🚀 go-pugleaf

Simon Finnigan wrote:

> "charles" <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5050115395charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <gsngf5$1atu$2@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>>   Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <758c7hF16kikrU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Simon Finnigan <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >You can knock most of that time off for the vast majority of people in
>>> >the UK, who have cars and would be expected to use them to visit a post
>>> >office.
>>> 
>>> I don't see why you should be compensated for the inconvenience it
>>> would cause someone else, rather than for the inconvenience it caused
>>> you.
> 
> So why should I be compensated for the fact that it takes you 80 minutes
> to get to a post fofice, rather than the 10 minute round trip, including
> being served, it takes me?

You shouldn't, and nobody has suggested that you should.  That is to say
the compensation should match the actual inconvenience and expenses.

Mind you, this is all a bit of an irrelevance, since most correspondence
of this kind need not involve recorded delivery.  Ordinary post will
suffice, and the receiving party won't know whether you've been to the
PO to get a certificate of posting or not, and so you can save yourself
the trip.  Just walk to your nearest posting box.