa9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:50:02 on Thu, 14
>Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>
>>But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
>>that it's underfranked?
>
>Do I care? I'll just claim damages from the Sub Post Office that
>mis-weighed it (in the sense that their scales gave me a receipt saying
>it was OK).
I keep quietly ignoring this message, hoping that Peter Parry will
respond, but perhaps he does not read here?
I am sure that it is not possible to 'claim damages' from a sub
postmaster in the UK. Please don't ask how or why, because I don't
know, even though I probably should. I'm equally sure that I have seen
chapter and verse posted by Peter Parry, but perhaps not in this group,
which is not terribly helpful.
--
Graeme
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>In message <oo5pa9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:50:02 on Thu, 14
>Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>
>>But do they have to deliver underfranked mail if it's the PO's fault
>>that it's underfranked?
>
>Do I care? I'll just claim damages from the Sub Post Office that
>mis-weighed it (in the sense that their scales gave me a receipt saying
>it was OK).
I keep quietly ignoring this message, hoping that Peter Parry will
respond, but perhaps he does not read here?
I am sure that it is not possible to 'claim damages' from a sub
postmaster in the UK. Please don't ask how or why, because I don't
know, even though I probably should. I'm equally sure that I have seen
chapter and verse posted by Peter Parry, but perhaps not in this group,
which is not terribly helpful.
--
Graeme
Graeme
Jun 18, 2012, 2:45:02 PM6/18/12
to
In message <f4S+spt+...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>In message <vJciAqrF...@perry.co.uk>, at 10:15:04 on Thu, 14 Jun
>2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>On your analogue scales, what length of scale is represented by 35g?
>
>Sorry, divide by two error, that should have been 70g.
Very difficult to measure accurately, because the dial is covered by
convex glass. My analogue scales weight from 0 to 30kg, with 0 being at
12 o'clock, but 30 being about 11 o'clock. To answer the question,
about 2mm.
Just thinking vaguely, the diameter of the dial is probably about 10
inches, say 250mm. Multiply by 3.142 gives the circumference (785mm),
divide by 30(kg) gives 26mm per kg, which equals 1.82mm for 70g. I
think.
--
Graeme
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>In message <vJciAqrF...@perry.co.uk>, at 10:15:04 on Thu, 14 Jun
>2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>On your analogue scales, what length of scale is represented by 35g?
>
>Sorry, divide by two error, that should have been 70g.
Very difficult to measure accurately, because the dial is covered by
convex glass. My analogue scales weight from 0 to 30kg, with 0 being at
12 o'clock, but 30 being about 11 o'clock. To answer the question,
about 2mm.
Just thinking vaguely, the diameter of the dial is probably about 10
inches, say 250mm. Multiply by 3.142 gives the circumference (785mm),
divide by 30(kg) gives 26mm per kg, which equals 1.82mm for 70g. I
think.
--
Graeme
Andy Walker
Jun 18, 2012, 3:20:02 PM6/18/12
to
On 18/06/12 19:45, Graeme wrote:
> Just thinking vaguely, the diameter of the dial is probably about 10
> inches, say 250mm. Multiply by 3.142 gives the circumference (785mm),
> divide by 30(kg) gives 26mm per kg, which equals 1.82mm for 70g. I
> think.
There is a reason why non-mathematicians find maths difficult.
> Just thinking vaguely, the diameter of the dial is probably about 10
> inches, say 250mm. Multiply by 3.142 gives the circumference (785mm),
> divide by 30(kg) gives 26mm per kg, which equals 1.82mm for 70g. I
> think.
They do far too much work. To sufficient accuracy [one sig fig!], 10"
diameter means 10"x3 == 30" circumference, means 1" per kg, or a tenth
of an inch per 100gm, two-thirds of that for 70 grams. Everyone with
a foot ruler ["Every inch a King, every foot a ruler"] knows what a
tenth of an inch looks like. Take two-thirds of that. Call it 2/3
of 2.5mm or 1.7mm if you prefer, but we *surely* don't have to use
metric in a UK group?
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Graeme
Jun 19, 2012, 2:55:02 AM6/19/12
to
In message <paLDr.147885$9s1....@fx31.am4>, Andy Walker
<ne...@cuboid.co.uk> writes
an age that still thinks in Imperial, but, working in a PO, have to deal
in metric measurements daily. Having said that, we were discussing
weights in grammes not ounces, so using mm not inches is logical.
--
Graeme
<ne...@cuboid.co.uk> writes
>
> There is a reason why non-mathematicians find maths difficult.
>They do far too much work. To sufficient accuracy [one sig fig!], 10"
>diameter means 10"x3 == 30" circumference, means 1" per kg, or a tenth
>of an inch per 100gm, two-thirds of that for 70 grams. Everyone with
>a foot ruler ["Every inch a King, every foot a ruler"] knows what a
>tenth of an inch looks like. Take two-thirds of that. Call it 2/3
>of 2.5mm or 1.7mm if you prefer, but we *surely* don't have to use
>metric in a UK group?
