Who believes mail volumes are falling?

[andy2007]

It states quite truthfully ,"mail volumes are declining", but the sentence highlighted in red appears to be an oblique reference to mail operators being judged on profit rather than amounts carried.
That may be true in his simplistic world, but it's not in ours.

Look they've said it,they're the bees knees so lets leave it there

On the contrary. They are quite inconsistent really. People send in articles (any of us can, if we choose to), they check if they are suitable. Then they print them. As far as I'm aware, they don't check the accuracy of the Articles.

As a result. They are sometimes insightful, and genuinely interesting. Other times, the are (unintentionally) misleading. In this case: They are most likely right. It certainly fits in with what we all see day to day. But to just assume that they are always right, is a very bad idea. I don't make that assumption about the BBC, or ITN. And they have both been around for a LOT longer than Hellmail.

I don't blindly trust ANY source of information. I try to check as many as I have time to. I suggest that everyone else, does the same.

[POSTMAN]

It states quite truthfully ,"mail volumes are declining", but the sentence highlighted in red appears to be an oblique reference to mail operators being judged on profit rather than amounts carried.
That may be true in his simplistic world, but it's not in ours.

Look they've said it,they're the bees knees so lets leave it there

On the contrary. They are quite inconsistent really. People send in articles (any of us can, if we choose to), they check if they are suitable. Then they print them. As far as I'm aware, they don't check the accuracy of the Articles.

As a result. They are sometimes insightful, and genuinely interesting. Other times, the are (unintentionally) misleading. In this case: They are most likely right. It certainly fits in with what we all see day to day. But to just assume that they are always right, is a very bad idea. I don't make that assumption about the BBC, or ITN. And they have both been around for a LOT longer than Hellmail.

I don't blindly trust ANY source of information. I try to check as many as I have time to. I suggest that everyone else, does the same.

I presume andy that you know i'm taking the piss
Most of the articles are written by the same man.

[andy2007]

Oops!

Sorry, I thought that you had started to take it seriously. It's certainly improved dramatically, since last year. There have been several good articles about us, recently.

Personally, I read them quite regularly now. Although, as I said earlier: They are quite inconsistant, because they don't seem to check the accuracy of the Articles. This one, for example: http://www.hellmail.co.uk/postalnews/te ... 6&zoneid=3 About the Post Office Closures Consultation, is very good. But there have been others. Particularly about covering for each other. Where they deliberately misquoted a Thread on PMC, to create the illusion that we are all lazy bastards!

Again: Sorry for taking it too seriously.

[POSTMAN]

Oops!

Sorry, I thought that you had started to take it seriously. It's certainly improved dramatically, since last year. There have been several good articles about us, recently.

Personally, I read them quite regularly now. Although, as I said earlier: They are quite inconsistant, because they don't seem to check the accuracy of the Articles. This one, for example: http://www.hellmail.co.uk/postalnews/te ... 6&zoneid=3 About the Post Office Closures Consultation, is very good. But there have been others. Particularly about covering for each other. Where they deliberately misquoted a Thread on PMC, to create the illusion that we are all lazy bastards!

Again: Sorry for taking it too seriously.

There's another one in the News forum,i've said my bit and am waiting on Norbs.

[BELIAL]

Gatwick MC working all weekend to clear a backlog, these falling volumes are certainly stretching the system

[Tman]

So, isolated cases of equipment/planning/staff failures = mail levels over the last few years haven't fallen?

I can only wonder at the logic.....

[TrueBlueTerrier]

So, isolated cases of equipment/planning/staff failures = mail levels over the last few years haven't fallen?

I can only wonder at the logic.....

THIS COMMENT IS MADE IN MY POSITION AS A MEMBER NOT AS A MODERATOR

For f.... Sake I am getting heartily sick and peed off at you apparently looking down your nose at people who don't believe your assertion. Do you have a hidden agenda or something.

How is this for logic - I have the same walk as I did 2 years ago. I used to take out 3 bags - now I take 5 to 8 , I take more packets, have more recorded and specials and only this week a customer commented that they seemed to get more junk mail than when I first started this walk. Yet you look down at me because I believe that volumes are not falling. Can you add anything new to the argument that does not belittle others opinions. I think you accept Royal Mails argument and you have that right - I don't and I have that right.

Perhaps your unit is experiencing a reduction in volume, but of course if in your position, a DO cannot extrapolate from his Units experience that volumes are not falling, is it fair for us to accept your position.

I would rather have people on this forum who question official policy and present their own views, I would even prefer people who believe Royal Mails assertion and argue against my position using polite argument. What I can't stand is people who look down upon differing positions and take sly digs, without presenting new arguments.

The main thrust of this thread was not to prove that volumes are not falling it asked a fairly simple question, "Do you believe volumes are falling" whether they are in not is immaterial to those who carry it in their backs, or who work more overtime than they did, or feel under pressure to complete by managers who seem to be under increased pressure recently.

[Tman]

Can you add anything new to the argument that does not belittle others opinions.
Probably not, and apparently I wouldn't be alone in that...


