Jump to content
BANGKOK 22 April 2019 11:00

7by7

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    20,645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 7by7


  1. 32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

    "Walking from there, I passed many of the demonstrators at Oxford Circus. Most of whom were carrying plastic bags, drinking water from plastic bottles and eating takeaway food in single use polystyrene or plastic containers!"

     

    I guess if you say so. 

     

    But here's a thing, I wonder when the idea of plastics being a threat to the environment entered your thinking and how?!

     These people have done nothing to  make me more aware of pollution, climate change or any other environmental issue.

     

    Issues I have been aware of and joining legitimate campaigns about since the 1970s.

     

    None of which alters my comment that "These people who claim to care about the environment are not only causing a huge deterioration of Central London's air quality, they are also producing a huge amount of non biodegradable, plastic waste!"

     

    Do you find that acceptable?


  2. 49 minutes ago, durhamboy said:

    1. You say my wife could be my American cousin (!!!!). Ok probably you meant to say Thai cousin as she has a Thai passport. I would obviously take our marriage certificate with us and an official translation.

    Read my post again: I did not say that she may be your American cousin; I said she may be the spouse/partner of your American cousin. I said this because her FLR residence permit does not name you, so she could be the spouse/partner of someone else who may not necessarily be British, another EU/EEA national or Swiss.

     

    Your marriage certificate does prove your relationship, and that may satisfy immigration at your port of entry to The Netherlands; but will it satisfy your airline's check in staff who probably aren't fully aware of the requirements? If it doesn't, then your wife will not be allowed to board. Want to take that chance?

     

    56 minutes ago, durhamboy said:

    2. Yes the guidance you quoted is based upon the directive but it is not the directive itself and the words that you highlighted are, as far as I can see, not in the directive nor are there any similar words.

     

    I originally linked to and quoted from the guidance to keep it simple; but have linked to and quoted from the directive itself since.

     

    Here is that link again, this time with the full title so you cannot confuse it with the guidance.: DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC

     

    Both the guidance and the directive itself clearly state that your wife needs a visa, whether obtained in advance or at the border, due to her having a UK residence card as the spouse/partner of an unnamed individual, not as a family member of a Union citizen.

     

    I have quoted from the directive to show that the words "family member of a Union citizen" must appear on that residence card.

     

    To be honest, I can't be arsed to trawl through the directive to see if the words "except the country you are a national of" or similar appear because she does not have a residence card as a family member of a Union citizen and so needs a visa anyway.

     

    1 hour ago, durhamboy said:

    3. You say "Your wife's FLR residence permit is not a residence card of a family member of a Union citizen. It makes no mention of her being so anywhere on it and was issued under the UK's immigration rules, not the EEA regulations."

    So what does "Spouse/Partner" mean to you especially when we have the same name and we are travelling together with our marriage cert? Yes her card is issued under UK's immigration rules but isn't that true of all (or perhaps nearly all) cards issued in the EU i.e. they are issued under the immigration rules of the respective countries where they live? By the way, where did you get that sample residence card, from what website?

    A member's  immigration rules are separate and apart from their EEA regulations. The latter applies to EEA and Swiss nationals and their qualifying family members and are based upon, and include all the requirements of, the FoM directive. The former are not and are set and amended by the individual member state's government with no need to comply with any EU ruling or directive whatsoever. Although the rules and requirements are the same for all the Schengen states they are applied without reference to the FoM directive unless the applicant is a qualifying family member of an EWU/EEA/Swiss national.

     

    Your wife's FLR residence permit was issued under the UK immigration rules, not the UK's EEA regulations. If it had been issued under the EEA regulations it would have the words "family member of a Union citizen" on it! Does it?

     

    "Spouse/partner" means what it says. As I said before, that you have the same name does not prove she is your spouse/partner. Leaving possible American cousins aside, I have the same surname as my brother's wife; but she is not my spouse/partner!

     

    She would also have exactly the same residence card with exactly the same wording on it were she the wife of a non Brit, e.g. American, who had ILR in the UK. 

     

    I took the picture of the residence card from page 10 of the government's An employer’s guide to acceptable right to work documents. 

