Evil Sid Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 yesterday (sunday) was at the father in laws when he showed me an article from his local paper. i had a picture of a wall behind which were 13 post bags which had been dumped. they contained mail of all sorts including mobile phones,prescriptions, hospital appointments and bank statements etc. this was in stockton heath so if anybody in the area was wondering what had happened to the mail they were expecting now you know. must ask him if he has saved it as i did not read all the article. i did notice on the same page a headline to a little story about children. it read "Only 2 in 3 children have married parents" quite startling at first glance until you realise that what it is saying is that only 1/3 of children have unmarried parents not quite as sensational really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Well spotted SID but you can't count apparently it was FIFTY, yes 50 and found by a Jogger, probably stopping for a call of nature . Tamra Cohen writes It is unlikely this patch of woodland was the official delivery address for 50 bulging postbags. But the line of mail sacks lay abandoned for up to six weeks in an astonishing security breach. Emblazoned with the Royal Mail logo, the bags contained letters, bank statements, mobile phones and even packages of medication dated from mid-October. The hoard was discovered behind a low stone wall in Stockton Heath, near Warrington in Cheshire, by a jogger on Sunday Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233319/Undelivered-50-bags-post-left-rot-wall.html#ixzz0YzfT40SA It wasn't Gary or Paul's garden wall was it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Geoff it may have been apparent to the reporter that it was 50 but perhaps Spec Savers would be in order. How many would you estimate were in your pic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 .......and in yet another show of namby pamby liberalness, the accused man has been released on Police Bail! Surely this is a remand in custody until after Christmas job at the very least? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 In evil's defense he did very well to spot the bakers dozen and didn't read the whole. How was he to know that the photographer was standing on the rest so that he could get the perfect shot before he fell off and got the sack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 .......and in yet another show of namby pamby liberalness, the accused man has been released on Police Bail! Surely this is a remand in custody until after Christmas job at the very least? Innocent until proven guilty? Fair trial? Jury of his peers? And let's face it, his offence is not likely to be repeated, is it? He didn't nick anything, he didn't sell anything, he didn't torch it all - he just threw a wobbler and dumped the lot rather inefficiently. Sounds more like a breakdown than a crime. Not that I approve - it's bad. But he's not Moriarty, is he?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 junk mail?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 .......and in yet another show of namby pamby liberalness, the accused man has been released on Police Bail! Surely this is a remand in custody until after Christmas job at the very least? Innocent until proven guilty? Fair trial? Jury of his peers? And let's face it, his offence is not likely to be repeated, is it? He didn't nick anything, he didn't sell anything, he didn't torch it all - he just threw a wobbler and dumped the lot rather inefficiently. Sounds more like a breakdown than a crime. Not that I approve - it's bad. But he's not Moriarty, is he?! Fine LP.... you feel sorry for the criminal. Me, I would prefer the tough approach personally because he could have ruined a lot of things for a lot of people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Will he be prosecuted for fly tipping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted December 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 did not read it as i was busy retuning father in laws TV so he could get BBC from the Northwest transmitter instead of the welsh one. my main curiosity is that his local newspaper picked up the story as did the mail yet there did not seem to anything in the Guardian about it.( not that i looked, only bother with it to see if there are any jobs going) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 .......and in yet another show of namby pamby liberalness, the accused man has been released on Police Bail! Surely this is a remand in custody until after Christmas job at the very least? Innocent until proven guilty? Fair trial? Jury of his peers? And let's face it, his offence is not likely to be repeated, is it? He didn't nick anything, he didn't sell anything, he didn't torch it all - he just threw a wobbler and dumped the lot rather inefficiently. Sounds more like a breakdown than a crime. Not that I approve - it's bad. But he's not Moriarty, is he?! Fine LP.... you feel sorry for the criminal. Me, I would prefer the tough approach personally because he could have ruined a lot of things for a lot of people I don't feel sorry for him, what he did was bad and he should be punished appropriately. But any system of justice has to ask why before hanging him - even yours! There's nothing harsher than taking his job, income and reputation away, is there? If he had burned those bags, he'd never have been caught. He did no damage, just shoved them out of his sight. Not an evil man then, is he? I'm not minimising what he did, just keeping it in proportion compared to other people who get bail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 There's nothing harsher than taking his job, income and reputation away, is there? If he had burned those bags, he'd never have been caught. He did no damage, just shoved them out of his sight. Not an evil man then, is he? I'm not minimising what he did, just keeping it in proportion compared to other people who get bail. OK Lymm P so maybe like you say 'he did no actual damage and just hid them out of the way' rather than delivering them but WHY !!!! Royal mail and it's appointed deliverers are supposed to be trustworthy and they are paid to deliver mail (a lot of which is very sensitive if it falls into the wrong hands ) so for an employee to dump possibly sensitive and personal information in a public place IS CRIMINAL in my opinion. How do we know that there weren't even more sacks dumped and the ones found are