On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 21:33:49 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 31/03/2024 in message <op.2likitvx9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir Putin
> wrote:
>
>> It's you who can't comprehend a simple concept. Posties don't get
>> signatures, £10m contract lost over such a small thing, petty. Now do you
>> understand?
>
> I understand completely, a £10m claim could arise from the inability to
> prove delivery by means of a signature, simples.

Which is petty.

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 21:33:49 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 31/03/2024 in message <op.2likitvx9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir Putin
> wrote:
>
>> It's you who can't comprehend a simple concept. Posties don't get
>> signatures, £10m contract lost over such a small thing, petty. Now do you
>> understand?
>
> I understand completely, a £10m claim could arise from the inability to
> prove delivery by means of a signature, simples.

You got all confused with my previous sentences, did you get an F in English?

On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir Putin
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money. I doubt anything
>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>> £10m
>>>>>>>> is involved just because somebody gets a signed for letter without
>>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the one issue
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> swings the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>
>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards. The
>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing. Being petty is
>>>> equating
>>>> not signing for with £10 million.
>>>
>>> Try it again in English?
>>
>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>
>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>
>> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty, when I
>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is petty.
>
> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
> case over a $10m contract dispute.

Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?

On 1 Apr 2024 at 14:15:58 BST, ""Vladimir Putin"" <russia@will.rule> wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir Putin
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... =A310m is a lot of money. I doubt anything
>>>>>>>>> worth =A310m is involved just because somebody gets a signed for
>>>>>>>>> letter without signing for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the one issue
>>>>>>>> that swings the case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think =A310 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards. The
>>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing. Being petty is
>>>>> equating not signing for with =A310 million.
>>>>
>>>> Try it again in English?
>>>
>>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>>
>>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>>
>>> I can't believe you thought I was saying =A310 million is petty, when I
>>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is petty.
>>
>> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
>> case over a $10m contract dispute.
>
> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?

To have a signed document that can be forensically tested to show age of
paper, age of ink, probable era when the signature applied (depth the ink has
penetrated). If you want to rely on an electronic sig (which could have been
scraped off any electronic doc), then the more fool you.

--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)

In article <op.2ljwgwr29r1bhh@ryzen.home>, Vladimir Putin
<russia@will.rule> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
> wrote:

> > On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
> >> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir
> >>> Putin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money. I doubt anything
> >>>>>>>> worth £10m is involved just because somebody gets a signed for
> >>>>>>>> letter without signing for it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the one
> >>>>>>> issue that swings the case.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards.
> >>>> The other part (the signing for) is the small thing. Being petty is
> >>>> equating not signing for with £10 million.
> >>>
> >>> Try it again in English?
> >>
> >> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
> >>
> >> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
> >>
> >> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty, when I
> >> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is
> >> petty.
> >
> > Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
> > case over a $10m contract dispute.

> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?

because it's impossible, so far, to send goods by email,

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 01/04/2024 14:15, Vladimir Putin wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir Putin
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money.  I doubt anything
>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>> £10m
>>>>>>>>> is involved just because somebody gets a signed for letter without
>>>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the one
>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> swings the case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards.  The
>>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing.  Being petty is
>>>>> equating
>>>>> not signing for with £10 million.
>>>>
>>>> Try it again in English?
>>>
>>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>>
>>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>>
>>> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty, when I
>>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is
>>> petty.
>>
>> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
>> case over a $10m contract dispute.
>
> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?

Because a signed for delivery has a legal force, that many other forms
of communication do not. In fact, even a non-signed for delivery can -
you are automatically deemed to have received police and court letters
that have been psosted.

On 02/04/2024 00:33, SteveW wrote:
> On 01/04/2024 14:15, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir Putin
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money.  I doubt anything
>>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>>> £10m
>>>>>>>>>> is involved just because somebody gets a signed for letter
>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the one
>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> swings the case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing.  Being petty is
>>>>>> equating
>>>>>> not signing for with £10 million.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it again in English?
>>>>
>>>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>>>
>>>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>>>
>>>> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty, when I
>>>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is
>>>> petty.
>>>
>>> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
>>> case over a $10m contract dispute.
>>
>> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?
>
> Because a signed for delivery has a legal force, that many other forms
> of communication do not. In fact, even a non-signed for delivery can -
> you are automatically deemed to have received police and court letters
> that have been psosted.

