The liberalisation of the UK postal service has produced "no significant benefits" for either households or small businesses, a report has said.
That is the initial finding of an independent review of the UK postal sector commissioned by the government.
It warned there was now a threat to the Royal Mail's financial stability.
The Royal Mail's 350-year monopoly ended at the start of 2006, when other licensed operators were given the right to collect and deliver mail.
And yet again the BBC publishes an entire article on this subject and mentions the EU... No, wait, guess how many times?
That's right: none. Not one, single mention.
And all of this is only possible because of the unique way that the BBC is funded, i.e. by a government-sponsored tax and tens of millions of pounds worth of cheap loans from the EU.
UPDATE: Trixy has a rather lovely little rant on this subject.
I had the enjoyable task of trawling through the Post Office review today and, as I have been saying for over a year now, the dramatic changes in the postal market have been brought about because of EU legislation.
In 2006 the UK's postal market was fully open to competition and in 2006/07 Royal Mail reported their first losses of £29 million in 350 years.
The report said that small businesses and domestic consumers haven't benefited but they weren't likely to as those areas of the market are costly. Businesses come in and cream off the profitable business post, leaving Royal Mail to fulfill the Universal Service Obligation of post box collection and door to door delivery a minimum of six days a week.
And the media? Well, they're none too keen on even mentioning the EU angle. A journalist at the BBC told me that the EU directive wasn't mentioned in the report. How they can possibly say that when I had the report in front of me and it repeatedly mentioned it is quite astonishing. I suspect they just don't like to admit that the Parliament they are monitoring and the politicians they know don't have the power they think they have. It's easier to ignore it than find out how laws in this country are really made. Just think if they had to monitor the work of the European Parliament, or if they covered the number of new laws the European Commission makes every week!
Much easier to just pretend it isn't there. So we don't get to find out the real reason behind so many decisions made in this country. And it makes me sick, it really does.
Quite. Go and read the whole thing...
UPDATE 2: Timmy points out that neither the Guardian nor the Times mention the EU either.
Guess what, that doesn’t mention the European Union either, the reason that we have the liberalisation of the Royal Mail.
I wonder why they don’t mention it? Or the fact that there’s not a great deal we can do about it?
Well, who would have thunk it?
You know how EUphiles often say that the EU simply doesn't matter to The People, that it is always a low priority compared to immigration, or crime, or rubbish collection, or Post Offices?
Does anyone not think that if people were actually told the fucking truth about where this legislation is coming from that people might actually rate the EU rather higher as an issue?
And does anyone not think that that is why our poiticians are so utterly fucking desperate not to draw people's attention to these areas?
Because, you see, the EU project is the right thing for the people and they must be coerced or conned into it whether they like it or not...
UPDATE 3: well, that's pretty much a full house, don'cha think?
So, that’s the Times, The Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Sun, Mirror, Mail and Express.
All of them carried the story about the liberalisation of the Royal Mail.
Not one of them mentioned that it’s all due to an EU Directive. Not a single sausage from any of them.
Do these people actually read the reports they report upon?
I wouldn't have thought so, no. The only other explanation, of course, is that there is a conspiracy of silence.
So, what is it—ignorance or deceit?