>
<grin> I answered in metric, because the question was metric. I am of
> There is a reason why non-mathematicians find maths difficult.
>They do far too much work. To sufficient accuracy [one sig fig!], 10"
>diameter means 10"x3 == 30" circumference, means 1" per kg, or a tenth
>of an inch per 100gm, two-thirds of that for 70 grams. Everyone with
>a foot ruler ["Every inch a King, every foot a ruler"] knows what a
>tenth of an inch looks like. Take two-thirds of that. Call it 2/3
>of 2.5mm or 1.7mm if you prefer, but we *surely* don't have to use
>metric in a UK group?
>
an age that still thinks in Imperial, but, working in a PO, have to deal
in metric measurements daily. Having said that, we were discussing
weights in grammes not ounces, so using mm not inches is logical.
--
Graeme
Roland Perry
Jun 19, 2012, 3:45:02 PM6/19/12
to
In message <Ha8Dr.219561$Qh7.1...@fx14.am4>, at 00:00:04 on Sun, 17
ordinary A4 envelope, about half an inch thick. It would go through the
template on it smaller edge (as indeed the rules allow).
The Post Office where it was sent from has charged the "Packet" rate,
and on closer examination it's half an inch too long. That's just so
irritating.
--
Roland Perry
Jun 2012, Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>I once had a right old row once with the counter clerk about whether my
>letter was 'large' or not. She was 'demonstrating' that it was too
>large to fit through the template slot by trying to shove it through at
>a 45 degrees; which as m'learned friend Pythogoras will tell you,
>narrows the effective aperture considerably. I was not a happy bunny!
Further to that... I got a letter today in what looks like a perfectly
>letter was 'large' or not. She was 'demonstrating' that it was too
>large to fit through the template slot by trying to shove it through at
>a 45 degrees; which as m'learned friend Pythogoras will tell you,
>narrows the effective aperture considerably. I was not a happy bunny!
ordinary A4 envelope, about half an inch thick. It would go through the
template on it smaller edge (as indeed the rules allow).
The Post Office where it was sent from has charged the "Packet" rate,
and on closer examination it's half an inch too long. That's just so
irritating.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jun 19, 2012, 3:50:09 PM6/19/12
to
In message <P1bd5ZEN...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 19:30:03 on Mon,
18 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
clothes.
--
Roland Perry
18 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>Not quite the same thing, but it is not really different to accepting a
>container - does not matter if the container is a plastic bag,
>cardboard box or wooden crate.
A lot of mail order companies use grey plastic bags, especially for
>container - does not matter if the container is a plastic bag,
>cardboard box or wooden crate.
clothes.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme
Jun 20, 2012, 8:55:03 AM6/20/12
to
In message <TPYNBjvs...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>
are invited to pay the underpaid postage, plus a pound for the
privilege.
Saying that a package is 'only' half an inch too long is like claiming
your speed was 'only' 32 in a 30 limit. There has to be a line
somewhere.
--
Graeme
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>
>The Post Office where it was sent from has charged the "Packet" rate,
>and on closer examination it's half an inch too long. That's just so
>irritating.
Not as irritating as receiving a card through the door saying that you
>and on closer examination it's half an inch too long. That's just so
>irritating.
are invited to pay the underpaid postage, plus a pound for the
privilege.
Saying that a package is 'only' half an inch too long is like claiming
your speed was 'only' 32 in a 30 limit. There has to be a line
somewhere.
--
Graeme
Roland Perry
Jun 20, 2012, 3:05:02 PM6/20/12
to
In message <4WogBNm9...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 13:55:03 on Wed,
20 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the excess fee at
the door.
>Saying that a package is 'only' half an inch too long is like claiming
>your speed was 'only' 32 in a 30 limit. There has to be a line
>somewhere.
In this case, because the envelope only had A4 papers inside, the sender
could have folded the extraneous half inch over, and sellotaped it down,
and saved £1.51 (or 69% of the bill). That's what's really unjust.
(Actually, ACPO has a rule that it's 10% + 2mph, ie 35mph before they'll
prosecute. 10% of that envelope would have meant it was easily inside
"Large Letter" territory.)
--
Roland Perry
20 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>>The Post Office where it was sent from has charged the "Packet" rate,
>>and on closer examination it's half an inch too long. That's just so
>>irritating.
>
>Not as irritating as receiving a card through the door saying that you
>are invited to pay the underpaid postage, plus a pound for the
>privilege.
I've had those too. It's a sad reflection on modern employment practices
>>and on closer examination it's half an inch too long. That's just so
>>irritating.
>
>Not as irritating as receiving a card through the door saying that you
>are invited to pay the underpaid postage, plus a pound for the
>privilege.
that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the excess fee at
the door.