What are signed for deliveries these days? When I've been asked to sign
for a (RM) delivery I'm offered a 4 inch touch screen and I may as well
write an X on the screen. The screen is too small for a signature with a
finger and too slow to react to see what you are scribing. I doubt if
anyone puts a recognisable signature. Deliver it to some other address
and the recipient puts an X as a signature then as far as RM is
concerned it has been delivered correctly. In my experience even when a
photo is taken its only a photo of the package and maybe a non-descript
pavement, no house number in the photo and no picture of the recipient.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 02/04/2024 14:21, alan_m wrote:
> On 02/04/2024 00:33, SteveW wrote:
>> On 01/04/2024 14:15, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW
>>> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir
>>>>>> Putin
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money.  I doubt anything
>>>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>>>> £10m
>>>>>>>>>>> is involved just because somebody gets a signed for letter
>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the
>>>>>>>>>> one issue
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> swings the case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing.  Being petty is
>>>>>>> equating
>>>>>>> not signing for with £10 million.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try it again in English?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty, when I
>>>>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is
>>>>> petty.
>>>>
>>>> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
>>>> case over a $10m contract dispute.
>>>
>>> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?
>>
>> Because a signed for delivery has a legal force, that many other forms
>> of communication do not. In fact, even a non-signed for delivery can -
>> you are automatically deemed to have received police and court letters
>> that have been psosted.
>
> What are signed for deliveries these days? When I've been asked to sign
> for a (RM) delivery I'm offered a 4 inch touch screen and I may as well
> write an X on the screen. The screen is too small for a signature with a
> finger and too slow to react to see what you are scribing. I doubt if
> anyone puts a recognisable signature. Deliver it to some other address
> and the recipient puts an X as a signature then as far as RM is
> concerned it has been delivered correctly.  In my experience even when a
> photo is taken its only a photo of the package and maybe a non-descript
> pavement, no house number in the photo and no picture of the recipient.

Which is the whole point. RM are failing in their duty. Without proof of
a proper signature, a photo of the recipient or at the bare minimum, a
photo proving the correct address. How can there be proof of delivery,
that might later be needed in court?

On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 15:31:22 +0100, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:

> On 1 Apr 2024 at 14:15:58 BST, ""Vladimir Putin"" <russia@will.rule> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir Putin
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... =A310m is a lot of money. I doubt anything
>>>>>>>>>> worth =A310m is involved just because somebody gets a signed for
>>>>>>>>>> letter without signing for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the one issue
>>>>>>>>> that swings the case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you think =A310 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards. The
>>>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing. Being petty is
>>>>>> equating not signing for with =A310 million.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it again in English?
>>>>
>>>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>>>
>>>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>>>
>>>> I can't believe you thought I was saying =A310 million is petty, when I
>>>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is petty.
>>>
>>> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
>>> case over a $10m contract dispute.
>>
>> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?
>
> To have a signed document that can be forensically tested to show age of
> paper, age of ink, probable era when the signature applied (depth the ink has
> penetrated). If you want to rely on an electronic sig (which could have been
> scraped off any electronic doc), then the more fool you.

Jesus, just what line of work are you in?

My mortgage company sent me something signed for, they sent it normal post when I refused it and complained.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 16:00:02 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <op.2ljwgwr29r1bhh@ryzen.home>, Vladimir Putin
> <russia@will.rule> wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> > On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir
>> >>> Putin wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money. I doubt anything
>> >>>>>>>> worth £10m is involved just because somebody gets a signed for
>> >>>>>>>> letter without signing for it.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the one
>> >>>>>>> issue that swings the case.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards..
>> >>>> The other part (the signing for) is the small thing. Being petty is
>> >>>> equating not signing for with £10 million.
>> >>>
>> >>> Try it again in English?
>> >>
>> >> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>> >>
>> >> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>> >>
>> >> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty, when I
>> >> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is
>> >> petty.
>> >
>> > Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
>> > case over a $10m contract dispute.
>
>> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?
>
> because it's impossible, so far, to send goods by email,

