I apologise for not posting in a while; I have been rather busy lately. In fact I was not planning on posting again until Thursday, however today's front-page news story in the J.E.P. really got me venting; and where better to vent my frustration than here.
This post refers to the Post Office employee who, after noticing 39 blank postcards being sent to one address in Somerset through the postal system by one Mr. Nigel Keegan, thought something suspicious may be going on. As the J.E.P. reports, he contacted Mr. Keegan's local councillor (Mr. Hann) via email with the following message:
My attention was drawn to the fact that someone had posted 39 identical postcards locally with no message or anything. I wondered if you might have a look at the house [in Somerset] next time you are passing to see if there is anything special or unusual about it or the inhabitants.
We cannot see any immediate reason behind this unusual posting so that made us prick up our ears.
As you may know, we try to be vigilant to spot people abusing the mail for the purposes of drug smuggling or scams of various types, although we cannot immediately see a terribly plausible use that 39 postcards like this could be put to.
Perhaps it is a joke or a birthday surprise. In any event, if there is anything suspicious, perhaps you would let me know and I would take it further by informing the relevant authorities.
Mr. Keegan's response to this email was, in my opinion, an over-reaction to say the least; intrusive and evidence of a surveillance society. Now I am well aware of the growing 'Big Brother' nature of Jersey in recent years, but surely the Post Office employee's actions were commendable in this instance; he (or she) noticed something out of the ordinary, used his initiative and performed the necessary (and formal) steps needed in order to ensure nothing illegal was occurring. If he had not done this and Mr. Keegan was breaking the law in some way, the Post Office would have been blamed! The employee should be praised for his actions!
Mr. Keegan then lapses into a moment of sarcasm regarding the employee’s slight concern that the postcards may be involved in drug smuggling or a scam. He seems intent on destroying this honest worker simply because he has inconvenienced him slightly; he complained about an invasion of his privacy (I don’t see how he justifies this claim; the postcards were supposedly blank) and asked the J.E.P. to investigate. This has now grown into an internal investigation at Jersey Post, which in turn has grown into a police investigation.
I am quite honestly amazed; I have either missed something important here or this entire story is just one grand over-reaction on the part of Mr. Keegan, Jersey Post, the J.E.P. and the police. Please (and I am being honest here), if I have missed something; tell me. If Mr. Keegan happens to be reading this, please get in contact and correct any misconceptions I may have; or if the Jersey Post employee in question happens to be reading this, please contact me and I will happily listed to your side of the story.
Thank you for bearing with me in this post, I am very tired and am only just regaining control of my mouth after a visit to the dentist. If this post is in any way incoherent; blame it on that.
- Benjamin Langlois
PS: Mr. Keegan, it is possible to smuggle drugs through a postal system using postcards, however I will obviously not explain the procedure here (or anywhere else for that matter)!
Blogging in 2009
7 hours ago
5 comments:
29 April 2008 14:31
Whilst I agree the gentleman concerned was somewhat over the top with his comments regarding Jersey being a "surveillance society", I don't agree with the actions of the Postal employee - and as the Police are now involved it would seem neither do his superiors.
In my view a huge part of the problem with this issue is the way in which the matter was handled. If the employee had suspicions, he should have raised them with his superiors - or a relevant authority - not taken it upon himself to contact Mr. Postcard-man's local Council and ask them to check him out.
There's also an inherent idiocy revealed in the comment made by the Postal employee that "we cannot immediately see a terribly plausible use that 39 postcards like this could be put to."
Shocking as this would undoubtably sound to that postal employee, some people collect postcards. Is that any less a plausible activity than collecting used stamps, or those First Day Covers the Post Office themselves sell?
It's interesting that you mention the ability to send drugs via postcard. When it comes to mailing anything from my local Post Office, I'm convinced they keep chicken entrails and rune stones behind the counter as a price guide. Anyone trying to send drugs through there would probably half the time find the postal costs outweighing the value of the illicit substance!
29 April 2008 21:05
A Holiday in the Sun:
Of course I agree that the Post Office employee may have reacted to his concerns in a slightly controversial manner, I maintain that his actions were essentially good-willed and so should be praised.
You rightly mention that the employee should have raised his concerns with his superiors or a relevant authority, however (although I understand what you mean by this) I believe the emplyee thought that was exactly what he was doing; he wasn't, but again his intentions were good.
With regards to your comment that some people collect postcards; if I was the Post Office employee I would also become concerned upon seeing 39 blank postcards going through the system - why didn't the collector simply keep them until he returned home?
As you can tell I really empathise with the employee, although I am not entirely sure why I feel so strongly motivated to defend him.
But anyway, thanks for the comment (they are building-up slowly) and I could not agree more with your last paragraph!
- Benjamin Langlois
1 May 2008 17:36
There's a rather good reason why a postcard collector may choose to send his cards through the mail - the postmark. For some of them the 'correct' postmark makes the card more desirable. And again, that's something one would expect a Post Office employee to be aware of.
I think if we deem the behaviour of the postal employee in question to be perfectly acceptable, then we're treading rather dangerous ground, potentially looking at the thin edge of a very insidious wedge...
2 May 2008 05:34
I must admit I overlooked that aspect of postcard-collecting, and I guess as a postal worker the employee must (or should) have been aware of this.
Although I still empathise with the employee, reading your comments I am beginning to empathise with the collector also (to some extent), which I must say represents a minor dilemma for me at the moment!
Of course I do not claim that the employee's actions were in any way the right way to act, however I still maintain that his actions were performed with good-will. This certainly does not make his actions acceptable (i.e. I would not defend these actions if they became the norm at the Post Office), however surely they were not so serious as to prevoke police action?
Thank you as always for your comments.
- Benjamin Langlois
3 April 2009 10:41
The postal employee could have contacted the police who in turn could have brought round a sniffer dog and sorted the whole thing out on the spot.
What actually happened was a clear invasion of privacy ande could have had implications for the individual concerned (Mr Keegan) in his home area. It was quite disgraceful.
Post a Comment