>Saying that a package is 'only' half an inch too long is like claiming
>your speed was 'only' 32 in a 30 limit. There has to be a line
>somewhere.
could have folded the extraneous half inch over, and sellotaped it down,
and saved £1.51 (or 69% of the bill). That's what's really unjust.
(Actually, ACPO has a rule that it's 10% + 2mph, ie 35mph before they'll
prosecute. 10% of that envelope would have meant it was easily inside
"Large Letter" territory.)
--
Roland Perry
Graeme
Jun 20, 2012, 3:45:10 PM6/20/12
to
In message <1J7kwzHi...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
I frequently give the underpaid item to the postie, and he comes back
with the cash, or he will take the card and return with the cash, then
deliver the item the following day. Having said that, we're in a rural
area and there are few customers not known to me and/or the posties.
--
Graeme
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>In message <4WogBNm9...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 13:55:03 on
>Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>
>Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>
>I've had those too. It's a sad reflection on modern employment
>practices that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the
>excess fee at the door.
It is not what we do that matters - it is what we're (not) caught doing.
>practices that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the
>excess fee at the door.
I frequently give the underpaid item to the postie, and he comes back
with the cash, or he will take the card and return with the cash, then
deliver the item the following day. Having said that, we're in a rural
area and there are few customers not known to me and/or the posties.
>
>>Saying that a package is 'only' half an inch too long is like claiming
>>your speed was 'only' 32 in a 30 limit. There has to be a line
>>somewhere.
>
>In this case, because the envelope only had A4 papers inside, the
>sender could have folded the extraneous half inch over, and sellotaped
>it down, and saved £1.51 (or 69% of the bill). That's what's really
>unjust.
I regularly do that at the counter for locals.
>>Saying that a package is 'only' half an inch too long is like claiming
>>your speed was 'only' 32 in a 30 limit. There has to be a line
>>somewhere.
>
>In this case, because the envelope only had A4 papers inside, the
>sender could have folded the extraneous half inch over, and sellotaped
>it down, and saved £1.51 (or 69% of the bill). That's what's really
>unjust.
>
>(Actually, ACPO has a rule that it's 10% + 2mph, ie 35mph before
>they'll prosecute. 10% of that envelope would have meant it was easily
>inside "Large Letter" territory.)
<grin> I KNEW I should have Googled that before posting!
>(Actually, ACPO has a rule that it's 10% + 2mph, ie 35mph before
>they'll prosecute. 10% of that envelope would have meant it was easily
>inside "Large Letter" territory.)
--
Graeme
Adam Funk
Jun 20, 2012, 4:50:02 PM6/20/12
to
On 2012-06-20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4WogBNm9...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 13:55:03 on Wed,
> 20 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
> In message <4WogBNm9...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 13:55:03 on Wed,
> 20 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>>Not as irritating as receiving a card through the door saying that you
>>are invited to pay the underpaid postage, plus a pound for the
>>privilege.
>
> I've had those too. It's a sad reflection on modern employment practices
> that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the excess fee at
> the door.
ICBW, but I was under the impression the delivery postmen would
>>are invited to pay the underpaid postage, plus a pound for the
>>privilege.
>
> I've had those too. It's a sad reflection on modern employment practices
> that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the excess fee at
> the door.
collect it if someone answered the door, & the card was used otherwise
(as with deliveries that won't fit through the slot).
>>Saying that a package is 'only' half an inch too long is like claiming
>>your speed was 'only' 32 in a 30 limit. There has to be a line
>>somewhere.
>
> In this case, because the envelope only had A4 papers inside, the sender
> could have folded the extraneous half inch over, and sellotaped it down,
> and saved £1.51 (or 69% of the bill). That's what's really unjust.
particularly helpful PO employee would suggest it.
> (Actually, ACPO has a rule that it's 10% + 2mph, ie 35mph before they'll
> prosecute. 10% of that envelope would have meant it was easily inside
> "Large Letter" territory.)
hard limits rather than rough targets.
Neil Williams
Jun 21, 2012, 2:15:03 AM6/21/12
to
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> OT in this thread, but I'd prefer for speed limits to be enforced as
> hard limits rather than rough targets.
So everyone would have to drive 5mph below to be sure?
> OT in this thread, but I'd prefer for speed limits to be enforced as
> hard limits rather than rough targets.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.
Andy Burns
Jun 20, 2012, 10:15:04 PM6/20/12
to
Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2012-06-20, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <4WogBNm9...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 13:55:03 on Wed,
>> 20 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>
>>> Not as irritating as receiving a card through the door saying that you
>>> are invited to pay the underpaid postage, plus a pound for the
>>> privilege.
>>
>> I've had those too. It's a sad reflection on modern employment practices
>> that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the excess fee at
>> the door.
>
> ICBW, but I was under the impression the delivery postmen would
> collect it if someone answered the door, & the card was used otherwise
> (as with deliveries that won't fit through the slot).
