About me
About me

Royal Mail says size matters in new charges


Hold up! Before you read on, please read this...

This post was published more than 14 years ago

I keep old posts on the site because I often enjoy reading old content on other people's sites. It can be interesting to see how views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have, to put it mildly, mellowed.

I'm not a believer in brushing the past under the carpet. I've written some offensive rubbish on here in the past: deleting it and pretending it never happened doesn't change that. I hope that stumbling across something that's 14 years old won't offend anyone anew, because I hope that people can understand that what I thought and felt and wrote about then is probably very different to what I think and feel and wrote about now. It's a relic of an (albeit recent) bygone era.

So, given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views may well have changed in the last 14 years. I have written some very silly things over the years, many of which I find utterly cringeworthy today.
  • This post might use words or language in ways which I would now consider highly inappropriate, offensive, embarrassing, or all three.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken, and embedded material might not appear properly.

Okay. Consider yourself duly warned. Read on...

The cost of sending a book weighing more than 450 grammes first class could be cut from £1.50 to 85p as long as the package is less than 25mm thick but the price of sending light but awkwardly-shaped items such as posters could soar.

This seems like a very sensible move. After all, it must cost more to try and deal with a huge poster tube than with thick book. It cost me over £7 to send a book the other day, and it did occur to me that it’d only actually take up a very small space in a Royal Mail van, and it seems sensible for prices to be reformed to reflect this. For the first time in a long time, I think the Royal Mail are making the right move.

This 457th post was filed under: News and Comment.

Some recently published posts

What I’ve been reading this month / January 2020, 7 minutes long

Faber Stories / December 2019, 4 minutes long

My favourite books of 2016 / December 2019, 26 minutes long

What I’ve been reading this month / December 2019, 12 minutes long

What I’ve been reading this month / November 2019, 5 minutes long

Some random old posts

2D: The economics of science & healthcare / July 2013, 1 minute long

Guardian: ‘Blair defiant over Iraq judgment’ / April 2005, 1 minute long

Zoo defends bid to mate gay penguins / February 2005, Less than a minute long

Blimey, it’s cold! / January 2013, Less than a minute long

First Band Aid, now Radio Aid / January 2005, Less than a minute long

Blair: Livingstone should say sorry / February 2005, Less than a minute long

Comments and responses

Comment from Anonymous

by Anonymous

Comment posted at 08:58 on 22nd July 2006.

Obviously anon above is on the payroll, the post office is guaranteed to lose even more money by doing this – your book obviously weighed a lot so fuel cost per mile will be greater than for a poster! Also every Post Office (all state monopolies thank heavens and not privatised)in the developed world work by weight – we are obviously withdrawing from the developed world again! Certainly it is unfair to base Postal Costs on size not weight.

Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)

by sjhoward

Comment posted at 09:25 on 22nd July 2006.

The system is based on both size and weight, not size alone. And many developed countries use systems like this – America, Japan, and Belgium to name just three. The point is that larger and awkwardly shaped packages can’t go through automatic sorting machines as easily, and so the cost of sorting the packets is greater. Fuel per mile would indeed be greater, but manpower is much more expensive than fuel.

And I’m certainly not on the Post Office payroll!

Trackback from elsewhere on the site

Trackback received at 22:33 on 23rd August 2007.

This post has been referenced by another on this site:
sjhoward.co.uk » Camp Okutta controversy

Compose a new comment


You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.

The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.