Communication. Look it up.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:19:58 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 02/04/2024 14:21, alan_m wrote:
>> On 02/04/2024 00:33, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2024 14:15, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW
>>>> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook..com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir
>>>>>>> Putin
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money. I doubt anything
>>>>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>>>>> £10m
>>>>>>>>>>>> is involved just because somebody gets a signed for letter
>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the
>>>>>>>>>>> one issue
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> swings the case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing. Being petty is
>>>>>>>> equating
>>>>>>>> not signing for with £10 million.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try it again in English?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty, when I
>>>>>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is
>>>>>> petty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
>>>>> case over a $10m contract dispute.
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?
>>>
>>> Because a signed for delivery has a legal force, that many other forms
>>> of communication do not. In fact, even a non-signed for delivery can -
>>> you are automatically deemed to have received police and court letters
>>> that have been psosted.
>>
>> What are signed for deliveries these days? When I've been asked to sign
>> for a (RM) delivery I'm offered a 4 inch touch screen and I may as well
>> write an X on the screen. The screen is too small for a signature with a
>> finger and too slow to react to see what you are scribing. I doubt if
>> anyone puts a recognisable signature. Deliver it to some other address
>> and the recipient puts an X as a signature then as far as RM is
>> concerned it has been delivered correctly. In my experience even when a
>> photo is taken its only a photo of the package and maybe a non-descript
>> pavement, no house number in the photo and no picture of the recipient.
>
> Which is the whole point. RM are failing in their duty. Without proof of
> a proper signature, a photo of the recipient or at the bare minimum, a
> photo proving the correct address. How can there be proof of delivery,
> that might later be needed in court?

You have OCD, go see a doctor.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 14:21:41 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 02/04/2024 00:33, SteveW wrote:
>> On 01/04/2024 14:15, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir Putin
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money. I doubt anything
>>>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>>>> £10m
>>>>>>>>>>> is involved just because somebody gets a signed for letter
>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the one
>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> swings the case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards..
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing. Being petty is
>>>>>>> equating
>>>>>>> not signing for with £10 million.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try it again in English?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty, when I
>>>>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is
>>>>> petty.
>>>>
>>>> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
>>>> case over a $10m contract dispute.
>>>
>>> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?
>>
>> Because a signed for delivery has a legal force, that many other forms
>> of communication do not. In fact, even a non-signed for delivery can -
>> you are automatically deemed to have received police and court letters
>> that have been psosted.
>
> What are signed for deliveries these days? When I've been asked to sign
> for a (RM) delivery I'm offered a 4 inch touch screen and I may as well
> write an X on the screen. The screen is too small for a signature with a
> finger and too slow to react to see what you are scribing.

Some of them also won't take a fingernail. Odd, my phone does. The pad of your finger is way too big to write with. Try fingerpainting a signature.

> I doubt if anyone puts a recognisable signature. Deliver it to some other address
> and the recipient puts an X as a signature then as far as RM is
> concerned it has been delivered correctly. In my experience even when a
> photo is taken its only a photo of the package and maybe a non-descript
> pavement, no house number in the photo and no picture of the recipient..

It helped me find where my parcel had been delivered by mistake, by the pattern on the front door.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 00:33:45 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 01/04/2024 14:15, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir Putin
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money. I doubt anything
>>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>>> £10m
>>>>>>>>>> is involved just because somebody gets a signed for letter without
>>>>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the one
>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> swings the case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards. The
>>>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing. Being petty is
>>>>>> equating
>>>>>> not signing for with £10 million.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it again in English?
>>>>
>>>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>>>
>>>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>>>
>>>> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty, when I
>>>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is
>>>> petty.
>>>
>>> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
>>> case over a $10m contract dispute.
>>
>> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?
>
> Because a signed for delivery has a legal force, that many other forms
> of communication do not. In fact, even a non-signed for delivery can -
> you are automatically deemed to have received police and court letters
> that have been psosted.

