Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #181119 > unrolled thread

Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-05 10:41 +0000
    Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 16:49 +0000
      Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-05 21:54 +0000
        Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com> - 2025-01-06 09:35 +0000
          Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-06 10:55 +0000
            Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-06 10:05 -0500
              Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-06 17:49 +0000
                Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-06 17:32 -0500
                  Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-16 23:52 +1100
            Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 00:01 +0000
              Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-07 08:45 +0000
                Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 13:57 +0000
        Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-06 15:14 +0000
    Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-01-05 15:42 -0500
      Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-05 21:57 +0000
        Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-01-05 17:22 -0500
        Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-02-26 08:42 -0500
          Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-02-26 14:45 +0000
    Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 22:10 +0100
    Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-01-06 01:46 +0200
      Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-05 21:44 -0500
      Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-06 08:28 +0000
        Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-01-07 16:09 +0200
    Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-06 07:37 +0000
      Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-06 08:33 +0000
        Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-06 18:33 +0000
          Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-06 19:06 +0000
            Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 00:11 +0000
              Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-07 08:55 +0000
                Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 14:00 +0000
                  Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-07 15:16 +0000
                    Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-07 11:14 -0500
                      Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-01-07 18:09 +0000
                        Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-07 15:08 -0500
                          Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 07:45 +0000
                    Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 08:25 +0000
                      Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-26 21:54 +1100
      Re: Very OT: UK Post Office and the Horizon Scandal Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-01-07 16:20 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#181140

On Sun, 1/5/2025 6:46 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 10:41:17 +0000, Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk>
> wrote:
> 
>> What happens in other countries?  Is there an equivalent to the PO?  Is 
>> banking easily available to the whole population?  How does the average 
>> citizen interact with government?
> 
> In South Africa the post office was similar to the UK until about
> 1987, when under the influence of the then fashionable Thatcherist
> neoliberalism it stopped being a government department under the
> Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the Postmaster General,
> and was run like a business, and became a State-Owned Enterprise
> (SOE). Or, rather, it was split into two -- the Post Office and
> Telkom. 
> 
> That was a death senrtence for the Post Office, as its
> telecommunications branch had been far more lucrative than its postal
> business, and it has gone downhill everf since, and is now bankrupt
> and almost defunct. There are several provately-owned courier
> services, which are, howeever excessively expensive, and virtually
> useless for people living in remotrer rural areas or even in many
> small towns far from major centres,
> 
> Nearly all the post offices in our immediate vicinity have closed. We
> used to rent a post office box, but gave it up last year, because it
> just wasn't worth it. 

Our post office here, in Canada, is financially in bad shape,
and sooner or later, something will happen to it :-) If you were
to ask me what it would cost to deliver a letter, ten years from
now, my guess would be $40, instead of $1. It would be
forty times as expensive as it is now. You won't be sending
Christmas Cards any more.

After the postal strike, my bills still aren't synchronized and
I checked my credit card balance by phone yesterday, to ensure
there are no interest payments involved.

Yes, civilization does run backwards. Public transit is
expensive, the system is bankrupt, and it has failed in small
cities elsewhere. When I was a kid, a ride on the bus wasn't
that much, and I could take swim lessons and travel on the
bus by myself. What's weird is, they can spend money on the
most stupid things, that do not deliver service, while
the buses rust and fall apart. Just about all the buses, the
suspension is shot, from riding over potholes in the road
all day long.

If you are rich ? You won't even notice these things :-)

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181143

Steve Hayes wrote:

[snip]
> 
> Nearly all the post offices in our immediate vicinity have closed. We
> used to rent a post office box, but gave it up last year, because it
> just wasn't worth it.

My recollection of sending mail to relatives in SA was that they all had 
PO boxes - because there was no such thing as a delivery service.  Has 
that now changed?


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181171

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:28:52 +0000, Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk>
wrote:

>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> 
>> Nearly all the post offices in our immediate vicinity have closed. We
>> used to rent a post office box, but gave it up last year, because it
>> just wasn't worth it.
>
>My recollection of sending mail to relatives in SA was that they all had 
>PO boxes - because there was no such thing as a delivery service.  Has 
>that now changed?

