Two nice stories about junk mail…

According to the Daily Record [Link removed in May 2012 as the story is no longer available on the newspaper's website - JB] the husband of a foster mum in Scotland almost binned an MBE letter from Tony Blair, thinking it was junk. The husband was going through a pile of letters and scrunched the Tony's letter, telling his wife it was useless bumf.

The envelope did say the letter was personal and urgent and from the Prime Minister but apparently the husband thought of it as just another trick to get you to open unwanted mail. The wife has now been made an MBE for taking in more than 100 foster children over the past 30 years.

And according to Newsday.com [Another link I had to remove because the article is no longer available - JB] a man in the States was able to return a wedding ring that had gone missing four decades ago, thanks to the inability of marketeers to stop sending junk to people who have moved or deceased.

The ring was found between the floorboards and had the inscription Kitty to Johnny - 3/31/51. Previous attempts to find the owner of the ring had failed, but recently a piece of junk mail addressed to Kitty Zenkus arrived. An internet search quickly led the finder to Zenkus, who confirmed she and her family moved out of the house 30 years ago. The ring had allegedly been hidden by the couple's toddler during the early years of their marriage.

From time to time stories about postmen being suspended for not delivering junk mail pop up. You probably remember Roger Annies, the postman from Wales who was suspended and then given a backroom job after telling people on his round about Royal Mail's opt-out scheme for unaddressed mail.

Last Friday a postman was sacked for letting junk pile up on his pigeon-hole (see Postman sacked over junk mail row). Royal Mail bluntly commented that where there is any suggestion of an individual mistreating mail we adopt a zero-tolerance approach and take immediate and appropriate action. No distinction is made between normal mail and unaddressed junk.

Apparently, the postman had been doing his rounds for seventeen years, and local residents have asked Royal Mail to give him back his job. A councillor told the local Evening Post that Royal Mail had over-reacted when a simple verbal warning would have sufficed quite adequately..

Another indication of tension within the Royal Mail is the closure of one of my favourite blogs: Dairy of a postman [Link removed as the blog no longer exists - JB]. If you visit the blog you'll see the following entry:

Blog for Sale

You may have noticed that I have not posted anything on this blog for a while. Well, the reason is that I'm totally fed up with Royal Mail and no longer have the appetite to blog on the subject anymore.

So if anyone would like to take over this humble weblog, why not email me at bobmail@uk2.net and I will be only too glad to give you the login details etc.

I hope there's someone out there willing to breathe a bit of life into this as all I get from Royal Mail these days is hot air.

It would be good to see someone taking on this offer…

Members of the Communication Workers Union have voted overwhelmingly in favour of industrial action [Link to an article on the CWU website removed in May 2012 as the page no longer exists - JB]. They reject Royal Mail's pay offer of 2.5% and object to the state-owned company's plans to cut 40,000 jobs, reduce collections, deliver post later and reduce its weekend service.

Fair enough. However, I know from experience that striking as a postie is not that effective. By not delivering post for a couple of days you end up with a massive amount of mail that still has to be delivered. So, why not try this alternative: deliver all post except for all unaddressed junk mail. It would hurt Royal Mail while giving its customers some respite from junk mail.

In my last entry, Junkbusters, I wrote about the junk mail industry's reluctance to allow people to stop unsolicited mail. It looks like government has recognised this. In the waste strategy white paper, published last Thursday, government announced it wants to work with the Direct Marketing Association towards a system that will allow householders to opt out of receiving unaddressed junk mail. I suspect they're thinking about an improved Door-to-Door Opt-Out.

The environment secretary, David Miliband, seems to want to go a step further. He has warned the Direct Marketing Association that government may also introduce an opt-in regime for addressed junk mail. It's probably fair to say an opt-in system is still far away. Mr Miliband's remark is mainly a warning at the address of the Direct Marketing Association; should they fail to get their act together self-regulation my be restricted. That said, the idea is now floating in the public domain and will hopefully be discussed.

Needless to say I support an opt-in system for junk mail. It makes perfect sense to me. People who dislike junk mail wouldn't be forced to deal with the stuff anymore, while the minority of people who are interested in junk mail would still be able to get their daily portion of advertisements. A good service to customers, and good for the environment.

More information about the government's proposals can be found on the Defra website.

One of the best junk mail websites is www.junkbusters.com. [Sadly, the Junkbusters website is no longer maintained - JB]

Part of its charm is that the site doesn't look very attractive. In fact, one of the FAQs reads Why is your website so visually boring? . The answer is that Junkbusters assumes its visitors have more important things to do with their time than stare at a screen waiting for a lot of gratuitous graphical ornaments to download. Junkbusters aims to provide a convenient service for people who would like to get on with their lives without a constant barrage of unwelcome intrusions rather than a cool place to hang out and receive the latest advertising impressions.

It surely is the most informative junk mail site I know. I just read a bit more about the Rowan vs US Postal Service case I mentioned in my last entry (Stopping junk mail in the USA). It's an interesting case indeed. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by the junk mail industry to appeal a law allowing people to stop advertisers sending unsolicited mail. The industry argued the law was damaging for business and claimed to have a constitutional right to say anything they wanted, as often as they wanted, and in any manner whatsoever - even if you asked them to stop.

The Court ruled citizens are permitted to erect a wall […] that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence. USPS is now required to provide a form (called Form 1500) which you can complete to stop particular kinds of junk mail. Unfortunately, the form doesn't automatically stop all junk mail. The law was originally intended to stop pornographic mail and the form still refers to erotically arousing advertisements. However, the Court didn't like the idea of USPS deciding what is and isn't erotically arousing. People are allowed to decide for themselves what is pornographic mail and the USPS may not refuse to accept a Form 1500. If you complete the form because you find offers for credit cards erotically arousing then USPS won't deliver any more credit card offers to your address.

As is so often the case, USPS complies with the law in the most minimal way possible. Americans can do everything online, but a Form 1500 still can't be submitted via the USPS website. Another example of this reluctance is the $1 charge for registering with the American 'Mail Preference Service' - a service as inadequate as its British counterpart.