On 01/05/2018 08:55, Mike wrote:
> Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:34:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6JPGfirstname.lastname@example.org> scrawled in the dust...
>>> In message <***@4ax.com>, Penny
>>> <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 16:46:31 +0100, krw <***@whitnet.uk> scrawled in the
>>>>> I understand that the above has to have limits of what may be sent to
>>>>> comply with International regulations.
>>>>> I also accept that the person undertaking the delivery of such items to
>>>>> the Office of the Post should declare that the contents of any package
>>>>> are not in contravention of the published limits.
>>>>> However the question posed is "What is in the package?". That is
>>>>> private between me and the recipient.
>>> That is a point that had never occurred to me.
>>>>> So why is the right question not
>>>> They should probably pass you the list and ask if the package contains
>>>> anything on it but I think the answer to that question can be very vague
>>>> and general like "second hand goods", "clothing" or "documents".
>>> Sounds good, though I still think krw has a point.
>> It's the sort of thing you see on a customs declaration label when buying
>> goods from abroad, along with a value. I think PO people have asked not
>> what is in the parcel but what is the value of the contents in the past -
>> or maybe that's the supplemental question if they think the answer to the
>> first sounds valuable. In the past I think I've said "gift" and then been
>> asked the value.
>> I too think krw may have a point but what I actually did when posting a
>> package to d#1 the other day was go into some detail about what the
>> contents were, to the possible embarrassment of the person serving me. One
>> has to take ones entertainment where one can ;)
> Ooh yes, one could have fun with this couldn’t one? Items of a ‘bedroom’
> nature perhaps or ‘blackmail messages’, maybe vivid descriptions of items
> of apparel with gussets....
I'm not sure what's been going on with the PO. They brought in this
rule, a few years ago and then dropped if for a year or so but have
recently re-introduced it.
When it came in, the first time, my carer and I had great fun thinking
of things of this nature, that she could declare on my behalf. In the
end we opted not to opt for embarrassing items but with a more frivolous
Whenever she was posting something for me, we'd come up with a daft
description for whatever was inside. For example, a brooch shaped
like a dachshund was declared simply as "a dachshund". One of the
women who worked in the PO used to really enjoy some of our descriptions
and her face would light up when she saw J in the queue.
On one occasion, I believe the entire queue ended up giggling. A
friend of mine had a cat who was addicted to cardboard boxes and I'd
happened to receive one which looked just his size (and was shallow
enough to be cheap to post). By chance, the same day, I was sending
another friend a toy cat. Having "an empty box for a cat" and "a cat"
declared, provoked considerable amusement :)
 She would always know what was really in the parcel, so that she
could give a sensible version, if required.
 Although, on this occasion, the person behind the counter was
particularly po faced and didn't react at all. Her colleagues, at
neighbouring desks very much enjoyed it though.
 The PO clerk did offer to put a note on it, to ensure that it was
let out for regular runs.
Best wishes, Serena
Q. Who hides in the bakery at Christmas?
A. A mince spy!