121–130 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Anecdotally it's 50% "France had the right idea" and 50% "God save the king" with very few people in between.
If this is really about a fine for counterfeiting a stamp, isn't £5 astonishingly low? In the US that's a serious federal felony with up to five years in prison. https://puryearlaw.com/2015/12/27/federal-counterfeit-postag...
> In the US that's a serious federal felony with up to five years in prison. For counterfeiting _A_ stamp? I guess in the US even breathing the wrong way is probably a serious federal felony. Land of the free, and all that...
I applied for a visa-related thing a month or so ago. The fee was 6000 yen, so I stuck 2 3000 yen stamps on the application form. I had paid the application fee, the money can't be stolen by the public servant taking the application form (well, not easily, at least, I'm sure there are sleight of hands), and the purchasing of the stamp happens at a trusted third party that could commit fraud but is heavily incentivized not to (on account of me being able to directly cite where I bought it, and the agency knowing who I am).
[0]: Pedants who want to say it isn't or that it's _exactly_ a form of currency: please go away
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be dumb. Nothing prevents attempted reuse of a genuine stamp.
Sorry, what about that would be dumb? Attempted reuse is exactly what would be prevented by scanning the barcode and seeing it had already been used. This is exactly why gift cards have scratch-off material covering their secret keys, otherwise folks would just take a picture of the next card in the stack, wait for it to be funded, and then use it before the recipient does. edit: And would you look at that, you can b…
Reused barcode does not mean counterfeit.
> Attempted reuse is exactly what would be prevented by scanning the barcode and seeing it had already been used.
Sure, but the alleged crime here is not attempted reuse. It is counterfeiting - as shown in the pic of the Royal Mail fee request label.
I'm amazed how they managed to bring in barcoded stamps without a peep from anyone about privacy. Sending a letter anonymously is now impossible.
You now have to be more careful about buying the stamps themselves though. You could make a stock of them and not use them for a year or so (not like CCTV footage lasts more than a week).
> penalty for those who receive (and accept) mail posted using one Insane! Britain imitating Monty Python.
Why, for Christ's sake, is the onus of verifying the stamps put on the customers?
The Royal Mail created the problem. Don't give them money.
Otherwise bureaucracy and Kafkaesque issues will increase in the private and public sector.
PS: not from UK
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to pay it. It's only payable if you want to receive the letter.
The problem is that there is no way of knowing what the letter is. All you get is a slip through your door saying an item of mail is waiting for you and has a £5 fee to pay. If you're like me, you pay the fee, fearful that it might be something important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well ... it's the royal mail which happens to be identical to the royal mail from the post office scandal. that's about the reassurance you got to expect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
The Royal Mail and the Post Office are not the same thing! They are completely separate businesses. The Fujitsu/sub-post master scandal has nothing to do with the Royal Mail.
Post Office Limited
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Post Office Ltd)
Not to be confused with Royal Mail.
What caught my attention was that the first-class mail rate in the UK is £1.35 which is about $1.70 at current exchange rates. In contrast, in the US a first-class stamp is $0.68 (I buy forever stamps in bulk so I was surprised to discover it had gotten that high). The USPS really is a bargain.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1leBjOXKNneuPVZt2PRnI...