I can't see how that can be true.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:19:58 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 02/04/2024 14:21, alan_m wrote:
>> On 02/04/2024 00:33, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2024 14:15, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW
>>>> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook..com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir
>>>>>>> Putin
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money. I doubt anything
>>>>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>>>>> £10m
>>>>>>>>>>>> is involved just because somebody gets a signed for letter
>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the
>>>>>>>>>>> one issue
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> swings the case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing. Being petty is
>>>>>>>> equating
>>>>>>>> not signing for with £10 million.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try it again in English?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty, when I
>>>>>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is
>>>>>> petty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
>>>>> case over a $10m contract dispute.
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?
>>>
>>> Because a signed for delivery has a legal force, that many other forms
>>> of communication do not. In fact, even a non-signed for delivery can -
>>> you are automatically deemed to have received police and court letters
>>> that have been psosted.
>>
>> What are signed for deliveries these days? When I've been asked to sign
>> for a (RM) delivery I'm offered a 4 inch touch screen and I may as well
>> write an X on the screen. The screen is too small for a signature with a
>> finger and too slow to react to see what you are scribing. I doubt if
>> anyone puts a recognisable signature. Deliver it to some other address
>> and the recipient puts an X as a signature then as far as RM is
>> concerned it has been delivered correctly. In my experience even when a
>> photo is taken its only a photo of the package and maybe a non-descript
>> pavement, no house number in the photo and no picture of the recipient.
>
> Which is the whole point. RM are failing in their duty. Without proof of
> a proper signature, a photo of the recipient or at the bare minimum, a
> photo proving the correct address. How can there be proof of delivery,
> that might later be needed in court?

Proof of delivery is pointless. Just because I received the envelope doesn't mean I read it. Unless I respond to it, you've proved nothing. It's like those stupid email received responses Outlook does. I really pissed people off at my work by forwarding all my work email to my private email, so I could read both together. This resulted in them getting a "your email was deleted without being read".

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:19:58 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 02/04/2024 14:21, alan_m wrote:
>> On 02/04/2024 00:33, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2024 14:15, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW
>>>> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook..com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir
>>>>>>> Putin
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money. I doubt anything
>>>>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>>>>> £10m
>>>>>>>>>>>> is involved just because somebody gets a signed for letter
>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the
>>>>>>>>>>> one issue
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> swings the case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing. Being petty is
>>>>>>>> equating
>>>>>>>> not signing for with £10 million.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try it again in English?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty, when I
>>>>>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is
>>>>>> petty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a court
>>>>> case over a $10m contract dispute.
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?
>>>
>>> Because a signed for delivery has a legal force, that many other forms
>>> of communication do not. In fact, even a non-signed for delivery can -
>>> you are automatically deemed to have received police and court letters
>>> that have been psosted.
>>
>> What are signed for deliveries these days? When I've been asked to sign
>> for a (RM) delivery I'm offered a 4 inch touch screen and I may as well
>> write an X on the screen. The screen is too small for a signature with a
>> finger and too slow to react to see what you are scribing. I doubt if
>> anyone puts a recognisable signature. Deliver it to some other address
>> and the recipient puts an X as a signature then as far as RM is
>> concerned it has been delivered correctly. In my experience even when a
>> photo is taken its only a photo of the package and maybe a non-descript
>> pavement, no house number in the photo and no picture of the recipient.
>
> Which is the whole point. RM are failing in their duty. Without proof of
> a proper signature, a photo of the recipient or at the bare minimum, a
> photo proving the correct address. How can there be proof of delivery,
> that might later be needed in court?

And how do you suggest someone who works 9-5 would sign for it?