Nope, I've chased them down the road and offered the exact change only
> On 2012-06-20, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <4WogBNm9...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 13:55:03 on Wed,
>> 20 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>
>>> Not as irritating as receiving a card through the door saying that you
>>> are invited to pay the underpaid postage, plus a pound for the
>>> privilege.
>>
>> I've had those too. It's a sad reflection on modern employment practices
>> that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the excess fee at
>> the door.
>
> ICBW, but I was under the impression the delivery postmen would
> collect it if someone answered the door, & the card was used otherwise
> (as with deliveries that won't fit through the slot).
to be told "nothing to do with me mate, I only get given the to-pay card
to deliver, not the item itself, you have to go to the sorting centre,
or post it back with the extra stamps on".
Graeme
Jun 21, 2012, 3:10:10 AM6/21/12
to
In message <_6-dnZSFjPR-H3_S...@brightview.co.uk>, Andy
Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> writes
staying in the office until the payment is received - the postie is only
given the card.
--
Graeme
Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> writes
>Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>> ICBW, but I was under the impression the delivery postmen would
>> collect it if someone answered the door, & the card was used otherwise
>> (as with deliveries that won't fit through the slot).
>
>Nope, I've chased them down the road and offered the exact change only
>to be told "nothing to do with me mate, I only get given the to-pay
>card to deliver, not the item itself, you have to go to the sorting
>centre, or post it back with the extra stamps on".
>
The postie is correct. The correct procedure results in the item
>>
>> ICBW, but I was under the impression the delivery postmen would
>> collect it if someone answered the door, & the card was used otherwise
>> (as with deliveries that won't fit through the slot).
>
>Nope, I've chased them down the road and offered the exact change only
>to be told "nothing to do with me mate, I only get given the to-pay
>card to deliver, not the item itself, you have to go to the sorting
>centre, or post it back with the extra stamps on".
>
staying in the office until the payment is received - the postie is only
given the card.
--
Graeme
Roland Perry
Jun 21, 2012, 3:15:03 AM6/21/12
to
In message <lK9nWgvr...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk>, at 20:45:10 on Wed,
in urban areas it's more likely to be a sorting office that is.
--
Roland Perry
20 Jun 2012, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>>I've had those too. It's a sad reflection on modern employment
>>practices that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the
>>excess fee at the door.
>
>It is not what we do that matters - it is what we're (not) caught
>doing. I frequently give the underpaid item to the postie, and he comes
>back with the cash, or he will take the card and return with the cash,
>then deliver the item the following day. Having said that, we're in a
>rural area and there are few customers not known to me and/or the posties.
And as we've discussed, you are responsible for the deliveries, whereas
>>I've had those too. It's a sad reflection on modern employment
>>practices that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the
>>excess fee at the door.
>
>It is not what we do that matters - it is what we're (not) caught
>doing. I frequently give the underpaid item to the postie, and he comes
>back with the cash, or he will take the card and return with the cash,
>then deliver the item the following day. Having said that, we're in a
>rural area and there are few customers not known to me and/or the posties.
in urban areas it's more likely to be a sorting office that is.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jun 21, 2012, 3:20:02 AM6/21/12
to
In message <u7p9b9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:50:02 on Wed, 20
Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
underpaid item at the sorting office, deliver the card to you, and you
have a choice of paying online or by sticking stamps on the card and
having it delivered, or going to the sorting office to pay and collect.
That might also have been when they introduced the £1 fee (on top of the
underpaid postage).
>> (Actually, ACPO has a rule that it's 10% + 2mph, ie 35mph before they'll
>> prosecute. 10% of that envelope would have meant it was easily inside
>> "Large Letter" territory.)
>
>OT in this thread, but I'd prefer for speed limits to be enforced as
>hard limits rather than rough targets.
Speed limits are not "targets". Having the ACPO guidelines removes all
the hassle about people claiming either their speedo was wrong or that
the measuring equipment was wrong. The claims would probably fail, but
waste a lot of the police and courts' time and money in the process.
--
Roland Perry
Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>>Not as irritating as receiving a card through the door saying that you
>>>are invited to pay the underpaid postage, plus a pound for the
>>>privilege.
>>
>> I've had those too. It's a sad reflection on modern employment practices
>> that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the excess fee at
>> the door.
>
>ICBW, but I was under the impression the delivery postmen would
>collect it if someone answered the door, & the card was used otherwise
>(as with deliveries that won't fit through the slot).
They stopped doing that about ten years ago. Now they leave the
>>>are invited to pay the underpaid postage, plus a pound for the
>>>privilege.
>>
>> I've had those too. It's a sad reflection on modern employment practices
>> that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the excess fee at
>> the door.
>
>ICBW, but I was under the impression the delivery postmen would
>collect it if someone answered the door, & the card was used otherwise
>(as with deliveries that won't fit through the slot).
underpaid item at the sorting office, deliver the card to you, and you
have a choice of paying online or by sticking stamps on the card and
having it delivered, or going to the sorting office to pay and collect.