     

    1 hour ago, durhamboy said:

    4. Furthermore you say quite categorically that she needs a visa. So would that also include a visa on arrival?

    Yes, and I have always said as much!

    On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 11:37 AM, 7by7 said:

    However, it should be possible for her to obtain that visa at her port of entry

     

    But as I have said, theoldgit has said, Donutz, rasg has said; getting to the port of entry may not be possible as your airline may refuse to board her without a visa!

     

    Want to take that chance?

    1 hour ago, durhamboy said:

    You say that there is no hidden agenda by anyone. That is a pretty bold statement. I merely suggested that there may be vested interests in play

    What vested interests?

     

    Why would anyone want to hide the facts; even though your wife needs a visa, it will be issued free of charge so there is no money to be made by hiding the truth.

     

     

    1 hour ago, durhamboy said:

    You further say that the rules and regulations are there for all to see in the actual directives and guidance. Problem is that the directive (38) and the guidance are not entirely in sync therefore causing confusion. 

     

    The only possible difference between what is in the guidance and the directive is your claim that the directive does not say "except the country you are a national of" or similar. As I have already said, I can't be arsed to trawl through to see if you are correct or not for the simple reason that your wife does not have a residence card as the family member of an EU national issued under the EEA regulations!

     

    Therefore, as both the guidance and the directive clearly say, she needs a visa regardless of whether or not the words "except the country you are a national of" or similar appear anywhere in the directive.

     

    1 hour ago, durhamboy said:

    Btw, my username gives no indication as to where I live and it shouldn't be inferred that it does.

    Fair enough; but London is not your only option for her to apply, and either Manchester or Edinburgh may be closer.

     

    At least four people have advised you she needs a visa and it's best for her to get it in advance.

     

    Up to you; get her visa in advance or be prepared to be denied boarding when you get to the airport.

     

    I know what I would do.

    • Like 1

  3. Unlike, I suspect, anyone else here, I have been caught up in this demonstration as on Thursday as I had to get to client's premises in Mortimer Street (just north of Oxford Street) and then from there to Pelham Crescent in South Kensington; carrying the tools I needed to do my work, which are heavy and cumbersome so public transport is out of the question.

     

    Fortunately, I was able to avoid the illegal demonstration on Waterloo Bridge and that at Marble Arch, but the road closures due to the illegal demonstrations at Piccadilly Circus and Oxford Circus meant myself and others had to crawl along in a stop start manner (worse than even the usual peak hours) to try and find alternative routes. Which, of course, vastly increased the amount of polluting exhaust we emitted. Hugely reducing the air quality inside London's Ultra Low Emissions Zone!

     

    I eventually gave up trying to get from south of Oxford Street to the site in Mortimer Street and parked my vehicle in Poland Street (Soho) Car Park.

     

    Walking from there, I passed many of the demonstrators at Oxford Circus. Most of whom were carrying plastic bags, drinking water from plastic bottles and eating takeaway food in single use polystyrene or plastic containers!

     

    These people who claim to care about the environment are not only causing a huge deterioration of Central London's air quality, they are also producing a huge amount of non biodegradable, plastic waste!

     

     


  4. 19 minutes ago, durhamboy said:

    The schengen area has been in existence for 24 years (since 1995) and the EU directive 38 on free movement commenced 15 years ago (2004).

     The 2004 directive contains nothing new. What it did is bring all the various regulations in many other directives into one place. See para 4 of the preamble.

     

    There is no hidden agenda by anyone; the rules and requirements as well as the rights of EU/EEA/Swiss nationals and their family members are there for all to see, both in the actual directive and the guidance linked to earlier.


  5. @durhamboy

     

    The Freedom of Movement directive makes no mention of the Schengen agreement for the simple reason that whilst all Schengen states are members of the EU, not all EU members are members of Schengen; the UK and RoI are not. Nether are the EEA states. Yet all these are covered by the FoM directive.

     

    You wife's residence permit says she is a spouse/partner, but not who that spouse partner is. That she is travelling with you and you have the same surname does not prove that she is your spouse/partner. She may be that of your American cousin!