On 02/04/2024 23:30, Vladimir Putin wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:19:58 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2024 14:21, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2024 00:33, SteveW wrote:
>>>> On 01/04/2024 14:15, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:29:33 +0100, SteveW
>>>>> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31/03/2024 16:29, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:31:06 +0100, Jeff Gaines
>>>>>>> <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 in message <op.2lgwuhoa9r1bhh@ryzen.home> Vladimir
>>>>>>>> Putin
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Back to the point.... £10m is a lot of money.  I doubt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> £10m
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is involved just because somebody gets a signed for letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you are wrong, in a contract dispute that could be the
>>>>>>>>>>>> one issue
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> swings the case.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody's that petty.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you think £10 million is petty may I have a loan please.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't believe you interpreted what I said completely backwards.
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> other part (the signing for) is the small thing.  Being petty is
>>>>>>>>> equating
>>>>>>>>> not signing for with £10 million.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try it again in English?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's in plain English, not sure why you can't comprehend it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can try simplifying it, but I'm not sure it'll help:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't believe you thought I was saying £10 million is petty,
>>>>>>> when I
>>>>>>> was actually saying fussing over not having signed for a package is
>>>>>>> petty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having signed or not signed for something may be the decider in a
>>>>>> court
>>>>>> case over a $10m contract dispute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would anyone use the post for communication in 2024?
>>>>
>>>> Because a signed for delivery has a legal force, that many other forms
>>>> of communication do not. In fact, even a non-signed for delivery can -
>>>> you are automatically deemed to have received police and court letters
>>>> that have been psosted.
>>>
>>> What are signed for deliveries these days? When I've been asked to sign
>>> for a (RM) delivery I'm offered a 4 inch touch screen and I may as well
>>> write an X on the screen. The screen is too small for a signature with a
>>> finger and too slow to react to see what you are scribing. I doubt if
>>> anyone puts a recognisable signature. Deliver it to some other address
>>> and the recipient puts an X as a signature then as far as RM is
>>> concerned it has been delivered correctly.  In my experience even when a
>>> photo is taken its only a photo of the package and maybe a non-descript
>>> pavement, no house number in the photo and no picture of the recipient.
>>
>> Which is the whole point. RM are failing in their duty. Without proof of
>> a proper signature, a photo of the recipient or at the bare minimum, a
>> photo proving the correct address. How can there be proof of delivery,
>> that might later be needed in court?
>
> And how do you suggest someone who works 9-5 would sign for it?

As they used to before COVID. Another member of the household signs on
their behalf or they take a trip to the local postal depot, show ID and
sign for it, usually at the weekend.

On 02/04/2024 23:33, SteveW wrote:

> As they used to before COVID. Another member of the household signs on
> their behalf or they take a trip to the local postal depot, show ID and
> sign for it, usually at the weekend.

Before Covid it was still the 4 inch touch screen to put the rubbish
signature which wouldn't identify anyone and the photo just showing the
package/letter with no location content. The Covid restrictions seem to
have been lifted, at least in my area, for signed for RM post.

My local postal depot has reduced the hours when they are open to 4
(closed Sunday). 7 years ago when I was still working I could collect
items after work but now I would be unable to collect mid-week. The
queue to collect after 6pm was often long, mainly because they didn't
have a sensible system. Present the "you were out card" and they would
look something up on the computer but then spend 5 to 10 minutes
searching "out the back" for your item.

Luckily I've not had to collect anything for some time but I do wonder
how long the queue is on a Saturday with those who work not being able
to fit the mid-week opening times.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 03/04/2024 08:29, alan_m wrote:
> On 02/04/2024 23:33, SteveW wrote:
>
>> As they used to before COVID. Another member of the household signs on
>> their behalf or they take a trip to the local postal depot, show ID
>> and sign for it, usually at the weekend.
>
> Before Covid it was still the 4 inch touch screen to put the rubbish
> signature which wouldn't identify anyone and the photo just showing the
> package/letter with no location content.  The Covid restrictions seem to
> have been lifted, at least in my area, for signed for RM post.
>
> My local postal depot has reduced the hours when they are open to 4
> (closed Sunday).  7 years ago when I was still working I could collect
> items after work but now I would be unable to collect mid-week. The
> queue to collect after 6pm was often long, mainly because they didn't
> have a sensible system. Present the "you were out card" and they would
> look something up on the computer but then spend 5 to 10 minutes
> searching "out the back" for your item.
>
> Luckily I've not had to collect anything for some time but I do wonder
> how long the queue is on a Saturday with those who work not being able
> to fit the mid-week opening times.

For years, our local office was only open 07:30 to 12:15 Monday to
Saturday - I started work at 7:30, 12 miles away during the week. On
Saturdays, it was nigh on impossible to park. They actually had some
designated customer parking in the yard, but after a staff member was
hit by a reversing vehicle, they banned the public from driving into the
yard at all! The office was so tiny, that the queue of customers
continued outside, no matter what the weather.

