No more mail: PostNord to stop delivering letters to Denmark at the end of 2025
No more mail for Denmark: PostNord will stop delivering letters to the Nordic nation at the end of 2025, though package distribution will remain.
PostNord, a state-run agency that services Denmark and Sweden, announced the change Thursday. Roughly 1,500 mailboxes throughout Denmark will be taken down in the second half of the year, and Danes can seek refunds for stamps. An estimated 1,500 of PostNord's 4,600 employees will be laid off this year.
Sweden's letter delivery will not be affected, the agency said.
PostNord said the number of letters in Denmark has decreased by 90% since 2000, and by more than 30% in 2024 compared with the year before. The agency blamed an increasingly digital atmosphere in Denmark and worldwide, and 2024 Danish legislation that drove the cost of postage up.
'We have been the Danes' postal service for 400 years and therefore it is a difficult decision to put a bow on that part of our story," PostNord Denmark chief executive Kim Pedersen said in a news release. "The Danes have become more and more digital which means that there are very few letters left for us to handle today, and the downturn continues so clearly that the market for letters is no longer profitable.'
Pedersen said the heart of PostNord's business is parcel delivery, which it will focus on in 2026.
Pelle Dragsted, a member of the Danish parliament, wrote on social platform X that the cessation of letter delivery will unfairly affect Danes who live in remote areas.
Letters can still be sent through private companies, Danish public broadcaster DR reported. The state will ensure that infrastructure remains for mail to be delivered to Denmark's remote areas, including smaller island communities.
Pedersen also told DR that people can send their letters as packages through PostNord's parcel shops.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Thomas Frank to become new Tottenham boss as first major transfer decision made
Thomas Frank is closing in on becoming the new Tottenham Hotspur manager, and he can rely on the support of a familiar face when he takes the job Tottenham Hotspur are closing in on the appointment of Thomas Frank as their new manager, with the role of Spurs technical director Johan Lange instrumental in the move. Spurs sacked Ange Postecoglou on Friday, despite Europa League success, and quickly set their sights on Frank – who has gained admirers for his work over an impressive seven-year period at Brentford. After positive discussions over the weekend, there is a growing confidence that Frank will be the man to replace Postecoglou. Frank's current deal at Brentford runs until the summer of 2027 and contains a release clause reported to be in the region of £10million, as revealed by Mirror Football on Friday. Brentford are expected to hold out for Frank's release clause but, while an official approach from Tottenham is yet to occur, the Danish coach is expected to make the move across London. The 51-year-old would take over a Spurs side which won the Europa League last month but finished 17th in the Premier League. Poor domestic form during the 2024-25 season accounted for Postecoglou's job as the Spurs board were forced to make 'one of the toughest decisions' they have had to make in dismissing the head coach who ended a 17-year trophy drought. 'It is crucial that we are able to compete on multiple fronts and believe a change of approach will give us the strongest chance for the coming season and beyond,' a club statement on Friday read. Frank will be teaming up again with Spurs technical director Lange, who shared an office with him when they worked together at Danish club Lyngby. Lange has been leading Tottenham's search to appoint a successor to Postecoglou, and will oversee the club's transfer business this summer alongside Fabio Paratici, who is acting as a consultant to Spurs and will return to club in a full-time role once his worldwide football ban has been lifted. Frank will be expected to bring some of his staff with him from Brentford, with Spurs having dismissed Postecoglou's coaches Mile Jedinak, Nick Montgomery and Sergio Raimundo along with the Australian. Chief Football officer Scott Munn was also sacked on Friday as Spurs made sweeping changes to their football structure after their disastrous Premier League campaign. Mirror Football understands that Ipswich Town boss Kieran McKenna is top of Brentford's list of potential candidates to replace Frank in west London.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Forget Greta Thunberg's greenwashing – this is the energy of the future
