Royal Mail

In an extension to the scheme, parcels will be given out at street corners to whoever jumps the highest while shouting, me, me me !

I imagine there will be a good number of items going missing, which a neighbour denies seeing point blank.

With my better half at home these days we get all sorts of parcels left at our house when neighbours are out during the day. Gets more busy than the Post Office sometimes. When they are left they are signed for to say they are left at the house.

So anything dodgy like stealing a parcel left for a neighbour I would think that any person will soon be caught.

Just wait and see what happens I suppose.

I don't mind my mail being left with neighbours as I know and trust them and I'd rather that than fag over to the main office and queue in the rain to collect. I can see why some might prefer that theirs isn't lef t with a neighbour. Don't you just need to put a sticker on your door, though? Easy done, saves a drive over to ROchdale and I imagine saves RM money.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Perhaps some might just 'speak' to their neighbours 'for a change'. You would be amazed at how 'wrong' your 'impressions' might turn out to be. Who said "There is not such thing as society." ???

I haven't got a problem with my neighbours. I wouldn't like to become a pain though if they are forever getting my post.

Also I believe Mrs T didn't just say 'there is no such thing as society' she actually said "... there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

I have to say, broadly, I agree. It is our duty to look after ourselves and our families first, and then also those people around us who aren't our family. I do believe of course, that the state must help those who aren't capable of helping themselves, and help support those who need it, but the logical extension of wanting the government to sort everything is the benefit culture we have today, when many rely entirely on the state when they are actually capable of helping themselves.

I have been recieving mail for neighbours for years and they for me, one neighbour who kept a parcel for me l had never seen before or since, l live on a main manchester road, l thought everyone did this.

I am all in favour of it, the neighbour has to sign to say they have accepted it so no getting away with it ?

If I am expecting a parcel I leave a note on the door requesting which neighbour to leave it with (with their consent of course)

How sticky is the sticker? I can't decide whether to opt in or out. This could be the make or break question?

Dalelad wrote:there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

An interesting Mrs. Thatcher quote there. In response to her statement that "people must look after themselves first", getting rid of dangerous politicians like Mrs. Thatcher is a good way to look after yourself. Mrs Thatcher is a long time ago, but, the damage she did has never been repaired. Broken Britain, pass the parcel.

So which part of the quote do you disagree with? Do we not have a responsibility for ourselves and our neighbours? Is that what you are saying?

I wasn't disagreeing, Dalelad, just saying that getting rid of dangerous politicians (Mrs T for example) is a good way of people looking after themselves, and their neighbours, as in the quote.

Everyone should look after themselves first Dalelad but that of course only means for good health and general comfort. It depends on how far you take 'looking after yourself'? In Thatchers case it meant at the expense of anybody else who might want a fair shake of the shilling. There's self and there's selfish. I suspect the latter has more relevance in todays society than it had in the 1930s or 1940s or even into the 60s (when things when completely bonkers) sharing or a general consideration for fairness and honesty in all manner of things seems to be the last consideration now. You tell me when you last saw a genuine, honest TV advert which spelt out the actual costs for the product that doesn't have small print under , around, behind and inside. The box screams nightly of the disingenuous packaging and portrayals of almost every product or service going. That is not how it used to be. Such things, as and when they occurred, were few and far between in my young days. People had a sense of morality no longer considered today.

I agree Atlas. Why should it be a surprise when someone does something selfless these days? I was travelling with a colleague the other day and had to listen to Radio One, which was bad enough in itself. Someone rang up with a problem, which listeners then had to ring in about with their advice. The woman's problem was that her boyfriend had asked if his 18 year old sister could come round for tea for a week whilst their parents were away.
She wasn't happy because she didn't see why she should have to work ALL DAY and then cook this person's tea, as well as her own and her boyfriend's.
9 our of 10 listeners who responded told her to tell the sister where to go, the idea being that she should be looking after herself. I was actually shocked at how selfish they all were. May be down to Mrs T, or parenting techniques in the 60s and 70s, or something else altogether, or a bit of all three!

At a rough guess I would say the 60s brought forth a new era of individualism whereby the young, who previously had been kept down by latent Edwardian values, found a new way of expression and values. Unfortunately this also spawned a general feeling of 'freedom' to do as one wished in an era of free love and abandonment. This was a false dawn in that there is a price to pay for such 'freedoms'. Spare the rod ruin the child does have some merit. A sensible society retains some semblance of sanction however unappetising it may seem. Chastisement at an early age keeps a sense of order and balance. The 'give the child what it demands in an understanding way' never works. The demands and consequent expectations simply increase exponentially and then when reality sets in (i.e. the world) the child (now a teenager) doesn't know how to handle it. Surprise. Surprise.
This coupled with the 'greed is good' syndrome we saw with the Thatcher years and the consequent deregulation of the banks and financial institutions and MAN are we surprised we find ourselves in such a selfish less caring society. We no longer think it our 'duty' to look after our parents in their old age without wanting kick-backs from the rest of society. I don't advocate going back to the 30s and 40s but I do make a plea for stopping the rampant PC and what I call the mamby-pamby way we constantly 'give in' to all the liberal dross that is flung around in abandon these days. Fair and firm - that's all it takes.