There was delivery service in bigger towns, but not in remote rural
areas. Even in towns it was sometimes useful to have a PO Box, I did
as a student, and even afterwards, when I didn't have a fixed
residential address. 

-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181142

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> In the words of Spike Milligan: "What are we going to do now?"
> 
> The SPMs (Sub Post Masters) have no trust in the PO (Post Office), and 
> the replacement for Horizon - called NBIT - is not yet on the horizon! 
> I think the PO is doomed.
> 
> So what do we need the PO for?
> 
> Postal Service.  This is what the GPO (General Post Office) did 
> originally; collect and deliver mail. It was extended to become the 
> citizen's contact point with government: paying pensions and benefits; 

These are now paid direct to people. No longer are there queues of people
waiting to pick up their GIROs. 

> providing basic banking; and handling passports, 

The check and send (paid for) service used to be very useful, but now the
online passport service is very slick so I don't know if that's even
available anymore. 

> car tax, driving 
> licenses

VED (i.e. car tax) and driving licences aren't managed via the PO anymore. 

> , etc.  It received income for this so allowing small shops to 
> operate sub post offices.  We still need the postal service for its USO 
> (Universal Service Obligation) and RMG (Royal Mail Group) now (since 
> separating from the PO in 2012) provides this and pays the PO (and other 
> outlets) for selling postage stamps.

We can buy stamps from other places as well now. Although, given so few
write letters it is really expensive to send mail. I know some who no
longer send Christmas cards due to the cost. 

Some SPO also collect packages for some commercial services. 

> Banking.  This is the only other useful function provided by the PO, and 
> it is only because traditional high street banks no longer operate 
> anywhere other than large towns and cities.  All government payments to 
> citizens are now paid into bank accounts so it would be sensible to 
> force banks to meet a USO on opening hours and easy access for 100% of 
> the population.

Not likely. Can't imagine any remote area having branches from all banks,
especially as the new banks have none. Community banking - which is what
the PO offers - is a better solution. 

> Everything else is done via the internet which suggests that internet 
> connectivity should meet a USO.
> 
> What happens in other countries?  Is there an equivalent to the PO?  Is 
> banking easily available to the whole population?  How does the average 
> citizen interact with government?
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181144

Chris wrote:

[snip]

>> Banking.  This is the only other useful function provided by the PO, and
>> it is only because traditional high street banks no longer operate
>> anywhere other than large towns and cities.  All government payments to
>> citizens are now paid into bank accounts so it would be sensible to
>> force banks to meet a USO on opening hours and easy access for 100% of
>> the population.
> 
> Not likely. Can't imagine any remote area having branches from all banks,
> especially as the new banks have none. Community banking - which is what
> the PO offers - is a better solution.

So should the PO now be funded directly by the banks?


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181153

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> Banking.  This is the only other useful function provided by the PO, and
>>> it is only because traditional high street banks no longer operate
>>> anywhere other than large towns and cities.  All government payments to
>>> citizens are now paid into bank accounts so it would be sensible to
>>> force banks to meet a USO on opening hours and easy access for 100% of
>>> the population.
>> 
>> Not likely. Can't imagine any remote area having branches from all banks,
>> especially as the new banks have none. Community banking - which is what
>> the PO offers - is a better solution.
> 
> So should the PO now be funded directly by the banks?

It is already. 

It provides services for Starling and the Co-op and, I suspect, several
others. Actually, it's 30 banks and BS. 
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/post-office-to-continue-to-offer-banking-services-for-30-banks-and-building-societies-ax3GC1s2uTJG

Also, I didn't realise the PO already hosts dozens of "banking hubs" across
the UK. That's good news. 
https://www.postoffice.co.uk/bankinghubs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181154

Chris wrote:

[snip]
>>
>> So should the PO now be funded directly by the banks?
> 
> It is already.
> 
> It provides services for Starling and the Co-op and, I suspect, several
> others. Actually, it's 30 banks and BS.
> https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/post-office-to-continue-to-offer-banking-services-for-30-banks-and-building-societies-ax3GC1s2uTJG
> 
> Also, I didn't realise the PO already hosts dozens of "banking hubs" across
> the UK. That's good news.
> https://www.postoffice.co.uk/bankinghubs

Do you think the services to Starling et al and the banking hubs can 
continue if Horizon stops working (as it might when Fujitsu refuses to 
support it any more) and the replacement (NBIT) doesn't materialise?

