No Junk Mail sticker ignored by political parties

Slowhand

Mulder00 wrote: »

It just annoys me that something that is clearly unaddressed, unsolicited, completely biased junk, is okay because it's a "newsletter".

In my mind, junk mail should generally cover anything that is unaddressed and unsolicited and a political newsletter basically saying "vote for us because the other parties are useless" definitely fall under that. Now I'm going to have to get another 3 stickers (or make one really long one), which won't be our council's standard sticker and confuse the delivery people even more - because now they actually have to classify what they deliver even more.

And then, once I have my 4 stickers on my door, some political party will come along and find a reason why their campaign letters don't fall under any of those classifications and I'm back to square one.

I don't understand why I have to do so much to go out of my way to make sure that I don't get something I didn't want in the first place.

Junk mail should encompass EVERYTHING, unless I list exceptions.

(The only reason I haven't yet put a sticker on saying "No unaddressed mail", is because it's not our council's standard sticker and most of the delivery people I have tried to speak to, don't speak English to start with - so anything non-standard would probably not have the desired effect).

How big a list of exceptions is everyone allowed to have? Vouchers from the Ashoka Indian restaurant are fine but not ones from Spice of India or Shimla Pinks. Italian restaurant junk mail is fine but not anything from Spanish Tapas bars. Nothing from BK but McD's okay.

An exceptions list is not workable option.

Mulder00

Well, why is it that in the world of email, generally companies aren't allowed to spam you, unless you opt-in and choose to be spammed, but in the world of real paper and a real mailbox, anyone can choose to stick anything in your postbox without any repercussions, even to the point where they would become defensive about your wishes not to receive this. Even when you choose to opt-out of junk mail, there are all these special definitions that people have made up in order to prevent their
"special newsletters" from being classified as such.

Personally I think it's a bit upside down, when email (which causes a lot less inconvenience/damage/effort to be delivered/effort to dispose of etc) is so much better regulated than real mail (well, unsolicited stuff). I'd take email spam any day over real spam through my letterbox.

Response to Slowhand: so a list of exceptions isn't a workable solution, but having a list of exclusions is? I don't want to have 4 different stickers just to make sure that I'm covered for every type of unsolicited mail.

SuperHan

You don't need 4 stickers - have one saying NO UNSOLICITED MAIL. This covers every type of unsolicited mail.

halibut2209

How is a postman supposed to know what is solicited and what isn't?

Mulder00

SuperHan wrote: »

You don't need 4 stickers - have one saying NO UNSOLICITED MAIL. This covers every type of unsolicited mail.

The problem with that is that our council only has one standard sticker, "No junk mail". Most of the people I stop struggle to understand English, let alone the difference between junk mail and unsolicited mail. If I was to have a non-standard sticker to cover more than just what is considered junk mail, I am sure it would be counter-productive as this wouldn't be recognised as the standard "no junk mail" sticker we have.

The whole system of allowing companies and political parties to stick their trash through my front door is flawed. They aren't allowed to just spam me with their email, but they can stick anything they want through my letterbox.

SuperHan

halibut2209 wrote: »

How is a postman supposed to know what is solicited and what isn't?

If it has my name and address on it, you can fairly assume it's solicited. If it's name-less or address-less, then it's not.

I'd forgive anything that had my name on it, but I classed as 'unsolicited', but would begrudge anything that didn't...

custardy

SuperHan wrote: »

If it has my name and address on it, you can fairly assume it's solicited. If it's name-less or address-less, then it's not.

I'd forgive anything that had my name on it, but I classed as 'unsolicited', but would begrudge anything that didn't...

how many letters have you seen with no address?
so do you define a takeaway menu as mail?

shaun_from_Africa

so do you define a takeaway menu as mail?

As many dictionaries define mail as letters, packages or materials sent through or delivered my means of the postal system, then yes, if takeaway menus are delivered by a postman/woman, they should be classed as mail.

ThumbRemote

custardy wrote: »

how many letters have you seen with no address?
so do you define a takeaway menu as mail?

I get loads of letters with no address - they just say 'The householder' or similar. Virgin Media and assorted insurance companies appear to be the most common.

I would define a takeaway menu as mail. as I would anything else delivered through the letterbox.

custardy

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I get loads of letters with no address - they just say 'The householder' or similar. Virgin Media and assorted insurance companies appear to be the most common.

I would define a takeaway menu as mail. as I would anything else delivered through the letterbox.

So that isnt a letter then,is it?
Its unaddressed door2doors, so on par with the takeaway menus