Talk:Royal Mail/Archive 1

Archive 1

?

In 2000 Royal Mail renamed itself to Consignia to much ridicule. The British Government set up a postal regulator Postcomm and offered licences to private companies to deliver mail. In 2002 Consignia changed its name back to Royal Mail. I could be wrong but I think it was originally called the Post Office and then called Consignia and then called Royal Mail. (Thats the name for the company as a whole, "Post Office" always beeing used as the name for post offices, and "Royal Mail" beeing used for delivering letters). Saul Taylor 02:20, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Royal mail has always been Royal Mail. It branches out into Post office, Parcelforce etc.

It was "The Post Office", "Consignia" <-- laughed at, then "Royal Mail Geroup PLC". Post office has always been post office, but is just a branch.

Nope, was Post Office Group before Consignia, then became Royal Mail Group (Royal Mail letters being a branch of the group)

Scottish post boxes and monarch numbers

The article says: "Traditionally UK post boxes carry the initials of the reigning monarch at the time of their installation". Another article (Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) has the following interesting comment: "At her succession, the title Elizabeth II caused some controversy in Scotland, where there has never been an Elizabeth I (although there had been no similar controversy during the times of William IV and Edward VII). In a rare act of sabotage in Scotland, new Royal Mail post boxes bearing the initials E.R.II were blown up. As a result, post boxes in Scotland now bear only a crown and no royal initials."

If the latter comment is true, it is probably worthy of mention in this article. Bobblewik  (talk) 17:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, in Scotland the logo has a different style of crown to the one used elsewhere.

Franking

It would be lovely to include (part of) the following from Austen's Mansfield Park (, but would need an explanation of franking - like, does this mean Fanny's uncle pays, or that the letter goes free? Anyone know? JackyR 21:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[Fanny] "But, cousin, will it go to the post?"

[Edmund] "Yes, depend upon me it shall: it shall go with the other letters; and, as your uncle will frank it, it will cost William nothing."

"My uncle!" repeated Fanny, with a frightened look.

"Yes, when you have written the letter, I will take it to my father to frank."

• Franked mail is still paid for by the sender to the Royal Mail but franked mail us usually far cheaper to send than stamped mail due to the fact that consumers who frank mail are usually large businesses who send lots of mail - it's essentially a wholesale or "buy in bulk" principle. haz (user talk) 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the historical aspect of franking - it pre-dates postage stamps and meant the recipient didn't have to pay, as was the practice when Austen wrote the above. Only certain people were entitled to use franks - not sure who tho included MPS, and not sure if this meant they paid a certain rate or paid nothing at all. Will research when able. :-) JackyR 16:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• At the start of the 19c Illegal franking or forging MPs` signatures on the backs of letters to qualify for free postage was popular among the literary members of the public - this is probably what `uncle` did. (Palmiped 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

the only one ?

Royal Mail remains responsible for the universal mail collection and delivery service in the UK. Letters are deposited in a pillar or wall box, taken to a post office, or (by arrangement) collected in bulk from businesses. Deliveries are made once every day (except Sunday) to addresses throughout the UK, from Shetland to Cornwall, and the same prices are charged however remote the sender or recipient.

It was my understanding that Deutsche Post was given a license to deliver mail in 2002. If confirmed, the language of this paragraph needs to be changed.

~Dustin, dustin_bradley@web.de

I think there was some deregulation of business post in 2002 that attracted Deutsche Post and Royal TPG Post, but they couldn't collect from postboxes in the street. In any case, the general post monopoly in the UK was deregulated and opened up to competition yesterday. So that will require the paragraph to be rewritten. There is some more information from the BBC here. -- Solipsist 08:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

~John - john_5425@hotmail.com

The paragraph doesn't need updating. Royal Mail are still the only company who must, by the terms of their licence, offer a universal service. The paragraph is correct.

Update

Why does the article need updating? What needs changing?

• Anyone know exactly what barcoding system the royal mail will be using for their new online postal system? Maybe this could be added and linked to?
• I have asked the user who placed the update template on the page, Gareth Jones, about this and am awaiting a reply. haz (user talk) 10:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag as the user concerned doesn't seem to have responded to the request for feedback. The article looks to me like it needs something, but I'm not quite sure what and it's more or less factually up to date. --Mpk 09:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

"1654: Oliver Cromwell grants UK monopoly to "Office of Postage"

Cromwell? Kingdom?

And indeed, united? Not yet.

How to??

This section isn't really appropriate and is also inaccurate regarding the P739 - please comment if you object to this being deleted.

I take it you deleted it? The information was wrong but I had ammended it.

Timeline

If this section needs editing at all, it is only minor, it is a fairly accurate chronological account of the history of the British postal services.

Might look better if displayed as a table. ColinBoylett 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag Template:cleanup-laundry from the Timeline section, and the following items which are less significant.

• 1854: Rowland Hill becomes Secretary to the Post Office.
• 1858: Ten London postal districts established.
• 1917: London postal districts divided into numbered zones.
• 1927: The London Post Office Underground Railway is opened.
• 1979: Prestel videotex system launched.
• 1997: Royal Mail's association with London railway stations comes to an end.
• 1998: "Royal Mail ViaCode" (also called "ViaCode Limited") was launched. This eCommerce venture was an attempt to enter the Internet-security market, using Digital Certificate technology. The company ceased in 2002.
• 2000: Re-named "Consignia" for a brief period.
• 2001: Neil Monk takes up employment with the company. The "Apollo Project" (restructuring project) takes place.
• 2003: The London Post Office Underground Railway is closed.

- Fayenatic london (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody able to add a systematic list of Royal Mail postal rates? Either adding to this page or starting another page would be useful. See the page on the US Postal Servie rates here for an example:History of United States Postal Service rates 168.224.1.14 08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) whistleman

Fair use rationale for Image:Royal Mail logo.gif

Image:Royal Mail logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Postal Strike

Surely this should have a section? Troubleshooter 08:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Have created a new page for it 2007 Royal Mail industrial disputes. Probably needs it's own section here too. - ARC Gritt^TALK 08:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vehicle Services

Why can I find no mention of Royal Mail Vehicle Services? We aren't a small operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.147.92 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 3 December 2008

Because no one has yet written about it and in terms of an encyclopaedia it may not be considered a notable part of the Royal Mail organisation, but when you say "We aren't a small operation" the implication is that you work for Royal Mail, so any contributions you make may be construed as a conflict of interest. If you can provide verifiable sources, please you can post here and someone may pick them up and write about that aspect of the Royal Mail. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Or to look at it another way, he is a useful source of knowledge about the matter. I say he should write about it (with references wherever possible), and if others feel it is inappropriate or not NPOV, they can amend. People who are involved in a topic are the most useful editors, provided that they say who they are and they can verify their statements. Westmorlandia (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd back up that second point — please "help Wikipedia grow", as the saying goes. Conflict of interest applies more when writing about oneself as a person, or a contentious issue. When simply describing an organisation like this one, it's primarily just original research that you need to be watching out for. – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Your points, Westmorlandia, are well taken but all contributions must be backed up by verifiable reliable sources and original research is not allowed, which unsourced edits from an employee of the Royal Mail might be. That is why any edits that could be regarded as a having a conflict of interest should to be reviewed, while clearly sourced edits obviate any of those concerns. ww2censor (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)