Never Trust The Royal Mail

[All Seeing Eye]

The proof is the credibility of the postal carrier who has no reason to lie. There doesn't have to be anymore evidence other than the credibility of a government employee who has nothing to gain by lying. Why in God's name do you think you would have more credibility than the postal carrier?

That's just silly. The postal carrier has no more credibility than me and he has just as much reason to lie as I do, if he's stolen or even just lost the package then he's going to lie. It wouldn't be the first time a postman has stolen packages he's supposed to be delivering.

I don't mean to sound rude here, but these really sound like arguments I used to make when I was 13. Are you really young?

I'm 7.

A simple lack of obtaining a signature does not amount to evidence of theft by the postal carrier any more than it would if there was no signature service.

The lack of a signature (a signature that was required) puts him at fault and not me, if he wasn't trustworthy enough to do his job and get a signature then why should his word be trusted? it's nothing like if it was delivered without requiring a signature, the fact it required one and doesn't have one completely alters the situation, it gives more credibility to me.

But what does amount to credible evidence is the testimony of a government employee with no criminal record who will testify that he hand-delivered the package to the recipient and thought he was doing him a favor by letting him slide on the signature.

I don't have a criminal record so why is my word less credible?

There should have been a signature, there isn't one, as far as the courts are concerned i'm missing a package and the package that was supposed to be signed for is missing a signature.

 

[Pingfah]

It doesn't really matter CaptainHawk. You don't have to complain that day, with Royal Mail tracked you have to claim anytime within 12 months. If you complain a month later, the postman isn't going to remember whether he delivered it or not. They'd just assume they lost it.

Anyway, you'd suck if you did that.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Anyway, you'd suck if you did that.

I wouldn't do it.

 

[Pingfah]

Naturally, you are a pillar of the community.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Well I'd imagine the postman would just get a ticking off for not getting a signature, you'd get your goods replaced and that would be the end of it.

And that's what it's all about, isn't it? Imagining. You have no idea what the response would be. So suggesting that he commit a felony simply because you think he can get away with it is not only unethical, it's stupid.

There'd be no way they would pursue a fraud case against you.

Here's a different perspective for you (because that's what we do in the field of objective legal analysis): As with all claims, an investigation is initiated. Part of that investigation includes asking the postal carrier -- who knows the recipient and remembers distinctly hand-delivering the package -- if he delivered the package. Of course, he claims that he did and has to admit that he did the recipient a favor by not requiring the recipient to sign for the package and of course now he's in trouble for that now makes it his mission to make sure that the recipient does have a fraud case because it is clearly fraud. You see, now the postal carrier has a vested interest in seeing this through to the end in order to clear his name professional reputation because the recipient not only has questioned integrity and professionalism but has also suggested that he's a theif.

So yeah, probably not a good idea to intentionally commit fraud.

 

[Garrovick]

Just thinking out loud here, but...

Isn't claiming a package that was delivered, as not delivered, a greater crime than not being forced to sign for it?

When I lived in a rural delivery area, with no door to door service, the letter carrier left a notice in the road side mail box and the receiver was required to go to the post office to sign for it.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Here's a different perspective for you (because that's what we do in the field of objective legal analysis): As with all claims, an investigation is initiated. Part of that investigation includes asking the postal carrier -- who knows the recipient and remembers distinctly hand-delivering the package -- if he delivered the package. Of course, he claims that he did and has to admit that he did the recipient a favor by not requiring the recipient to sign for the package and of course now he's in trouble for that now makes it his mission to make sure that the recipient does have a fraud case because it is clearly fraud. You see, now the postal carrier has a vested interest in seeing this through to the end in order to clear his name professional reputation because the recipient not only has questioned integrity and professionalism but has also suggested that he's a theif.

So yeah, probably not a good idea to intentionally commit fraud.

I'm still not understanding why you believe in a court of law that his word is more credible than the recipient.
That's what it boils down to, his word against the recipients except the result will be more in the recipients favour because a signature that was required doesn't exist.
The postman could have lost the package and forgot as far as the court is concerned, or posted it to a wrong address or stolen it.

 

[Pingfah]

Well I'd imagine the postman would just get a ticking off for not getting a signature, you'd get your goods replaced and that would be the end of it.