     

    The guidance I linked to and quoted earlier is based upon the directive itself

    Quote

    Article 5 para 2

    2.   Family members who are not nationals of a Member State shall only be required to have an entry visa in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 or, where appropriate, with national law. For the purposes of this Directive, possession of the valid residence card referred to in Article 10 shall exempt such family members from the visa requirement.

     

    Article 10 para 1

    1.   The right of residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State shall be evidenced by the issuing of a document called "Residence card of a family member of a Union citizen”.....................….

     Your wife's FLR residence permit is not a residence card of a family member of a Union citizen. It makes no mention of her being so anywhere on it and was issued under the UK's immigration rules, not the EEA regulations.

     

    If it were, it would look like this:

    type3

     

    She needs a visa, and for the reasons amply explained by others, it is best if she obtains this before you travel.

     

    But you do not need to travel to London; there are Netherlands visa application centres in Manchester and Edinburgh. Surely, based on your usernbame, one of those is closer. See EU/EEA and Swiss national family member. 

     

     


  6. On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 3:36 PM, durhamboy said:

    Interestingly the EU Directive 38 does not even mention the word "schengen". It refers to Member States which the UK still is.

    The directive applies to all EEA members and Switzerland, not just the Schengen states.

     

    On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 3:36 PM, durhamboy said:

     

    I am wondering if anyone really knows the answer to this question.

    @Donutz does, and he has given his reply. @rasg has also related his experience.

     

    On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 3:50 PM, durhamboy said:

    the non-EU spouse of a UK national requires a visa to travel to the Schengen Area. However, if the following conditions are met then they are not required a visa:

    • The spouse holds a UK Residence Permit that states that the holder is a family member of an EU/EEA National.
    • Travelling with or joining the EEA/EU spouse."

    The words "family member of an EU/EEA national" or similar. must appear on her residence permit for her not to need a visa. 

     

    Your wife has FLR and so a residence permit issued under the UK immigration rules. Therefore her permit does not say that she is a family member of an EU/EEA national. Only EEA family permits issued under the directive will say that.

     

    Even if she did have an EEA family permit, if it was issued by the UK and you are British then she would still need a visa.

     

    From Travel documents for non-EU family members 

    Quote

    Visa exemptions

    Your non-EU spouse, (grand) children or (grand) parents do not need to get a visa from the country they are travelling to if:

    They have a residence card as an EU family member, issued under EU rules by any EU country (except the country you are a national of), and they are travelling together with you or travelling to join you in another EU country. The residence card should clearly state that the holder is a family member of an EU national.

    (7by7 emphasis)

     

    However, it should be possible for her to obtain that visa at her port of entry:

    Quote

    Arriving at the border without an entry visa

    It is always best for your non-EU family members to be well informed in advance and have all the necessary documents before starting their journey.

    However, if they arrive at the border without an entry visa, the border authorities should give them the opportunity to prove by other means that they are your family members. If they manage to prove it, they should be issued with an entry visa on the spot.

     As that says, to avoid delays, or even, as @theoldgit said, being denied boarding by your airline, it is best for her to obtain the "necessary documents" such as a visa in advance before you travel.

    • Like 1

  7. On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 8:00 PM, Bob Bucks said:

    her last six months payslips equate to £9,500 appx. This is due to the addition hours that have been offered and worked

    Presumably this is overtime and shown as such on her payslips? If so, it is taken into account when calculating her gross annual income. See Section 5.5.24 para 18(b) on page 35of the financial requirement appendix.

     

    P60s are not mandatory. If she has all the mandatory documents, see section 5.6 on page 37,  and they show that the requirement is met, then there is no reason I can think of why the decision maker would ask for her P60. See section 5.6 para 2(ii)(d).

     

    Edit: Sent PM as well.


  8. 5 hours ago, evadgib said:

    Well spotted 49 😎

    (We had noticed too!)

    Is that the Royal we?

     

    Because if by 'we' you mean you and your fellow Brexiteers, it is obvious that many of them hadn't; including @Patriot1066 to whom I was responding after he claimed that her vote swung the result.

