Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The problem here is that concentrating on the fact that some people use "can't" as an excuse for "don't want to" deflects from the needs of those who genuinely "can't" and is used to steamroller over their objections and exclude them.
Let's suppose, just as an example, that everyone could afford or be given a smartphone in order to access government services. Let's say there's a 95% take up, but 5% say they "can't" use a smartphone. But it turns out, that if you twist their arms and make it essential, 3% of them actually, reluctantly, can. But 2% really, genuinely cannot. I get the feeling that some of the posters on here are quite happy to throw that 2% under the bus by relentlessly pointing to the 3% and saying "You see! They can do it! There's absolutely no need for any alternatives!"
This is the point - just because some can adapt it does not follow that all can adapt.
It would be a shame if a failing company cut out the services required for a minority just so they can survive. It is why I try to look at the overall service provided. It is an eye opener when things go wrong and you finally discover the customer services is poor. I remember years ago Audioline had a phone helpline. Wen I rang it I got told it was no longer available !. Where is Audioline now btw ?.
I would also add in cost as a factor. For some people a mobile phone with a contract is a prohibitive cost. Same for a computer and internet. Especially if they are already cutting back on food to pay their energy bills. It is very easy for people earning a good wage to dismiss costs as only pennies so to speak. But when I look at some peoples finances things like food are hard to afford let alone technology.
In the specific instance that I replied to, I remain convinced that it was a question of choice, not fundamental capability. My experience, not just of the elderly, is that “I can’t” is almost always a deflection from “I don’t want to do x”.
Yes! My late father-in-law refused to have anything other than a brick phone, and refused to use text. However, as a former secondary head of science, he taught basic computing at evening classes and got stuck into Rasberry Pi with great enthusiasm.
I would also add in cost as a factor. For some people a mobile phone with a contract is a prohibitive cost. Same for a computer and internet. Especially if they are already cutting back on food to pay their energy bills. It is very easy for people earning a good wage to dismiss costs as only pennies so to speak. But when I look at some peoples finances things like food are hard to afford let alone technology.
Although I agree, the cost of bills will be an issue for many people, the internet is now a standard bill really, in the same way the vast majority paid for a landline phone 20-40 years ago, the vast majority will have a broadband bill. Therefore I think this is a significant issue if people cannot afford a basic broadband connection.
As stated by the CEOof Digital Poverty Alliance, “Affordable, reliable broadband must be treated as a basic utility, not a luxury,” https://digitalpovertyalliance.org/...l-tariffs-why-millions-are-still-missing-out/
Although I agree, the cost of bills will be an issue for many people, the internet is now a standard bill really, in the same way the vast majority paid for a landline phone 20-40 years ago, the vast majority will have a broadband bill. Therefore I think this is a significant issue if people cannot afford a basic broadband connection.
As stated by the CEOof Digital Poverty Alliance, “Affordable, reliable broadband must be treated as a basic utility, not a luxury,” https://digitalpovertyalliance.org/...l-tariffs-why-millions-are-still-missing-out/
Turn that question around. Should services be provided on the basis of that 2%, and the other 98% be unable to benefit from the advantages because of that 2%. That's equally unreasonable.
That's a strawman. The point is not that the convenience of smartphone apps and the like shouldn't be available for the 95%/98%. The point is that there should be an alternative for those who are unable (or, gasp, find it a bit hard)
That's a strawman. The point is not that the convenience of smartphone apps and the like shouldn't be available for the 95%/98%. The point is that there should be an alternative for those who are unable (or, gasp, find it a bit hard)
This discussion started from looking at Royal Mail, where there already is the universal service, they have to provide a basic postal service to their users, its enshrined in law.
But other companies, as long as they are not discriminating under the equality act are free to do what they like, if they feel it is not worth spending money on that small percentage of customers and would rather not sell goods/services to them, that is up to that company. For example I don't expect the government to force TGJones to continue to exist selling magazines if the company can no longer turn a profit from them.