That might also have been when they introduced the £1 fee (on top of the
underpaid postage).
>> (Actually, ACPO has a rule that it's 10% + 2mph, ie 35mph before they'll
>> prosecute. 10% of that envelope would have meant it was easily inside
>> "Large Letter" territory.)
>
>OT in this thread, but I'd prefer for speed limits to be enforced as
>hard limits rather than rough targets.
the hassle about people claiming either their speedo was wrong or that
the measuring equipment was wrong. The claims would probably fail, but
waste a lot of the police and courts' time and money in the process.
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
Jun 21, 2012, 9:20:10 AM6/21/12
to
In message <9k26u797qj36nfpmv...@4ax.com>, at 13:00:07 on
Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:
>If parliament sets a limit, and a bunch of coppers decide that they
>are going to enforce something different (and higher) to that limit,
>who is breaking what laws?
>I'd suggest that the coppers that agree not to even report speeds
>between the legal limit and whatever prosecution threshold they decide
>on are conspiring to pervert the course of justice or aiding and
>abetting a vast number of speeding offences. Possible even both.
>
>They are undermining the will of parliament by not enforcing the limit
>that parliament has set, and doing so quite deliberately.
Parliament clearly disagrees, because the ACPO policy is well known to
them.
--
Roland Perry
Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:
>If parliament sets a limit, and a bunch of coppers decide that they
>are going to enforce something different (and higher) to that limit,
>who is breaking what laws?
>I'd suggest that the coppers that agree not to even report speeds
>between the legal limit and whatever prosecution threshold they decide
>on are conspiring to pervert the course of justice or aiding and
>abetting a vast number of speeding offences. Possible even both.
>
>They are undermining the will of parliament by not enforcing the limit
>that parliament has set, and doing so quite deliberately.
Parliament clearly disagrees, because the ACPO policy is well known to
them.
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
Jun 21, 2012, 11:50:02 AM6/21/12
to
On 2012-06-21, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <u7p9b9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:50:02 on Wed, 20
> Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
...
> In message <u7p9b9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:50:02 on Wed, 20
> Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>> I've had those too. It's a sad reflection on modern employment practices
>>> that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the excess fee at
>>> the door.
>>
>>ICBW, but I was under the impression the delivery postmen would
>>collect it if someone answered the door, & the card was used otherwise
>>(as with deliveries that won't fit through the slot).
>
> They stopped doing that about ten years ago. Now they leave the
> underpaid item at the sorting office, deliver the card to you, and you
> have a choice of paying online or by sticking stamps on the card and
> having it delivered, or going to the sorting office to pay and collect.
Ah, that might explain why I thought that.
>>> that they no longer trust delivery postmen to collect the excess fee at
>>> the door.
>>
>>ICBW, but I was under the impression the delivery postmen would
>>collect it if someone answered the door, & the card was used otherwise
>>(as with deliveries that won't fit through the slot).
>
> They stopped doing that about ten years ago. Now they leave the
> underpaid item at the sorting office, deliver the card to you, and you
> have a choice of paying online or by sticking stamps on the card and
> having it delivered, or going to the sorting office to pay and collect.
> That might also have been when they introduced the £1 fee (on top of the
> underpaid postage).
enforce the surcharge?
>>> (Actually, ACPO has a rule that it's 10% + 2mph, ie 35mph before they'll
>>> prosecute. 10% of that envelope would have meant it was easily inside
>>> "Large Letter" territory.)
>>
>>OT in this thread, but I'd prefer for speed limits to be enforced as
>>hard limits rather than rough targets.
>
> Speed limits are not "targets". Having the ACPO guidelines removes all
> the hassle about people claiming either their speedo was wrong or that
> the measuring equipment was wrong. The claims would probably fail, but
> waste a lot of the police and courts' time and money in the process.
speedometer error isn't an acceptable defence to speeding anyway.
Arguing about the measuring equipment could be a problem. I know
speed limits are *legally* limits, but the way they are enforced makes
them de factor "targets". No-one refrains from doing 33 in a 30
because of fear of prosecution, for example.
Roland Perry
Jun 21, 2012, 12:10:02 PM6/21/12
to
In message <o4sbb9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 16:50:02 on Thu, 21
said it was because they were no longer happy for postmen to be handling
cash at all.
>>>> (Actually, ACPO has a rule that it's 10% + 2mph, ie 35mph before they'll
>>>> prosecute. 10% of that envelope would have meant it was easily inside
>>>> "Large Letter" territory.)
>>>
>>>OT in this thread, but I'd prefer for speed limits to be enforced as
>>>hard limits rather than rough targets.
>>
>> Speed limits are not "targets". Having the ACPO guidelines removes all
>> the hassle about people claiming either their speedo was wrong or that
>> the measuring equipment was wrong. The claims would probably fail, but
>> waste a lot of the police and courts' time and money in the process.
