Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Send us your examples.


Here's a few of mine:


1) They bang on about recycling but send you your communications in window envelopes which they say they can't recycle.


2) They sent me consultation papers asking for opinions on a cycle lane on the SE15 east side of Peckham Rye 4 years ago. Must have cost them a lot to ask people's opinions when they probably had their minds set anyway, but guess what. Nothing happened anyway. Today got sent another set of consultation papers and they said that last time nothing happened because they ran out of money. a) wouldn't it be best to send out consultation papers AFTER they're sure they have the money and b) maybe the cost of sending out consultation papers is WHy they ran out of money.


3) They have built a whole load of well built garages on our estate but have done nothing to advertise them for rent at ?9.38 a week each. Call Jason Huggins on 020 7525 5000 (yes, call centre) and ask him if you're interested.


Your turn.

I am no particular supporter of the Council, but the examples given are hardly examples of large scale incompetence.


Southwark still has many social problems: poor public housing, poverty, violence that all impact on the level of service they need to provide.


They may fail to advertise garages and leave consultation papers on cycle lanes to rot. maybe they have more pressing concerns.

Oh there are plenty of other examples, I was just starting a ball rolling but it's hit another traffic angering roadhump! (They dont calm traffic!)

Of COURSE one can rip the plastic bits out of envelopes, and I do. But they're more expensive and they put stickers on top of the envelopes a lot of the time anyway.

And we do need to attract good talent in a competitive market but the quality of some of the staffe beggars belief. Sheer stupidity seems to be a necessary quality to get jobs there. One of the housing officers at Bournemouth Road recently told me that Kim Humphries has changed things so that a qualified experienced housing officer now can't even raise repairs on anything. And none of the workers are allowed to personalise their offices. I had to go to registry office recently and the officers aren't allowed to put pictures on the walls or photos on their desks. It's awful. Why would anyone want to work in those circumstances. So those that put up with it deserve respect of course. But so many of their colleagues are really - well - incompetant.

Yeah - Southwark Life! There's even a magazine called SE15 - what a waste. So untruthful. But like Notting Hill the film was about Notting Hill. Totally unrealistic about Notting Hill!!

Back to bed.. back to reality. Who wrote that?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...