Turn that question around. Should services be provided on the basis of that 2%, and the other 98% be unable to benefit from the advantages because of that 2%. That's equally unreasonable.
...
That's misrepresenting my point entirely, because I did not say that the other 98% should be unable to benefit from the advantages because of that 2%.
If I need to make it clearer, my point is that a public service in particular needs to not take away access methods to that service which they can currently use and leave behind only ones that they cannot, just because they are "only 2%". A person with specific needs or access requirements who could (say) book and travel by rail partly or fully independently ten years ago, should be able to do so now, and also in ten years time. That doesn't mean that the access methods for that person need to be fixed forever; it does mean that anything that replaces them needs to be equally accessible to them.
Turn that question around. Should services be provided on the basis of that 2%, and the other 98% be unable to benefit from the advantages because of that 2%. That's equally unreasonable.
Of course those who can't use a service in a particular way should be accommodated, and in a way that doesn't discriminate against them. Dealing with their needs requires some degree of proportionality, as well as thinking what their needs really are (how does a train operator address the needs of an elderly person with untreated deafness and AMD when he wants to book travel, for example?).
Not sure anyone has suggested that the online / smartphone options should not be available; merely that policy decisions should not be made on the basis of an assumption that they are a viable option for all.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This discussion started from looking at Royal Mail, where there already is the universal service, they have to provide a basic postal service to their users, its enshrined in law.
But other companies, as long as they are not discriminating under the equality act are free to do what they like, if they feel it is not worth spending money on that small percentage of customers and would rather not sell goods/services to them, that is up to that company. For example I don't expect the government to force TGJones to continue to exist selling magazines if the company can no longer turn a profit from them.
In terms of Royal Mail (or the early days of bus regulation) I disagree. The playing field needs to be level - you cannot allow one company to cherry pick the profitable bits while requiring another to do all the loss-making ones as well. Fair enough to allow a bit of ramp-up time, but any company offering letter delivery services on a long term basis ie not Scouts’ Xmas post) should operate under the same universal service obligation as the RM.
For transport companies and operators I expect to see Select Bus Services fail, they have great drivers however their buses definitely not up to standard and like any small operator will be struggling with financial costs like CT4N did.
I wouldn't be surprised if smaller bus operators struggle and fall in the coming months and years.
In terms of Royal Mail (or the early days of bus regulation) I disagree. The playing field needs to be level - you cannot allow one company to cherry pick the profitable bits while requiring another to do all the loss-making ones as well. Fair enough to allow a bit of ramp-up time, but any company offering letter delivery services on a long term basis ie not Scouts’ Xmas post) should operate under the same universal service obligation as the RM.
This goes back to the discussion as to whether the universal post service should be a private company at all.
I think realistically the post service probably should be nationalised government-owned due to the issues raised, but the parcel and courier services are private competitive businesses as they are now.
This goes back to the discussion as to whether the universal post service should be a private company at all.
I think realistically the post service probably should be nationalised government-owned due to the issues raised, but the parcel and courier services are private competitive businesses as they are now.
That's misrepresenting my point entirely, because I did not say that the other 98% should be unable to benefit from the advantages because of that 2%.
If I need to make it clearer, my point is that a public service in particular needs to not take away access methods to that service which they can currently use and leave behind only ones that they cannot, just because they are "only 2%". A person with specific needs or access requirements who could (say) book and travel by rail partly or fully independently ten years ago, should be able to do so now, and also in ten years time. That doesn't mean that the access methods for that person need to be fixed forever; it does mean that anything that replaces them needs to be equally accessible to them.
Turn that question around. Should services be provided on the basis of that 2%, and the other 98% be unable to benefit from the advantages because of that 2%. That's equally unreasonable.
Of course those who can't use a service in a particular way should be accommodated, and in a way that doesn't discriminate against them. Dealing with their needs requires some degree of proportionality, as well as thinking what their needs really are (how does a train operator address the needs of an elderly person with untreated deafness and AMD when he wants to book travel, for example?).