I suspect the banks will have to provide the computer support.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181159

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>>> 
>>> So should the PO now be funded directly by the banks?
>> 
>> It is already.
>> 
>> It provides services for Starling and the Co-op and, I suspect, several
>> others. Actually, it's 30 banks and BS.
>> https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/post-office-to-continue-to-offer-banking-services-for-30-banks-and-building-societies-ax3GC1s2uTJG
>> 
>> Also, I didn't realise the PO already hosts dozens of "banking hubs" across
>> the UK. That's good news.
>> https://www.postoffice.co.uk/bankinghubs
> 
> Do you think the services to Starling et al and the banking hubs can 
> continue if Horizon stops working (as it might when Fujitsu refuses to 
> support it any more) and the replacement (NBIT) doesn't materialise?

How do you know they are linked? 

> I suspect the banks will have to provide the computer support.

I would suspect they aren't using Horizon for the bank work. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181162

Chris wrote:

[snip]

>>
>> Do you think the services to Starling et al and the banking hubs can
>> continue if Horizon stops working (as it might when Fujitsu refuses to
>> support it any more) and the replacement (NBIT) doesn't materialise?
> 
> How do you know they are linked?
> 
>> I suspect the banks will have to provide the computer support.
> 
> I would suspect they aren't using Horizon for the bank work.

 From what I understand having followed some of the Horizon enquiry, the 
PO uses the Horizon system for all its transactions including banking. 
So if you buy stamps, that is done via Horizon; and if you deposit cash 
into your bank account at a PO that is also done via Horizon.  The 
interaction with the banks' computers systems was one of the design 
challenges.

It follows that the cash drawer contains money from different sources, 
and for different reasons.  So a proper reconciliation at the end of 
each trading period is vital.  This was one of the areas where the lack 
of an audit trail available to the SPM (and in some cases to PO 
investigators themselves) led to wrongful prosecutions.

-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181169

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> 
>>> Do you think the services to Starling et al and the banking hubs can
>>> continue if Horizon stops working (as it might when Fujitsu refuses to
>>> support it any more) and the replacement (NBIT) doesn't materialise?
>> 
>> How do you know they are linked?
>> 
>>> I suspect the banks will have to provide the computer support.
>> 
>> I would suspect they aren't using Horizon for the bank work.
> 
> From what I understand having followed some of the Horizon enquiry, the 
> PO uses the Horizon system for all its transactions including banking. 
> So if you buy stamps, that is done via Horizon; and if you deposit cash 
> into your bank account at a PO that is also done via Horizon.  The 
> interaction with the banks' computers systems was one of the design 
> challenges.
> 
> It follows that the cash drawer contains money from different sources, 
> and for different reasons.  So a proper reconciliation at the end of 
> each trading period is vital.  This was one of the areas where the lack 
> of an audit trail available to the SPM (and in some cases to PO 
> investigators themselves) led to wrongful prosecutions.

OK. If that's the case then I'm sure they'll have a good solution given
it's an important service for the PO :-^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181173

Chris wrote:

[snip]
>>
>> It follows that the cash drawer contains money from different sources,
>> and for different reasons.  So a proper reconciliation at the end of
>> each trading period is vital.  This was one of the areas where the lack
>> of an audit trail available to the SPM (and in some cases to PO
>> investigators themselves) led to wrongful prosecutions.
> 
> OK. If that's the case then I'm sure they'll have a good solution given
> it's an important service for the PO :-^)
> 

I very much doubt it.  Even the current PO management has no 
understanding of how unreliable the current Horizon system is, and the 
development programme for its replacement appears to be stalled.

My contention is that this in itself renders the PO in its existing form 
unsustainable, so it would be better to close it completely.  Its 
banking facility is the only loss to society, so it may be that we all 
become much greater users of cash.