>
>AIUI, in the UK, speedometers aren't legally allowed to read low &
>speedometer error isn't an acceptable defence to speeding anyway.
>Arguing about the measuring equipment could be a problem.
I said the clams would probably fail. But having claims is an issue.
>I know speed limits are *legally* limits, but the way they are enforced
>makes them de factor "targets".
That is a very unfortunate, but true, unexpected consequence of the
current regime.
>No-one refrains from doing 33 in a 30 because of fear of prosecution,
>for example.
Especially when 33 on their speedo is almost certainly 29-31mph in fact.
--
Roland Perry
Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>> That might also have been when they introduced the £1 fee (on top of the
>> underpaid postage).
>
>Did they really change the policy because they didn't trust postmen to
>enforce the surcharge?
The Post Office person I took this up with (don't shoot the messenger)
>> underpaid postage).
>
>Did they really change the policy because they didn't trust postmen to
>enforce the surcharge?
said it was because they were no longer happy for postmen to be handling
cash at all.
>>>> (Actually, ACPO has a rule that it's 10% + 2mph, ie 35mph before they'll
>>>> prosecute. 10% of that envelope would have meant it was easily inside
>>>> "Large Letter" territory.)
>>>
>>>OT in this thread, but I'd prefer for speed limits to be enforced as
>>>hard limits rather than rough targets.
>>
>> Speed limits are not "targets". Having the ACPO guidelines removes all
>> the hassle about people claiming either their speedo was wrong or that
>> the measuring equipment was wrong. The claims would probably fail, but
>> waste a lot of the police and courts' time and money in the process.
>
>AIUI, in the UK, speedometers aren't legally allowed to read low &
>speedometer error isn't an acceptable defence to speeding anyway.
>Arguing about the measuring equipment could be a problem.
>I know speed limits are *legally* limits, but the way they are enforced
>makes them de factor "targets".
current regime.
>No-one refrains from doing 33 in a 30 because of fear of prosecution,
>for example.
--
Roland Perry
Percy Picacity
Jun 21, 2012, 2:35:02 PM6/21/12
to
On 2012-06-21 12:00:07 +0000, Phil W Lee said:
> Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> considered Thu, 21 Jun
> that infringement carries penalties.
>
> Much better than the current vagueness, where everyone knows they can
> get away with a bit over, but nobody knows exactly how much.
physics, as manifested in engineering. Any speed measurement will have
a degree of precision and a limit to its accuracy each describable in
statistical terms. So in order to prove that someone has exceeded the
speed limit they will have to have been measured as going at least two
standard deviations of the overall measurement reliability faster (if
you think a magistrate would be satisfied with 95% probability that a
crime had been committed). E & OE
--
Percy Picacity
> Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> considered Thu, 21 Jun
> 2012 07:15:03 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OT in this thread, but I'd prefer for speed limits to be enforced as
>>> hard limits rather than rough targets.
>>
>> So everyone would have to drive 5mph below to be sure?
>>
> Or whatever they feel is a sensible margin, given that they will KNOW
>
>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OT in this thread, but I'd prefer for speed limits to be enforced as
>>> hard limits rather than rough targets.
>>
>> So everyone would have to drive 5mph below to be sure?
>>
> that infringement carries penalties.
>
> Much better than the current vagueness, where everyone knows they can
> get away with a bit over, but nobody knows exactly how much.
>
> If parliament sets a limit, and a bunch of coppers decide that they
> are going to enforce something different (and higher) to that limit,
> who is breaking what laws?
> I'd suggest that the coppers that agree not to even report speeds
> between the legal limit and whatever prosecution threshold they decide
> on are conspiring to pervert the course of justice or aiding and
> abetting a vast number of speeding offences. Possible even both.
>
> They are undermining the will of parliament by not enforcing the limit
> that parliament has set, and doing so quite deliberately.
Unfortunately, they are running into the rather inflexible laws of
> If parliament sets a limit, and a bunch of coppers decide that they
> are going to enforce something different (and higher) to that limit,
> who is breaking what laws?
> I'd suggest that the coppers that agree not to even report speeds
> between the legal limit and whatever prosecution threshold they decide
> on are conspiring to pervert the course of justice or aiding and
> abetting a vast number of speeding offences. Possible even both.
>
> They are undermining the will of parliament by not enforcing the limit
> that parliament has set, and doing so quite deliberately.
physics, as manifested in engineering. Any speed measurement will have
a degree of precision and a limit to its accuracy each describable in
statistical terms. So in order to prove that someone has exceeded the
speed limit they will have to have been measured as going at least two
standard deviations of the overall measurement reliability faster (if
you think a magistrate would be satisfied with 95% probability that a
crime had been committed). E & OE
--
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
Jun 21, 2012, 2:40:10 PM6/21/12
to
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
Jun 21, 2012, 2:45:03 PM6/21/12
to
On 2012-06-21 16:10:02 +0000, Roland Perry said:
evidential value of the techniques police used to measure vehicle
speed. In fact it is not that easy to measure the speed of a moving
vehicle even with 10% precision by hand, although I expect the modern
cameras are better.