The economic reality is that, if services move online because the vast majority of public demand is for online access, the cost per transaction of those that remains rises exponentially. You also lose the averaging effect of large volumes, meaning that continuing to serve that small minority who can't use online also requires greater and greater specialisation. That is a genuine problem, and one that's really hard to address well at scale.
I am not suggesting that this minority should not be served, but that the assumption that they can continue to be served as was is, when critically examined, untenable. The individual I used as an example, for example, would not have been served well before online services became standard and changes in provision have arguably made it easier than it would have been. Some aspects can, in my view, be addressed by revising how the value of roles is assessed - a classic is that of conductor/guard/whatever on the railway, where cost out logic sees a move towards DOO, but recognition of their value (revenue, assistance, making train journeys nicer) could ascribe value to those roles to help justify them
Going back to the question of how the universal service obligation is maintained for Royal Mail, this then becomes hard. Protect the volumes of mail that make it economic, and you then put obstacles to ways of doing business that are of real value to very many people (and lock in some very old fashioned ways of working that haven't yet changed). Accept the change, and you then have a real challenge covering the services that do matter and are essential that people get - and where locker type services aren't necessarily a good answer.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Except that it didn't. The shareholder (HM Treasury) starved them of investment funds by insisting on dividend payments, while the whole Horizon fiasco came out of the government's problem that Post Offices were losing their value as ways of delivering social security payments or taking taxes because online services were both cheaper and, generally, easier for the public at large to use.
I wouldn't even say it was a monopoly when it came to parcels. We still had UPS, FedEx, DPD, Evri (ugh), Amazon, etc. But given that the parcel side of Royal Mail was profitable when we sold it off, I think we should've retained it alongside letter handling. A bit of extra money for the taxpayers' coffers is not a bad thing.
In my humble opinion, there's no two ways about it - either the universal service offering needs an incredible reduction, or letter delivery needs renationalising.
That's a strawman. The point is not that the convenience of smartphone apps and the like shouldn't be available for the 95%/98%. The point is that there should be an alternative for those who are unable (or, gasp, find it a bit hard)
Well currently the 2% includes the likes of Companies House, HMRC, and certain financial services companies. Until they offer online alternatives to post, we can't really ditch the service!
In fact I think I also get my annual student loans statement by post as well.
I wouldn't even say it was a monopoly when it came to parcels. We still had UPS, FedEx, DPD, Evri (ugh), Amazon, etc. But given that the parcel side of Royal Mail was profitable when we sold it off, I think we should've retained it alongside letter handling. A bit of extra money for the taxpayers' coffers is not a bad thing.
In my humble opinion, there's no two ways about it - either the universal service offering needs an incredible reduction, or letter delivery needs renationalising.
The Post Office was split away from Royal Mail forty years ago and even before that it wasn't a monopoly on parcels, DHL, TNT and others were all operating courier services in the UK.
so when did these firms get entry into the market? I'm tempted to think in the 1980s Thatcher era deregulation ideology era. Or am I wrong and there was never any monopoly on parcels just letters?
Happy to be rid of all of that however - Royal Mail has a delivery model with a universal service obligation, profits from one bit of it, ie parcels, can subsidise losses in other bits ie letters.
Or a levy on these other deliverers to fund the support of a universal daily postal service across the country
Not unlike the nonsense of bus deregulation in my view.
Courier delivery pre-dates that even, it isn't considered the same as a postal service. But I think DHL started in the 70s in the UK.
It was during Thatcher that the government split Royal Mail into the separate Royal Mail postal service, Parcel Force for parcel courier services and the Post Office as a separate entity. One of the reasons to have Parcel Force separate was to compete with the parcel couriers such as DHL, FedEx, TNT etc.
Courier delivery pre-dates that even, it isn't considered the same as a postal service. But I think DHL started in the 70s in the UK.