-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181174

On Tue, 1/7/2025 10:16 AM, Graham J wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>>>
>>> It follows that the cash drawer contains money from different sources,
>>> and for different reasons.  So a proper reconciliation at the end of
>>> each trading period is vital.  This was one of the areas where the lack
>>> of an audit trail available to the SPM (and in some cases to PO
>>> investigators themselves) led to wrongful prosecutions.
>>
>> OK. If that's the case then I'm sure they'll have a good solution given
>> it's an important service for the PO :-^)
>>
> 
> I very much doubt it.  Even the current PO management has no understanding of how unreliable the current Horizon system is, and the development programme for its replacement appears to be stalled.
> 
> My contention is that this in itself renders the PO in its existing form unsustainable, so it would be better to close it completely.  Its banking facility is the only loss to society, so it may be that we all become much greater users of cash.
> 

The reason Post Offices must "stay the course", is they need income, badly.
You can't chuck away anything that makes money. You could for
example, have a lemonade stand at the PO, just so they can make
a bit of cash on the side.

If they stop doing things, just handling letter mail is never going to
work. I stand by my contention, that a letter that costs $1 today to
mail, is going to cost $40 ten years from now, simply because the PO
won't be around to deliver it. It will fail, as a business enterprise,
and some courier using Uber drivers will deliver your hamburger and
that Christmas card.

Some things in society, are going out of touch. Too expensive.
Public transit for one. Letter mail and even parcel mail for another.
The parcel mail here, is every bit as expensive as a courier would be,
and I just don't like the optics of the trend. It can't get cheaper,
and the Post Offices can't open up enough Lemonade Stands to compensate
for their operating costs. Perhaps they can offer shoe shines.
Or re-sole your shoes for you.

I was reading an article from an "expert" in rescuing the PO the other
day, and the laundry list of Lemonade Stand ideas, has all been tried.
The Expert in fact, is "out of bullets". The gentleman has no viable
plan for saving our PO. Even re-soling a shoe won't be enough.
Or offering pepperoni pizza slices hot from the oven.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181176

Paul wrote:

[snip]

> The reason Post Offices must "stay the course", is they need income, badly.
> You can't chuck away anything that makes money. You could for
> example, have a lemonade stand at the PO, just so they can make
> a bit of cash on the side.

In the UK the reality is that small POs exist within shops, the idea 
being that on their own they would never have been viable, but POs were 
expected to bring in enough extra custom to make the small shop a 
sensible proposition.  The financial side is quite separate, the only 
place that money changes hands is for possible rental income arising 
from the part of the shop used as the PO and the income paid to the sub 
post-master for the work involved in running the PO.

> If they stop doing things, just handling letter mail is never going to
> work. I stand by my contention, that a letter that costs $1 today to
> mail, is going to cost $40 ten years from now, simply because the PO
> won't be around to deliver it. It will fail, as a business enterprise,
> and some courier using Uber drivers will deliver your hamburger and
> that Christmas card.

In the UK the letter mail is handled completely by Royal Mail Group 
(RMG) - which is not the same thing as the Post Office.  RMG may lease 
space from the PO for sorting and delivery purposes - and in the past 
such space was part of the PO - until the (completely pointless) 
administrative separation of RMG and the PO in 2012.

In the UK RMG has the USO (Universal Service Obligation) - unlike any of 
the competing enterprises - so it will of course be expensive just as 
you suggest.  If the government wishes to force the USO on RMG in the 
future I imagine it will have to finance it.  Government may decide that 
the USO is no longer needed because everything can be done over the 
internet.

> Some things in society, are going out of touch. Too expensive.
> Public transit for one. Letter mail and even parcel mail for another.
> The parcel mail here, is every bit as expensive as a courier would be,
> and I just don't like the optics of the trend. It can't get cheaper,
> and the Post Offices can't open up enough Lemonade Stands to compensate
> for their operating costs. Perhaps they can offer shoe shines.
> Or re-sole your shoes for you.

