BNP Accuses Royal Mail Of Dumping Leaflets

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Sirius, with all due respect, it would help if you took the time to research the conscience clause involved rather than getting over emotive and reactionary over the head of the poor service you've obviousy received.

This is not simply unique to the BNP or political parties.

Devout Christian postpersons could, by way of example, refuse to deliver pro abortion leaflets.

Are you saying that people should be forced to distribute information to the masses on matters that they are idealogically or religiously opposed to?

Come off it.

EDIT.

Marty, where did you read that they get paid more for this type of delivery?

I don't disagree with them having that clause. However my point is if this is true then WHY was it not invoked instead of just dumping the mail in a garden IF it turns out to be true.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I don't disagree with them having that clause. However my point is if this is true then WHY was it not invoked instead of just dumping the mail in a garden IF it turns out to be true.

If it is true that they have dumped the leaflets then they have invoked / exercised their right to do so.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If it is true that they have dumped the leaflets then they have invoked / exercised their right to do so.

I'd be surprised if the conscience clause allows them to dump the items rather than refuse to deliver them.

[Mr Angry]

Well, well, well, you learn something new every day as Mrs Angry snr often told me.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If it is true that they have dumped the leaflets then they have invoked / exercised their right to do so.

I would have thought it better he just refuse to take the mail out instead of dumping the mail in someones garden after he left.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by danielf

I'd be surprised if the conscience clause allows them to dump the items rather than refuse to deliver them.

I too would be surprised however they haven't been "dumped" as according to Herr Griffin they were returned to a BNP candidate's address.

---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

I would have thought it better he just refuse to take the mail out instead of dumping the mail in someones garden after he left.

Sorry, has it stated somewhere that the person alleged to have left the leaflets at the candidates address was a male?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I too would be surprised however they haven't been "dumped" as according to Herr Griffin they were returned to a BNP candidate's address.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If it is true that they have dumped the leaflets then they have invoked / exercised their right to do so.

Seems a little contradictory to me. If it's true that they dumped them they'd have exercised their right. However, they haven't dumped them. Ergo?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I too would be surprised however they haven't been "dumped" as according to Herr Griffin they were returned to a BNP candidate's address.

---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------



Sorry, has it stated somewhere that the person alleged to have left the leaflets at the candidates address was a male?

Ok He or She

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You're "researching" whether you are still drinking with a postman friend you used to drink with? Outstanding!

Pub chat - The worst type of dialogue to substantiate. It's also unhelpful to level accusations in such circumstances as I'm sure you'll agree.

funny aren't you

anyhoo ,they get 1.67p per item of unaddressed mail (leaflets)and they aren't allowed to refuse to deliver them

We get paid 1.67 pence per item of unaddressed mail, an amount that hasn’t changed in ten years. It is paid separately from our wages, and we can’t claim overtime if we run past our normal hours because of these items. We also can’t refuse to deliver them. This junk mail is one of the Royal Mail’s most profitable sidelines and my personal contribution to global warming: straight through the letterbox and into the bin.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/roy-mayall/diary

that article was from 2009

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by danielf

Seems a little contradictory to me. If they have dumped them they'd have exercised their right. However, they haven't dumped them. Ergo?

"Dumping" was Sirius's choice of phase.

Either way, whether "dumped" or placed gently in the candidates back garden a Royal Mail member (or members) of staff have exercised their agreed right not to deliver these leaflets.

It is their right to do so in circumstances where they consider them to be offensive or potentially offensive to their customers.

---------- Post added at 17:18 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

funny aren't you

Humour bypass?

Originally Posted by martyh

anyhoo ,they get 1.67p per item of unaddressed mail (leaflets)and they aren't allowed to refuse to deliver them

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/roy-mayall/diary

that article was from 2009

Yes, I acknowledged this in my earlier post of 16.55 - sorry to have you chase your tail.

They are allowed to refuse to deliver material under the conscience clause - which was why it was introduced.

By way of background / explanation.

"We have a national agreement with Royal Mail with a conscience clause which allows individuals to exercise their right to not deliver material which they find offensive or believe their customers may find offensive.

"It is not specific to any political party. We are protecting the rights of our members to be safe at work. Royal Mail has a responsibility to ensure the safety of their employees".

"We have had instances of delivery workers being threatened, chased and spat at for delivering some election leaflets. We will support individuals who feel strongly about delivering these items. Postal workers are well within their rights to refuse to deliver offensive material."


Bob Gibson, CWU national official.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"Dumping" was Sirius's choice of phase.

Either way, whether "dumped" or placed gently in the candidates back garden a Royal Mail member (or members) of staff have exercised their agreed right not to deliver these leaflets.

It is their right to do so in circumstances where they consider them to be offensive or potentially offensive to their customers.

No it's not at all .They are allowed to refuse to deliver mail they deem offensive that in no way means they can take it away from the sorting office and dump or even place carefully in someones yard .

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"Dumping" was Sirius's choice of phase.

You can't escape the validity of the syllogism though.

Either way, whether "dumped" or placed gently in the candidates back garden a Royal Mail member (or members) of staff have exercised their agreed right not to deliver these leaflets.

It is their right to do so in circumstances where they consider them to be offensive or potentially offensive to their customers.

I suppose it depends on the details of the clause if the manner of returning the items is acceptable, and conforms to the Royal Mail's duties. While it may be an individual's right to refuse to deliver the items, it seems unlikely that that person can decide to return them. It also seems plausible to me that when items are returned, RM would have to inform the client in writing.

It'll be interesting to see what (if anything) exactly happened.

[Chrysalis]

I dont support the BNP but I do think like any party they have fair rights to legitimate legal means of getting their message across.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

No it's not at all .They are allowed to refuse to deliver mail they deem offensive that in no way means they can take it away from the sorting office and dump or even place carefully in someones yard .

Did I say, anywhere, that they were "allowed" or "right" to do so? I don't believe I did - we are discussing their right not to deliver, not what they elect to do with that material which they refuse to deliver.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Did I say, anywhere, that they were "allowed" or "right" to do so? I don't believe I did - we are discussing their right not to deliver, not what they elect to do with that material which they refuse to deliver.

Surely, you did in post #17?