just what remain after easy pickings ??? AND YES.. to whoever asked the question... WHY WERE THE LOCAL PRESS NOT NOTFIED after all it may well be our post that has gone astray wether it was inbound or outgoing mail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 That's what I said, Dis. We need to ask why and he is most certainly a criminal whatever the answer, deserving to be punished. I think the answer is important, in order to stop it happening again. We need to know whether it was the result of the strikes, or a fault in the system or just a random brainstorm. He migt not be the only person at fault when it all comes to light. All I meant was he could have done a lot worse and it would have been in his interests. Burn the evidence, loot the lot first and sell what he got - he had every chance and would probably not have been caught. So I disagree with Baz's view that he should be locked up whilst murderers get bail. That's all. I am not defending him or his actions - I just want to understand it all before Baz hangs him from the Town Hall Gates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Sorry LP I think I completely misread your post Joking aside it is still a very serious matter though and one that needs looking into seriously to stop such a thing happening ever again and should have been reported in the local news. Makes you wonder how many other bags or individula items 'may' get looted or disposed of in a more discreet way that are never noticed or put down as expected losses and postal statistics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 I can only speak from experience on that last point. My friend's daughter came home with a chain letter that said if she sent two people a bar of chocolate, she'd get 24 bars back by post. She believed it, dead excited, she posted off her 2 bars and I thought there was no chance, so I posted her 10 different little bars of chocolate from 10 different places in the North West as I moved about doing business/shopping etc. Two arrived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Mice in the mail room maybe Another thing about Royal Mail while I'm having a whinge. What is the point of paying for the secutiry and peace of mind of having 'signed for' deliveries when quite often they are delivered without signatures being obtained? Makes it a bit hard to track them. Had that happen to us a few times with large cheques and no-one signed for them but luckily the recipients were honest and said they HAD actually received the cheque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 My postie is lovely and often signs for stuff himself to save me a traipse to the office. Judgement call, I guess. If RM cannot produce a signature for a disputed delivery, they have to cough up, but only to the limit of the service, so large cheques should really go by a service that covers them properly, or even by courier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Dis, Internet banking is the way forward....I only write about 3 cheques a month now if that!! I lost faith in RM 12 years ago when a company posted me a rather large cheque (in excess of 25 grand) and at the time we worked from my house.... the postman posted through the wrong letter box in the wrong house in the wrong street. The occupants had just gone on holiday and as the amount was so large the company that had issued it wouldn't re-issue for at least 7 days while they cancelled the first cheque. Now just think if that happened in the pile of mail dumped by the moronic postie.... of course he shouldn't get bail. It was a wilfull act of theft and deception as well as deriliction of duty if nothing else! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Think I'd like to be convinced about internet security first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Whatever it was, Baz, it was not theft or deception. He did not take any item and it cannot be proved that he didn't intend to go back and recover the bags later. Nor was it deception - he deceived nobody and gained nothing from his actions. We've all taken on board your outrage, and we all share it to some degree, I assure you. But until "Upsetting Baz" does actually make it onto the life sentence tariff, then he's entitled to bail because he's not a danger to society! Even if that makes you really cross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 well if taking it out of the back of his van in October and hiding it isn't theft, what is I wonder? Also, you don't know (because it didn't say) that he didn't nick stuff from other mailbags, or how long he has been doing this.... and as for "life sentence"... in this country? Don't make me laugh. The one thing that came out of that rather weird trial in Perugia of the Meredith Kertcher killers was they all got at least 25 years.... if only we could go back to that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 baz will be even more cross, if he gets community service! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 well if taking it out of the back of his van in October and hiding it isn't theft, what is I wonder? Also, you don't know (because it didn't say) that he didn't nick stuff from other mailbags, or how long he has been doing this.... and as for "life sentence"... in this country? Don't make me laugh. The one thing that came out of that rather weird trial in Perugia of the Meredith Kertcher killers was they all got at least 25 years.... if only we could go back to that I can't have an opinion because we don't know the facts, but you can hang the bugger now? Interesting double standard there - you been drinking with Obs?! For your edification, "theft" is specifically defined as the intention to deprive someone of their rightful property on a permanent basis. This is why joyriders get charged with "Taking", not "Stealing" - because they have no intention of keeping the car. He didn't keep anything and he made no effort to ensure the stuff wasn't found and returned. Not theft. I actually don't know what the offence is, but I think it's something specific like interfering with the Royal Mail and has its own tariff.... and he should get the higher rate on there, we're all agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 He can't drink with me, I don't drink anymore, not in pubs anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 "drinking" was a polite word for it, Obs..... I didn't like to say "dressing up"...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.