I think you accept Royal Mails argument and you have that right - I don't and I have that right.
Not RM's argument, the evidence of my own eyes. Did you not read or follow the thread?


Perhaps your unit is experiencing a reduction in volume, but of course if in your position, a DO cannot extrapolate from his Units experience that volumes are not falling, is it fair for us to accept your position.

Don't really understand that lot, but I can see tech stats from every MC in the country, and regardless of what any DO posties feel, RM just ain't handling as many letters as it was. Cut it any way you like but that's the bottom line.

I would rather have people on this forum who question official policy and present their own views, I would even prefer people who believe Royal Mails assertion and argue against my position using polite argument. What I can't stand is people who look down upon differing positions and take sly digs, without presenting new arguments.
Yes, such behaviour should have been stamped on a while back. Shame it wasn't...

[TrueBlueTerrier]

[Tman]

Indeed....

[andy2007]

Can you add anything new to the argument that does not belittle others opinions.
Probably not, and apparently I wouldn't be alone in that...
No, but does that make it right, for you to belittle others?
Or should we be trying to stop people on BOTH sides from doing so?


I think you accept Royal Mails argument and you have that right - I don't and I have that right.
Not RM's argument, the evidence of my own eyes. Did you not read or follow the thread?
I think we all did. But where in this Thread, is there any evidence to contradict TBT's argument?
Hes not saying that your figures are wrong. Merely, that Mail volumes don't APPEAR, to have dropped. This Thread is about what people BELIEVE, not what is right from a statistics point of view.

You have only pointed out that there are less LETTERS. What about packets, magazines, etc.? If someone is delivering more Mail on their round. The logical conclusion, is that Mail volumes are increasing. Just because the statistics dispute that conclusion, doesn't alter the perception of those actually delivering it. Does it?

Perhaps your unit is experiencing a reduction in volume, but of course if in your position, a DO cannot extrapolate from his Units experience that volumes are not falling, is it fair for us to accept your position.

Don't really understand that lot, but I can see tech stats from every MC in the country, and regardless of what any DO posties feel, RM just ain't handling as many letters as it was. Cut it any way you like but that's the bottom line.
What don't you understand?
He's merely pointing out, that just because your DO is experiencing a drop in volume. It doesn't mean that every DO in the Country is. You're (in his opinion) falling into the same trap, that you are accusing him of falling victim to.

I would rather have people on this forum who question official policy and present their own views, I would even prefer people who believe Royal Mails assertion and argue against my position using polite argument. What I can't stand is people who look down upon differing positions and take sly digs, without presenting new arguments.
Yes, such behaviour should have been stamped on a while back. Shame it wasn't...

[Tman]

[quote="andy2007"][quote="Tman"]Can you add anything new to the argument that does not belittle others opinions.
Probably not, and apparently I wouldn't be alone in that...
No, but does that make it right, for you to belittle others?
Or should we be trying to stop people on BOTH sides from doing so?
I was making the point that in this thread, "belittling" has been constant; it's a little late after this length of time to mention it now.


[i]I think you accept Royal Mails argument and you have that right - I don't and I have that right.
Not RM's argument, the evidence of my own eyes. Did you not read or follow the thread?
I think we all did. But where in this Thread, is there any evidence to contradict TBT's argument?
Hes not saying that your figures are wrong. Merely, that Mail volumes don't APPEAR, to have dropped. This Thread is about what people BELIEVE, not what is right from a statistics point of view.[/i]


So it seems, but ultimately we're here to discuss, and so shouldn't the subject under discussion is based on an accurate premise?


You have only pointed out that there are less LETTERS. What about packets, magazines, etc.? If someone is delivering more Mail on their round. The logical conclusion, is that Mail volumes are increasing.

No, that's not a logical conclusion. More heavier, bulkier items to deliver doesn't equal more mail being processed, and, as Pinstripe(?) said earlier, walks being amalgamated etc means more mail for the remainder too, therefore the idea that "my bag's heavier therefore volumes haven't dropped" isn't realistic.

Perhaps your unit is experiencing a reduction in volume, but of course if in your position, a DO cannot extrapolate from his Units experience that volumes are not falling, is it fair for us to accept your position.
Don't really understand that lot, but I can see tech stats from every MC in the country, and regardless of what any DO posties feel, RM just ain't handling as many letters as it was. Cut it any way you like but that's the bottom line.
What don't you understand?
He's merely pointing out, that just because your DO is experiencing a drop in volume. It doesn't mean that every DO in the Country is. You're (in his opinion) falling into the same trap, that you are accusing him of falling victim to.


Don't work in a DO and never have done. In fact, I haven't based my statements on any one location, but RM Processing in general, so I refute that.

[DGP1]

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the United States by Mark Twain: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damn ... statistics How RM works.

[k979aaa]

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the United States by Mark Twain: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damn ... statistics How RM works.

Nay there are four ROYALMAILS OWN LIES AND STATISTICS AND MAY GOD DAMN THEM ALL :cfo & :lfo AND THE REST OFF THE ROYALMALBOARD!.

[k979aaa]

All i will say is where is HE'MAN to back up the story, sorry statistics and damn lies!.