In 2019, Greta Thunberg travelled to the UN Climate Action Summit in New York by boat. Eschewing the evil aeroplane, she crossed the Atlantic aboard a 'zero-emissions yacht' festooned with solar panels; it took her a fortnight. Very virtuous: but the yacht's skipper then flew home to Europe, and another crew of five flew from Europe to New York to sail the boat back. 'In the end,' Tim Gregory remarks in Going Nuclear, 'Thunberg's voyage produced more emissions than if she and her father had just taken return transatlantic flights.' Nonetheless, Thunberg's self-congratulatory stunt has been credited with strengthening the Nordic movement called 'Flight Shame' (Flygskam), which tries to make people feel bad about flying. Gregory's target in this book, instead, is what you might call 'nuclear shame'. We have been conditioned, he laments, to think that radioactivity is terrifying, and that nuclear power stations are absurdly expensive and liable to blow up. As a physicist who works at the National Nuclear Laboratory in Sellafield, Gregory knows better. Assuming one agrees with the ambition to reduce carbon emissions to 'net zero' by 2050, he argues, more nuclear power is the only sensible way to do it. Wind and solar power are great but intermittent. 'Biomass' is just a sciencey-sounding label for burning wood and pretending its carbon emissions don't count. We can pass over rapidly the 'de-growth' movement of radical economists who fantasise about drastically reducing everyone's standard of living. At some level, the environmentalist disdain for nuclear power is a symptom of their hatred and distrust of technology and human civilisation itself. Many sacred cows of the green zealot are thus energetically slaughtered. A nuclear power station, Gregory accepts, is not 'emissions-free' when you count mining the uranium and building the plant, but its lifetime emissions per watt of energy generated are comparable to those of wind and solar. The confirmed death tolls of all nuclear accidents are remarkably small in comparison to the far greater numbers killed by pollution from coal. And to neglect nuclear generation in favour of focusing on 'renewables' – as Germany notoriously did after the Fukushima accident, shutting down all its reactors – actually condemns you to using more fossil fuels (in this case, Russian gas) in order to provide baseload power. But nuclear, critics say, takes too long to build. It needn't, Gregory retorts: the median time of a new build globally is only 6.4 years. The delays and cost overruns of Hinkley Point C admittedly 'make nuclear power look farcical', but just look at other bureaucratic farces such as HS2. Meanwhile, between 2019 and 2024, the UAE built a fleet of nuclear reactors that now powers a quarter of the country. What about nuclear waste? Well, the 'low-level' kind, which makes up 87 per cent of the total, includes things like gloves and lab equipment, most of which is 'far less radioactive than a banana'. The world's stockpile of the most dangerous 'high-level' radioactive waste ever generated would fit in a cube 33 metres across. You could re-use much of it as fuel in other reactors, or bury it deep underground, like the Finns do. This book is a highly engaging and lucid primer on nuclear technology. Gregory also describes some fascinating advances in nuclear medicine (better-targeted radiotherapy) and 'atomic gardening' (using radiation to find new crop strains). And he celebrates the nuclear batteries that power our exploration of the universe via space probes such as Voyager and the Mars rovers. Going Nuclear is also, in some ways, a lament for a retro sci-fi future. Just as we never got flying cars, we never got electricity that was, as early nuclear enthusiasts notoriously promised, 'too cheap to meter'; nor did we get nuclear reactors on the Moon. (Gregory is winningly fond of 'vintage technology that never saw its full potential'). But, Gregory argues, we still could have these things, and the second-best time to start is now. The scolding doominess of much climate activism, he suggests, is silly and counterproductive: 'Informed optimism is far superior.' Nuclear energy was the future once; maybe it will be again.
Daily Mail
13 hours ago
- Daily Mail
The lessons Britain can learn from Denmark's migrant crackdown: How nation has cut asylum claims by 90% with its 'zero refugee' policy
Sir Keir Starmer 's warning that uncontrolled immigration risks creating an 'island of strangers' has prompted fury across much of the British left - including excitable comparisons to Enoch Powell. But head to Denmark and you'll find their fellow-wingers aren't just outspoken about the need to tackle the issue - they've put their words into action, to dramatic effect. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen made tackling out-of-control immigration a key priority since coming to power in 2019, vowing to pursue a 'zero-refugee' policy that involves actively discouraging people from coming to the country. Despite this measure remaining controversial, no one can deny its success, with asylum claims dropping by almost 90 per cent over the past decade. Last year they plummeted to 2,333, while the UK total hit a record 108,138. And while Reform UK surged in this month's local elections on an anti-immigration ticket, right-wing parties with similar policies in Denmark performed poorly in the latest European elections. It's no surprise Britain's ailing Prime Minister is interested in Denmark's migration model, with Sir Keir meeting Mr Fredericksen at Downing Street in February to hear about her approach. With its impeccably liberal credentials, the Nordic country seems an unlikely source for some of the toughest migration policies in Europe. But, for Ms Frederiksen's Social Democrats, opposition to mass immigration is a sensible left-wing position, given its negative impacts mainly fall on those lower down the social ladder. 'No matter if you look at statistics on crimes or if you look at problems on the labor market, insecurity in local communities, it is the most vulnerable who experience the consequences [of uncontrolled migration],' Ms Frederiksen said in a widely-reported interview with Politico. She went on to describe mass migration into Europe as a 'threat to the daily life' of the continent, echoing comments made by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference. Denmark's tough approach to immigration dates back to the 2015 migration crisis, when annual asylum requests reached 21,316 in a country of only six million. The country famously banned the burka, the garment fully covering the face and body worn by devout Islamic women who'd been brought to the country by their husbands. New rules came in compelling all newcomers and their children to learn Danish or lose asylum-seeker benefits. In 2018, the country's previous government brought in the so-called 'anti-ghetto law', which aims to reduce the number of 'non-Western' residents in certain housing areas to less than 30 per cent by 2030. The rules, which were updated in 2021, give local authorities the right to set up 'prevention areas' where they can refuse to rent to those who are not originally from Denmark, the EU or EEA or Switzerland. Critics have called the policy discriminatory and they are currently being challenged in the European Court of Justice. However, they continue to receive support from cross-party MPs who urge something be done to force integration. Other policies appear to quite deliberately introduce a hostile environment for migrants. Asylum seekers refused the right to stay are denied benefits. They get food, served three times a day, at the country's two deportation camps They are sent to the camps to await removal by the Danish Returns Agency, which gets extra funds for results. As Danish immigration minister Kaare Dybvad Bek recently told the Mail: 'We stand very hard against giving migrants the right to remain here. If you're rejected as an asylum seeker, you have a very low possibility of staying in Denmark.' Controversially, Denmark's border force has powers to confiscate items such as jewellery and watches from incoming migrants to help fund the cost of their stay. Migrants who give up on Denmark and return home voluntarily are given a £4,500 sweetener to leave. And if a migrant's country of origin is deemed 'safe', such as Syria after the recent fall of President Bashar al-Assad, even a successful asylum seeker can lose Danish residency and face being returned home. Denmark also publishes league tables of criminal convictions based on the perpetrators' national origins, something the UK does not do, although Home Secretary Yvette Cooper recently agreed to publish such data by the end of this year. These tables show that offences, particularly by foreign-born gang members, became an increasing problem after 2015 - a difficult truth that has nonetheless bolstered public support for cutting migration. The latest polling shows that the Social Democrats remain by far the most popular party, with 22.9 per cent of the vote - nearly 10 points ahead of the second-biggest rival. By contrast, the Danish People's Party, which is usually described as far-Right, is on just 4.4 per cent, down from 21.1 per cent ten years ago. Considering Denmark's multi-party system, these are numbers Sir Keir could only dream of. During a visit to Albania last week, the Labour leader announced plans for a Rwanda-style scheme to deport failed asylum seekers to the Balkans while they await deportation - a policy that Denmark is advocating on the EU level using a yet to be determined 'third country'. He suggested he would be speaking with the country's PM, Edi Rama, about the idea of hosting some of these so-called 'return hubs' - only for him to immediately rule this out. Sir Keir's announcement, while botched, reflects his desperation to find a deterrent to Channel migrants following a surge in crossings since he came to power. Arrivals this year have topped 12,000 - an increase of 40 per cent on 2024. As he observes these numbers tick up - and the popularity of Reform and groups much further to the extremes rising with them - Sir Keir would do well to heed the advice of Danish immigration minister Kaare Dybvad Bek. 'There is no doubt in my mind that traditional political parties taking immigration seriously is the reason why we don't have large far-Right parties in Denmark,' he said in a recent interview. 'I think that is true for most European countries – if you take immigration back under democratic control, then you restrict how much the far-Right can grow.'