Amazon requires the parcel delivery facility, and it's evident that they 
have their own staff and vehicles for this, which can't be efficient. 
There's no such thng as "signed-for" deliveries and in my experience 
anything that is not delivered in a reasonable time is simply 
re-supplied.  So the losses in delivery must be quite significant. 
Perhaps explains why Amazon is so expensive!


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181177

On Tue, 1/7/2025 1:09 PM, Graham J wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> The reason Post Offices must "stay the course", is they need income, badly.
>> You can't chuck away anything that makes money. You could for
>> example, have a lemonade stand at the PO, just so they can make
>> a bit of cash on the side.
> 
> In the UK the reality is that small POs exist within shops, the idea being that on their own they would never have been viable, but POs were expected to bring in enough extra custom to make the small shop a sensible proposition.  The financial side is quite separate, the only place that money changes hands is for possible rental income arising from the part of the shop used as the PO and the income paid to the sub post-master for the work involved in running the PO.
> 
>> If they stop doing things, just handling letter mail is never going to
>> work. I stand by my contention, that a letter that costs $1 today to
>> mail, is going to cost $40 ten years from now, simply because the PO
>> won't be around to deliver it. It will fail, as a business enterprise,
>> and some courier using Uber drivers will deliver your hamburger and
>> that Christmas card.
> 
> In the UK the letter mail is handled completely by Royal Mail Group (RMG) - which is not the same thing as the Post Office.  RMG may lease space from the PO for sorting and delivery purposes - and in the past such space was part of the PO - until the (completely pointless) administrative separation of RMG and the PO in 2012.
> 
> In the UK RMG has the USO (Universal Service Obligation) - unlike any of the competing enterprises - so it will of course be expensive just as you suggest.  If the government wishes to force the USO on RMG in the future I imagine it will have to finance it.  Government may decide that the USO is no longer needed because everything can be done over the internet.
> 
>> Some things in society, are going out of touch. Too expensive.
>> Public transit for one. Letter mail and even parcel mail for another.
>> The parcel mail here, is every bit as expensive as a courier would be,
>> and I just don't like the optics of the trend. It can't get cheaper,
>> and the Post Offices can't open up enough Lemonade Stands to compensate
>> for their operating costs. Perhaps they can offer shoe shines.
>> Or re-sole your shoes for you.
> 
> Amazon requires the parcel delivery facility, and it's evident that they have their own staff and vehicles for this, which can't be efficient. There's no such thng as "signed-for" deliveries and in my experience anything that is not delivered in a reasonable time is simply re-supplied.  So the losses in delivery must be quite significant. Perhaps explains why Amazon is so expensive!
> 

Our Post is modular too, not all the people doing things for
you are unionized postal workers. A fair number of them are
private or franchise. The Post Office here, bought its own
courier firm. It's not clear at which point, the parcels
leave the post office and go to the courier branch.

These are all of the "previous efficiencies" that are
bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy. The Post Office
needs to be 400% more efficient, the available leverage
might manage 10% more efficiency. Even if you fired all
the unionized employees ("union busting"), that's still
not enough to make them cash flow positive.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181178