>
>> No-one refrains from doing 33 in a 30 because of fear of prosecution,
>> >for example.
>
> Especially when 33 on their speedo is almost certainly 29-31mph in fact.
> -- Roland Perry
--
>> No-one refrains from doing 33 in a 30 because of fear of prosecution,
>> >for example.
>
> Especially when 33 on their speedo is almost certainly 29-31mph in fact.
> -- Roland Perry
Percy Picacity
Mark Goodge
Jun 21, 2012, 3:20:02 PM6/21/12
to
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:45:03 +0100, Percy Picacity put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>On 2012-06-21 16:10:02 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <o4sbb9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 16:50:02 on Thu, 21
>> Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>
human activity (eg, VASCAR, or a hand-held speed gun) as part of the
process. Fixed cameras can do a lot better, although it's remarkably
difficult to find any actual figures anywhere on the web - it's almost as
if the information is being deliberately kept unpublished :-) The one piece
of information I have been able to find is that "Truvelo" cameras (the ones
facing traffic, as opposed to the Gatsos which take a photo from the rear
or the average speed SPECS systems) are the most precise at around 2% - 4%
depending on speed.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
and typed:
>On 2012-06-21 16:10:02 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <o4sbb9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 16:50:02 on Thu, 21
>> Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>
>>> I know speed limits are *legally* limits, but the way they are enforced
>>> >makes them de factor "targets".
>>
>> That is a very unfortunate, but true, unexpected consequence of the
>> current regime.
>
>As discussed above, historically at least, it is a consequence of the
>evidential value of the techniques police used to measure vehicle
>speed. In fact it is not that easy to measure the speed of a moving
>vehicle even with 10% precision by hand, although I expect the modern
>cameras are better.
10% is certainly the best that can be acheived for anything which involves
>>> >makes them de factor "targets".
>>
>> That is a very unfortunate, but true, unexpected consequence of the
>> current regime.
>
>As discussed above, historically at least, it is a consequence of the
>evidential value of the techniques police used to measure vehicle
>speed. In fact it is not that easy to measure the speed of a moving
>vehicle even with 10% precision by hand, although I expect the modern
>cameras are better.
human activity (eg, VASCAR, or a hand-held speed gun) as part of the
process. Fixed cameras can do a lot better, although it's remarkably
difficult to find any actual figures anywhere on the web - it's almost as
if the information is being deliberately kept unpublished :-) The one piece
of information I have been able to find is that "Truvelo" cameras (the ones
facing traffic, as opposed to the Gatsos which take a photo from the rear
or the average speed SPECS systems) are the most precise at around 2% - 4%
depending on speed.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Roland Perry
Jun 21, 2012, 3:40:02 PM6/21/12
to
In message <54s6u79luo4316i83...@news.markshouse.net>, at
20:20:02 on Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
direct than radar or ANPR (ie SPECS).
--
Roland Perry
20:20:02 on Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>The one piece of information I have been able to find is that "Truvelo"
>cameras (the ones facing traffic, as opposed to the Gatsos which take a
>photo from the rear or the average speed SPECS systems) are the most
>precise at around 2% - 4% depending on speed.
iirc the Truvelo work off strips in the road surface, so are much more
>cameras (the ones facing traffic, as opposed to the Gatsos which take a
>photo from the rear or the average speed SPECS systems) are the most
>precise at around 2% - 4% depending on speed.
direct than radar or ANPR (ie SPECS).
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Jun 21, 2012, 4:30:20 PM6/21/12
to
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:40:02 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
Yes, that's true, the camera is simply for identification purposes.
Although Gatsos don't use radar as anything other than a trigger; the speed
calculation is done by checking the distance travelled between the two
photos that it takes.
typed:
Although Gatsos don't use radar as anything other than a trigger; the speed
calculation is done by checking the distance travelled between the two
photos that it takes.
Percy Picacity
Jun 21, 2012, 7:00:05 PM6/21/12
to
allow one to travel at 35mph in a 30mph limit, but merely to assure the
public that if they stuck to the *actual limit* of 30mph the technology
of the time would not result in a prosecution as its error would be
(nearly) always less then 5mph. The intention was *not* to allow a
higher limit, contrary to the opinions expressed above.
--
Percy Picacity
Roland Perry
Jun 22, 2012, 2:55:02 AM6/22/12
to
In message <rd07u750s44j6af4v...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:30:20 on Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
approach was only taken if the driver contested the ticket.
--
Roland Perry
21:30:20 on Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>Gatsos don't use radar as anything other than a trigger; the speed
>calculation is done by checking the distance travelled between the two
>photos that it takes.