Post-COVID, they have changed the hours, so they are now open 'til
17:30. The also have a new, larger office. Parking is still just as bad.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 23:33:42 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 02/04/2024 23:30, Vladimir Putin wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 17:19:58 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/04/2024 14:21, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 02/04/2024 00:33, SteveW wrote:
>>>>> Because a signed for delivery has a legal force, that many other forms
>>>>> of communication do not. In fact, even a non-signed for delivery can -
>>>>> you are automatically deemed to have received police and court letters
>>>>> that have been psosted.
>>>>
>>>> What are signed for deliveries these days? When I've been asked to sign
>>>> for a (RM) delivery I'm offered a 4 inch touch screen and I may as well
>>>> write an X on the screen. The screen is too small for a signature with a
>>>> finger and too slow to react to see what you are scribing. I doubt if
>>>> anyone puts a recognisable signature. Deliver it to some other address
>>>> and the recipient puts an X as a signature then as far as RM is
>>>> concerned it has been delivered correctly. In my experience even when a
>>>> photo is taken its only a photo of the package and maybe a non-descript
>>>> pavement, no house number in the photo and no picture of the recipient.
>>>
>>> Which is the whole point. RM are failing in their duty. Without proof of
>>> a proper signature, a photo of the recipient or at the bare minimum, a
>>> photo proving the correct address. How can there be proof of delivery,
>>> that might later be needed in court?
>>
>> And how do you suggest someone who works 9-5 would sign for it?
>
> As they used to before COVID. Another member of the household signs on
> their behalf or they take a trip to the local postal depot, show ID and
> sign for it, usually at the weekend.

And if both people work?

If you're going out at the weekend?

If you want not to have an up to 5 day delay?

Not fit for purpose.

They get sent back.

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 08:29:22 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 02/04/2024 23:33, SteveW wrote:
>
>> As they used to before COVID. Another member of the household signs on
>> their behalf or they take a trip to the local postal depot, show ID and
>> sign for it, usually at the weekend.
>
> Before Covid it was still the 4 inch touch screen to put the rubbish
> signature which wouldn't identify anyone and the photo just showing the
> package/letter with no location content. The Covid restrictions seem to
> have been lifted, at least in my area, for signed for RM post.

Dafuq? There have been no nanny state covid restrictions for years.

It was quite fun to walk towards people and see them repelled like a magnet. I had great fun with a Tesco worker.

> My local postal depot has reduced the hours when they are open to 4
> (closed Sunday). 7 years ago when I was still working I could collect
> items after work but now I would be unable to collect mid-week. The
> queue to collect after 6pm was often long, mainly because they didn't
> have a sensible system. Present the "you were out card" and they would
> look something up on the computer but then spend 5 to 10 minutes
> searching "out the back" for your item.

I went there once and they wanted a passport for ID, I told her to shove it where the sun don't shine. The card indicates I came from the house they tried to deliver it to!

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 11:51:00 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 03/04/2024 08:29, alan_m wrote:
>> On 02/04/2024 23:33, SteveW wrote:
>>
>>> As they used to before COVID. Another member of the household signs on
>>> their behalf or they take a trip to the local postal depot, show ID
>>> and sign for it, usually at the weekend.
>>
>> Before Covid it was still the 4 inch touch screen to put the rubbish
>> signature which wouldn't identify anyone and the photo just showing the
>> package/letter with no location content. The Covid restrictions seem to
>> have been lifted, at least in my area, for signed for RM post.
>>
>> My local postal depot has reduced the hours when they are open to 4
>> (closed Sunday). 7 years ago when I was still working I could collect
>> items after work but now I would be unable to collect mid-week. The
>> queue to collect after 6pm was often long, mainly because they didn't
>> have a sensible system. Present the "you were out card" and they would
>> look something up on the computer but then spend 5 to 10 minutes
>> searching "out the back" for your item.
>>
>> Luckily I've not had to collect anything for some time but I do wonder
>> how long the queue is on a Saturday with those who work not being able
>> to fit the mid-week opening times.
>
> For years, our local office was only open 07:30 to 12:15 Monday to
> Saturday - I started work at 7:30, 12 miles away during the week. On
> Saturdays, it was nigh on impossible to park. They actually had some
> designated customer parking in the yard, but after a staff member was
> hit by a reversing vehicle, they banned the public from driving into the
> yard at all! The office was so tiny, that the queue of customers
> continued outside, no matter what the weather.
>
> Post-COVID, they have changed the hours, so they are now open 'til
> 17:30. The also have a new, larger office. Parking is still just as bad.

To get to my local PO I have to park illegally. Usually get away with it.