It was during Thatcher that the government split Royal Mail into the separate Royal Mail postal service, Parcel Force for parcel courier services and the Post Office as a separate entity. One of the reasons to have Parcel Force separate was to compete with the parcel couriers such as DHL, FedEx, TNT etc.
so when did these firms get entry into the market? I'm tempted to think in the 1980s Thatcher era deregulation ideology era. Or am I wrong and there was never any monopoly on parcels just letters?
Happy to be rid of all of that however - Royal Mail has a delivery model with a universal service obligation, profits from one bit of it, ie parcels, can subsidise losses in other bits ie letters.
Or a levy on these other deliverers to fund the support of a universal daily postal service across the country
Not unlike the nonsense of bus deregulation in my view.
B.R. (and its predecessors had parcels services - 'Rail Express Parcels Services'.
Major bus companies had 'Parcels Agents' in every ton and village and moved parcels on service buses. At one stage, every Barton bus had a sign on the front 'Parcels carried'.
Locally, shoe factories sent pairs of shoes in very small quantities to shoe shops and competitors to the railway were in existence certainly by the 1950s (presumably after the partial de-nationalisation of BRS, but that was long before Mrs T.) - Townsend, Wilkinson and others I can't remember.
BRS had a parcels division ('BRS Parcels') presumably dating from the nationalisation of road operators. BRS Parcels 'Noddy vans'.
So quite a few before the present names. And, in this case, I don't think you can fairly blame Mrs T.
Letter mail competition arguably started in the 70s with DX, a service used by lawyers to send documents to other lawyers - presumably this had previously been done by mail. These days it's a general freight and logistics company but they still do secure overnight document delivery.
Courier delivery pre-dates that even, it isn't considered the same as a postal service. But I think DHL started in the 70s in the UK.
It was during Thatcher that the government split Royal Mail into the separate Royal Mail postal service, Parcel Force for parcel courier services and the Post Office as a separate entity. One of the reasons to have Parcel Force separate was to compete with the parcel couriers such as DHL, FedEx, TNT etc.
Letter mail competition arguably started in the 70s with DX, a service used by lawyers to send documents to other lawyers - presumably this had previously been done by mail. These days it's a general freight and logistics company but they still do secure overnight document delivery.
I think this is a specialised form of letter delivery though, and not really accessible to the masses for general communication. After all, there's a postbox 2 minutes walk from me where I can pop a letter in at my convenience, pay 91p, and it gets delivered to anywhere else in the UK. To courier a letter would cost a lot more and require some scheduling usually, though these days a lot of convenience stores are also courier agents.
Other courier companies offer a similar service. Evri calls them 'packets', and their drivers get paid less for delivering them. Which also means people try quite hard to get away with describing something as a packet when it should be a small parcel, etc.
Letter mail competition arguably started in the 70s with DX, a service used by lawyers to send documents to other lawyers - presumably this had previously been done by mail. These days it's a general freight and logistics company but they still do secure overnight document delivery.
Maybe they'll sell up to the new owners for £2 to double their original investment
The problem with Poundland these days is in general it is basically whatever you can get in Home Bargains / B&M / The Range etc. but they have a wider range anyway so you don't need to bother going to Poundland and many of the shops actually feel quite unloved and worn down too
The novelty of 'it's only a pound' isn't really there any more, even the tat has had to creep up to £2/£3
…in the case of my nearest Poundland, the layout means you’ve got to do a complete tour of the shop for any purchase. It’s such an awful layout, that I’m surprised Smiths/T.G. Jones don’t use it.
…in the case of my nearest Poundland, the layout means you’ve got to do a complete tour of the shop for any purchase. It’s such an awful layout, that I’m surprised Smiths/T.G. Jones don’t use it.
Agreed, that damned one way system - same in Savers. I make a point of going in the wrong way if I know what I want is near the checkout end. I will go back out through the entrance only route if it is shorter and what I am looking for is not available. Do that anyway if I am empty handed and the queues for the checkouts are in the way. It is putting me off.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
ie not Scouts’ Xmas post) should operate under the same universal service obligation as the RM.