I didn't realise that, how horribly manual. I'd assumed the "two photos"
>calculation is done by checking the distance travelled between the two
>photos that it takes.
approach was only taken if the driver contested the ticket.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Jun 22, 2012, 3:10:10 AM6/22/12
to
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:00:05 +0100, Percy Picacity put finger to keyboard
Of course. And that's still the case. Assuming that the equipment is
functioning normally, then a recorded speed of 35mph does mean that it is
beyond reasonable doubt that the true speed, whatever it is, is greater
than 30mph. Knock a couple of mph off the recorded speed and that is no
longer the case. And if it is not beyond reasonable doubt that the true
speed was in excess of the limit, the level of proof necessary for a
criminal conviction is not met.
functioning normally, then a recorded speed of 35mph does mean that it is
beyond reasonable doubt that the true speed, whatever it is, is greater
than 30mph. Knock a couple of mph off the recorded speed and that is no
longer the case. And if it is not beyond reasonable doubt that the true
speed was in excess of the limit, the level of proof necessary for a
criminal conviction is not met.
Nightjar
Jun 22, 2012, 3:45:01 AM6/22/12
to
Research Laboratory at the time they investigated the need for a
National Speed Limit, That was in a report published in 1962, which was
well before the better publicised high speed road testing on the M1,
which is usually blamed for it.
They looked at the effects of introducing a wide range of speed limits
onto previously unrestricted roads and concluded that speed limits
should not be seen as a way to constrain motorists to the speed limit or
lower. They should, instead, be seen as significantly reducing the
number of motorists who 'grossly exceeded' the speed of the limit in
free traffic conditions before any limit was placed on the road. They
did not quantify 'grossly exceed' but the examples they gave were all
around the limit +10% + 2mph. They also recommended that they be seen as
a way to minimise the speed differences between vehicles on high speed
roads, which had been shown to be a contributory factor in a series of
early motorway accidents.
Colin Bignell
Adam Funk
Jun 22, 2012, 4:20:02 PM6/22/12
to
On 2012-06-22, Nightjar wrote:
> On 22/06/2012 00:00, Percy Picacity wrote:
>> Of course the original point of ACPO's limit + 10% + 2 mph was *not* to
>> allow one to travel at 35mph in a 30mph limit, but merely to assure the
>> public that if they stuck to the *actual limit* of 30mph the technology
>> of the time would not result in a prosecution as its error would be
>> (nearly) always less then 5mph. The intention was *not* to allow a
>> higher limit, contrary to the opinions expressed above.
I wasn't claiming that the ACPO's tolerance was *intended* to give
> On 22/06/2012 00:00, Percy Picacity wrote:
>> Of course the original point of ACPO's limit + 10% + 2 mph was *not* to
>> allow one to travel at 35mph in a 30mph limit, but merely to assure the
>> public that if they stuck to the *actual limit* of 30mph the technology
>> of the time would not result in a prosecution as its error would be
>> (nearly) always less then 5mph. The intention was *not* to allow a
>> higher limit, contrary to the opinions expressed above.
people a de facto speed limit above the legal one, but that it now
seems to have that effect on a significant number of people.
> The ACPO guidelines are remarkably consistent with advice from the Road
> Research Laboratory at the time they investigated the need for a
> National Speed Limit, That was in a report published in 1962, which was
> well before the better publicised high speed road testing on the M1,
> which is usually blamed for it.
> They looked at the effects of introducing a wide range of speed limits
> onto previously unrestricted roads and concluded that speed limits
> should not be seen as a way to constrain motorists to the speed limit or
> lower. They should, instead, be seen as significantly reducing the
> number of motorists who 'grossly exceeded' the speed of the limit in
> free traffic conditions before any limit was placed on the road. They
> did not quantify 'grossly exceed' but the examples they gave were all
> around the limit +10% + 2mph. They also recommended that they be seen as
> a way to minimise the speed differences between vehicles on high speed
> roads, which had been shown to be a contributory factor in a series of
> early motorway accidents.
above the legal one!
Roland Perry
Jun 22, 2012, 4:35:02 PM6/22/12
to
In message <kiveb9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:20:02 on Fri, 22
drive at an indicated 78mph will actually be doing around 72mph. So it
kinda evens itself out.
--
Roland Perry
Jun 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>They should, instead, be seen as significantly reducing the
>> number of motorists who 'grossly exceeded' the speed of the limit in
>> free traffic conditions before any limit was placed on the road. They
>> did not quantify 'grossly exceed' but the examples they gave were all
>> around the limit +10% + 2mph.
>
>> number of motorists who 'grossly exceeded' the speed of the limit in
>> free traffic conditions before any limit was placed on the road. They
>> did not quantify 'grossly exceed' but the examples they gave were all
>> around the limit +10% + 2mph.
>
>That does, however, suggest an intent to create a de facto speed limit
>above the legal one!
But most people thinking that the "defacto" speed limit is 79mph and who
>above the legal one!
drive at an indicated 78mph will actually be doing around 72mph. So it
kinda evens itself out.
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages