To stop unaddressed junk mail you need to do two things. Signing up to Royal Mail's Door-to-Door Opt-Out will stop unaddressed mail delivered by the postman, and putting a 'No Junk Mail' sign on your letterbox will stop most other leaflets. Oh, and then there's the Your Choice Dummy Scheme, which is supposed to stop leaflets delivered by members of the Direct Marketing Association.

As I've mentioned about a hundred times before, there's no need to have opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail. Stopping unaddressed mail could and should be as easy as putting a 'No Junk Mail' sticker on your door. Any such sign would stop all commercial leaflets, regardless of whether they are delivered by Royal Mail, a local leaflet distributor, or the owner of a local take-away outlet. Why would you also need to register with one or two opt-out schemes? Why would you need to worry about whether a particular leaflet has been delivered by the postman, a company that is a member of the Direct Marketing Association or a local business?

The answer to this question is that Royal Mail and the Direct Marketing Association don't want you to say 'no' to junk mail. The more complicated stopping junk mail is, the more likely it is you'll give up and just digest any advertisements coming through the letterbox. Simple as that. Not that Royal Mail and the Direct Marketing Association would ever admit that this is their thinking. The official line is that people who refuse leaflets may miss 'important information'. They feel a need to ensure that you make an 'informed decision' about reducing junk mail.

Which begs this question: can unsolicited, unaddressed mail really be 'important information'? The answer, of course, is in the eye of the recipient. And, to be fair, there are some grey areas. Local council magazines, for instance; 94.5 per cent of local authorities produces a newspaper or magazine and these door-drops are often delivered by Royal Mail. If you sign up to the Door-to-Door Opt-Out you may no longer get local authority publications.

Regardless of what you make of local authority newspapers and magazines, it's worth noting that you'd not be forced to make an 'informed decision' if the Door-to-Door Opt-Out didn't exist and Royal Mail would simply respect 'No Junk Mail' signs. Although there is no agreed definition of 'junk mail' it's more or less accepted that this type of mail refers to unaddressed advertising mail. Magazines and newspapers produced by a local council are informative rather then commercial' a 'No Junk Mail' sign would therefore not stop them. A sign that reads 'No Junk Mail and Free Newspapers' would stop them. It might sound complicated at first, but just compare it with the current state of affairs; in order to make your 'informed decision' you need to have information about which door-drops are delivered by whom (Royal Mail, a member of the Direct Marketing Association or a local business) and which opt-out regime it comes under (the Door-to-Door Opt-Out, Your Choice or letterbox stickers). Now that's complicated!

Both Royal Mail and the Direct Marketing Association object that the distinction between commercial and non-commercial isn't always that clear-cut. 'What about local authority newspaper that carry advertisements?', they ask. 'Surely their existence justifies our bureaucratic opt-out schemes, even though nobody signs up to them?'

My reply to this is: use your brains and common sense. There'll always be plenty of unaddressed mail items that are not 100% commercial or non-commercial. But there will be very few that are not primarily commercial or non-commercial. A local authority magazine containing adverts would be non-commercial. And, if you really want to make the system water-proof, appoint an Ombudsman to whom people can complain if they feel a certain item is commercial junk disguised as information.

Reason for blabbing on about this is that Local Government secretary Eric Pickles recently had a go at local authority newspapers that compete with real newspapers. Mr Pickles wants councils to spend less time and money on weekly town hall Pravdas that and up in the bin. Instead he wants them to focus on things like regularly emptying the bins. Tougher rules to stop unfair competition by local authority newspaper will be announced, he promised.

Mr Pickles' comments follow a report on the future for local and regional media published in March by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The report concluded that a growing number of local authority publications are competing with local newspapers. Not only does this divert advertising spend away from independent newspapers, it is also a concern because local authority publications are not sufficiently objective or independent (it seems odd to even suggest that they may have something to do with journalism at all, but then journalism and PR are often confused). The Committee was particularly concerned about publications such as the Hammersmith and Fulham News:

Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council's H&F News looks very much like a local newspaper. It is a tabloid in format and, in the 20 October 2009 edition which we saw, there was nothing on the front cover that indicated it was a local authority publication. H&F News follows the format of a local newspaper, with news, features and sport, as well as carrying a substantial amount of classified advertising, including extensive recruitment and property adverts.

The edition of H&F News that we saw also contained an article entitled: 'Businesses brace for huge rates rise' which contained extensive quotes from Conservative Councillor Mark Loveday, of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, on Government policy, with no balancing viewpoint.

Interesting to see if there will be a response from H&F News. So far they've remained silent.

Anyway, the Daily Telegraph broke the news and chose an interesting headline: Eric Pickles bans councils from producing freesheets, which threaten local newspapers. The headline suggests that there might be a point blank ban on local authority propaganda but this isn't quite the case.

A storm in a glass of water then? Pretty much so. Apart from the H&F News there don't seem to be that many local authority newspapers that compete with local newspapers. This reaction from East Staffordshire Borough Council is, I think, a good example of how most local councils will respond to Mr Pickles' comments. Not only is competition not that much of an issue, it can also be argued that not having to spend money on advertising public notices in local newspapers provides best value for money.

Still, I reckon it would be good news if local councils would place public notices in local newspapers again and if papers such as the H&F News would be abolished. Independent papers are struggling and need the income (are local councils really providing best value for money by placing public notices in their own magazines?) and the comparison between papers such as the H&F News and the Pravda is perfectly valid. And, from the junk mail perspective, a ban on councils trying to divert advertising spend away from local newspapers would stop the Direct Marketing Association raising silly objections to perfectly simple solutions.