And that's what it's all about, isn't it? Imagining. You have no idea what the response would be. So suggesting that he commit a felony simply because you think he can get away with it is not only unethical, it's stupid.

I suggested nothing of the sort. Keep your finger pointing to yourself pal. You heard of speculation yes?

Here's a different perspective for you (because that's what we do in the field of objective legal analysis): As with all claims, an investigation is initiated. Part of that investigation includes asking the postal carrier -- who knows the recipient and remembers distinctly hand-delivering the package -- if he delivered the package. Of course, he claims that he did and has to admit that he did the recipient a favor by not requiring the recipient to sign for the package and of course now he's in trouble for that now makes it his mission to make sure that the recipient does have a fraud case because it is clearly fraud. You see, now the postal carrier has a vested interest in seeing this through to the end in order to clear his name professional reputation because the recipient not only has questioned integrity and professionalism but has also suggested that he's a theif.

So yeah, probably not a good idea to intentionally commit fraud.

Shrug, Royal Mail loses stuff all the time, they are renowned for it. I doubt they'd even blink an eyelid. They'd just chalk it up to not getting a sig. I'm not saying it couldn't backfire on you or that what you describe couldn't happen, but it probably wouldn't knowing how much mail goes missing generally.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

The proof is the credibility of the postal carrier who has no reason to lie. There doesn't have to be anymore evidence other than the credibility of a government employee who has nothing to gain by lying. Why in God's name do you think you would have more credibility than the postal carrier?

That's just silly. The postal carrier has no more credibility than me and he has just as much reason to lie as I do, if he's stolen or even just lost the package then he's going to lie. It wouldn't be the first time a postman has stolen packages he's supposed to be delivering.

Uh, wrong. It's not silly and again, you sound like every other wise-guy who thinks they have legal background because they thought of a clever way to outsmart the system. Any professional, especially a government employee, is going to be given the benefit of the doubt over YOU. Whether you want to believe it or not, that's the way it is.

I don't mean to sound rude here, but these really sound like arguments I used to make when I was 13. Are you really young?

I'm 7.

Obviously.

A simple lack of obtaining a signature does not amount to evidence of theft by the postal carrier any more than it would if there was no signature service.

The lack of a signature (a signature that was required) puts him at fault and not me, if he wasn't trustworthy enough to do his job and get a signature then why should his word be trusted?

Wrong again, Perry Mason. An employee who cut a corner to do a recipient a favor isn't untrustworthy. he simply made a slight error in judgment and no court or board of inquiry would ever think that such an action would put his integrity in question. You're allowed to make mistakes.

it's nothing like if it was delivered without requiring a signature, the fact it required one and doesn't have one completely alters the situation, it gives more credibility to me.

Since you have no understanding of evidence or civil procedure, let me make it simple for you; the lack of a signature is not evidence of a theft. There is no point "A" to point "B" connection on that. All it means is that a signature wasn't obtained or at worst (if true, and we've established that it's not) the package was lost. Similarly, there is no point "A" to point "B" connection if you simply claimed the package wasn't received if there was no signature required (again, it would simply be presumed lost, not stolen). However, an affidavit or testimony given by the carrier, based on his position, carries as much weight as a signature by the recipient.

But what does amount to credible evidence is the testimony of a government employee with no criminal record who will testify that he hand-delivered the package to the recipient and thought he was doing him a favor by letting him slide on the signature.

I don't have a criminal record so why is my word less credible?

Because you aren't the government employee (see above where I already covered this).

There should have been a signature, there isn't one, as far as the courts are concerned i'm missing a package and the package that was supposed to be signed for is missing a signature.

SFW??? Lack of a package or signature is not evidence of a crime but a sworn affidavit or testimony by an employee of the government can be.

Beyond the fact that your ethics are beyond questionable you're completely ignorant on the law. It's folks like you that are the reason why we have to Miranda Rights here in the U.S. because you simply wind up talking yourself right into jail with your legal expertise.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Just thinking out loud here, but...

Isn't claiming a package that was delivered, as not delivered, a greater crime than not being forced to sign for it?

When I lived in a rural delivery area, with no door to door service, the letter carrier left a notice in the road side mail box and the receiver was required to go to the post office to sign for it.

Yeah, that's where we're at right about now. These folks don't seem to get that and are instead just patting themselves at how clever they are for taking advantage of the bureaucracy.