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 1/7/2025 1:09 PM, Graham J wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>>> The reason Post Offices must "stay the course", is they need income, badly.
>>> You can't chuck away anything that makes money. You could for
>>> example, have a lemonade stand at the PO, just so they can make
>>> a bit of cash on the side.
>> 
>> In the UK the reality is that small POs exist within shops, the idea
>> being that on their own they would never have been viable, but POs were
>> expected to bring in enough extra custom to make the small shop a
>> sensible proposition.  The financial side is quite separate, the only
>> place that money changes hands is for possible rental income arising
>> from the part of the shop used as the PO and the income paid to the sub
>> post-master for the work involved in running the PO.
>> 
>>> If they stop doing things, just handling letter mail is never going to
>>> work. I stand by my contention, that a letter that costs $1 today to
>>> mail, is going to cost $40 ten years from now, simply because the PO
>>> won't be around to deliver it. It will fail, as a business enterprise,
>>> and some courier using Uber drivers will deliver your hamburger and
>>> that Christmas card.
>> 
>> In the UK the letter mail is handled completely by Royal Mail Group
>> (RMG) - which is not the same thing as the Post Office.  RMG may lease
>> space from the PO for sorting and delivery purposes - and in the past
>> such space was part of the PO - until the (completely pointless)
>> administrative separation of RMG and the PO in 2012.
>> 
>> In the UK RMG has the USO (Universal Service Obligation) - unlike any of
>> the competing enterprises - so it will of course be expensive just as
>> you suggest.  If the government wishes to force the USO on RMG in the
>> future I imagine it will have to finance it.  Government may decide that
>> the USO is no longer needed because everything can be done over the internet.
>> 
>>> Some things in society, are going out of touch. Too expensive.
>>> Public transit for one. Letter mail and even parcel mail for another.
>>> The parcel mail here, is every bit as expensive as a courier would be,
>>> and I just don't like the optics of the trend. It can't get cheaper,
>>> and the Post Offices can't open up enough Lemonade Stands to compensate
>>> for their operating costs. Perhaps they can offer shoe shines.
>>> Or re-sole your shoes for you.
>> 
>> Amazon requires the parcel delivery facility, and it's evident that they
>> have their own staff and vehicles for this, which can't be efficient.
>> There's no such thng as "signed-for" deliveries and in my experience
>> anything that is not delivered in a reasonable time is simply
>> re-supplied.  So the losses in delivery must be quite significant.
>> Perhaps explains why Amazon is so expensive!
>> 
> 
> Our Post is modular too, not all the people doing things for
> you are unionized postal workers. A fair number of them are
> private or franchise. The Post Office here, bought its own
> courier firm. It's not clear at which point, the parcels
> leave the post office and go to the courier branch.
> 
> These are all of the "previous efficiencies" that are
> bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy. The Post Office
> needs to be 400% more efficient, the available leverage
> might manage 10% more efficiency. Even if you fired all
> the unionized employees ("union busting"), that's still
> not enough to make them cash flow positive.

That's because physical mail is dead. The "Post Office" concept needs to
reinvent itself. A Community Hub as is happening here in the UK, seems to
be an option. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181179

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>>> 
>>> It follows that the cash drawer contains money from different sources,
>>> and for different reasons.  So a proper reconciliation at the end of
>>> each trading period is vital.  This was one of the areas where the lack
>>> of an audit trail available to the SPM (and in some cases to PO
>>> investigators themselves) led to wrongful prosecutions.
>> 
>> OK. If that's the case then I'm sure they'll have a good solution given
>> it's an important service for the PO :-^)
>> 
> 
> I very much doubt it.  

Note my tongue-in-cheek smiley. 

> Even the current PO management has no 
> understanding of how unreliable the current Horizon system is, 

Pretty sure they do. It's been national news for over a year and they've
been hauled over hot coals by the enquiry/press. 

It did shock me when I heard they're still using Horizon. AIUI the errors
haven't been fixed so how are SPMs dealing with the unreliability?

> and the 
> development programme for its replacement appears to be stalled.

Unsurprising. 

> My contention is that this in itself renders the PO in its existing form 
> unsustainable, so it would be better to close it completely.  

The SPO presence and trustworthiness is unique and has huge value. See my
previous comment re community hubs. 

> Its 
> banking facility is the only loss to society, so it may be that we all 
> become much greater users of cash.

That's a non sequitur and goes against global trends. Loss of banking
facilities *reduces* cash use not increases it. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182566

On 8/01/2025 7:25 pm, Chris wrote:
> Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

<Snip>

>> Its banking facility is the only loss to society, so it may be that
>> we all become much greater users of cash.
> 
> That's a non sequitur and goes against global trends. Loss of
> banking facilities *reduces* cash use not increases it.

My theory, for what is worth, Blame it on CoViD-19 .... when we weren't 
allowed to touch each other, so we just got used to rattling off a 
series of numbers!!
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181175

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 07:37:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

[snip]

> We can buy stamps from other places as well now. Although, given so few
> write letters it is really expensive to send mail. I know some who no
> longer send Christmas cards due to the cost.

Half of the Christmas cards I got this season were sent by email.

[snip]

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web