 

[Pingfah]

You seem to be having trouble separating casually talking about something and actually doing it.

Perhaps the internets are not for you.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Well I'd imagine the postman would just get a ticking off for not getting a signature, you'd get your goods replaced and that would be the end of it.

And that's what it's all about, isn't it? Imagining. You have no idea what the response would be. So suggesting that he commit a felony simply because you think he can get away with it is not only unethical, it's stupid.

I suggested nothing of the sort. Keep your finger pointing to yourself pal. You heard of speculation yes?

I didn't speculate a damned thing. You implied and I inferred based on your implication.

Speculation is conjectural, you were specific.

Here's a different perspective for you (because that's what we do in the field of objective legal analysis): As with all claims, an investigation is initiated. Part of that investigation includes asking the postal carrier -- who knows the recipient and remembers distinctly hand-delivering the package -- if he delivered the package. Of course, he claims that he did and has to admit that he did the recipient a favor by not requiring the recipient to sign for the package and of course now he's in trouble for that now makes it his mission to make sure that the recipient does have a fraud case because it is clearly fraud. You see, now the postal carrier has a vested interest in seeing this through to the end in order to clear his name professional reputation because the recipient not only has questioned integrity and professionalism but has also suggested that he's a theif.

So yeah, probably not a good idea to intentionally commit fraud.

Shrug, Royal Mail loses stuff all the time, they are renowned for it. I doubt they'd even blink an eyelid. They'd just chalk it up to not getting a sig. I'm not saying it couldn't backfire on you or that what you describe couldn't happen, but it probably wouldn't knowing how much mail goes missing generally.

I'm not suggesting they don't. From what I understand, the Postal Systems in Europe are pretty bad in general. Despite how much people piss and moan here in the U.S., we have a damned good postal system. I think I've had one item get lost in the last five years and that's after several hundred if not over a thousand packages sent/received.

But the point is that why would you want to risk it if not the ethical implications and legal ramifications but simply because it could have the potential to screw your postal carrier over (who did a favor). It's called piety for piety's sake (that's Plato, not me).

 

[All Seeing Eye]

CaptainHawk, you seem to be getting extremely irate and angry over something not very important and a hypothetical scenario. I don't think there's any need for you to try to make me out to be a child because our opinion on the matter differs and there's certainly no need to call me Perry Mason.

You falsely believe the posties word will be taken over the recipients, it's not about who's word to believe it goes on evidence, the evidence exists and it's in the form of a missing signature. End of.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

You seem to be having trouble separating casually talking about something and actually doing it.

Perhaps the internets are not for you.

Well, you see, I am keeping it casual. Just because it's gets lively, doesn't mean it's not casual.

But the thing is, is every legal concept I try to explain you guys dispute with no education or background in the subject, so yeah, I'm going to respond.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

CaptainHawk, you seem to be getting extremely irate and angry over something not very important and a hypothetical scenario.

I'm not irate, I'm actually having a shitload of fun with this, but it seems you are.

I don't think there's any need for you to try to make me out to be a child because our opinion on the matter differs

No, no, no... you misunderstand. It's not a matter of a differing opinion, it's a matter of you simply not knowing what you're talking about having no education or formal training in the law. It's not a matter of opinon, it's a matter of law.

and there's certainly no need to call me Perry Mason.

You got that right.

You falsely believe the posties word will be taken over the recipients, it's not about who's word to believe it goes on evidence, the evidence exists and it's in the form of a missing signature. End of.

I don't falsely believe anything, I know how evidence works. Testimony is evidence, Denny Crane, but lack of evidence (the missing signature) is not.

You guys are fun!

 

[Pingfah]

I suggested nothing of the sort. Keep your finger pointing to yourself pal. You heard of speculation yes?

I didn't speculate a damned thing. You implied and I inferred based on your implication.

Speculation is conjectural, you were specific.

I was the one speculating about what might happen, not you

But the thing is, is every legal concept I try to explain you guys dispute with no education or background in the subject, so yeah, I'm going to respond.

I acknowleged it could go the way you describe and I said it would be wrong and I wouldn't do it so I really don't know why you are responding with this silly attitude to me.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

No, no, no... you misunderstand. It's not a matter of a differing opinion, it's a matter of you simply not knowing what you're talking about having no education or formal training in the law.

Nice assumption.