     

    It didn't; the votes of the two convicted felons, neither of whom should have been there in my opinion, cancelled each other out.

    • Like 1

  9. 6 hours ago, evadgib said:

    - We voted in 2016, a vote that has yet to be delivered and on which my view hasn't changed.

    - The Electorate voted to leave or remain full stop

    As I said to you in the post you quoted, and have said many times before, Leave meant many different things to many different people. 

     

    How many voted for a no deal Brexit in which we would join Mauretania in trading only on WTO terms without any trade agreements with anyone; not even our biggest trading partner?

     

    How many voted to leave, but have a Swiss type of deal afterwards?

     

    How many voted for something in between those two extremes?

     

    Do you know? I don't.

     

    No one in the Leave campaign ever told us what leaving would actually mean. This is probably because, as Rees-Mogg has admitted, they had no idea at the time!

     

    6 hours ago, evadgib said:

    Names & labels (Brexiteers? Unicorns?) appeared as sticks to beat the successful participants with as soon as the result was known.

    Maybe you didn't notice out there, but here in the UK the label Remoaner appeared at the same time as Brexiteer; if not before!

     

    6 hours ago, evadgib said:

    

    - Two of your three options split the leave vote, providing unfair advantage if such folly gained traction.

    I thought you would have known how the alternative vote system works. 

     

    A brief explanation.

     

    In this case, three options on the ballot paper:

    1) Leave with May's deal.

    2)Leave with no deal.

    3) Cancel Article 50 and Remain.

     

    Each voter marks their first and second choice; leaving the third blank.

     

    In the first round of counting, only the first choices are counted. If any option receives 50% plus one of these that is declared the winner.

     

    If not, then the option with the fewest first choices is eliminated and the second choices on those papers allocated to the appropriate option.

     

    This gives the winner.

     

    So, unless the remain option receives more than 50% of the first choices it will lose.

     

    Unless it is a leave option which is eliminated after the first count and enough of those who voted for that option put remain as their second choice for it to win! How likely is that?

     

    As I said to nontabury; the odds on a leave option winning are 2/1 on, whilst the odds on the remain option winning are 2/1 against!

    • Like 1

  10. 7 hours ago, nontabury said:

    My apologies for shortening your rant,but they do become boring after a time.

    Three points I would like to make. 

    You ask who would we prefer to make the decision. Well 17.400.000+ British people did just that,in 2016. And then in 2017,when 83% of the British electorate voted for parties that included the clause that they would respect and abide by the people’s decision of 2016, to leave this so called union.

    But, as Rees-Mogg amongst other Brexiteers has now admitted,  no one knew at those times how we would leave nor what our future relationship would be with the EU afterwards. That is what parliament cannot decide; so let the people do so.

     

    7 hours ago, nontabury said:

    No one stated your Father MUST have fought for the Nazis.I simple asked the question, “which side did your father fight on” for which I received another holiday. So another play on words by you.

    The implication was clear; as I said to you at the time and you have not, until now, denied. Too little, too late.

     

    7 hours ago, nontabury said:

    And as for your solution to this Parliamentary impas, it’s basically :-

    No, I suggest three options on an AV system; two of which are leave.

     

    So the odds on a leave option winning are 2/1 on, whilst the odds on the remain option winning are 2/1 against!

     

     

     


  11. 3 minutes ago, nontabury said:

     Unfortunately for your biased opinions, if Labour M.p’s , the majority of whome support our country being shackled to the E.u. While the vast majority of Labour supporters want us out of the E.u.

    Again it’s now a case of the people versus the House Of Collaborators.

    Yet another Brexiteer who has to resort to calling my opinions biased because they are not the same as his yet he has no argument with which to counter mine!

     

    My opinions are just as biased as yours! Just as valid, too.

     

    Whatever the reason for Labour not supporting May's deal, the fact is that Parliament can't or wont make a decision; so let the people decide.

     

    As you are a believer in democracy who also feels betrayed by what you call 'the House of Collaborators' I would have thought you'd be in favour of taking the decision out of the hands of the 'Collaborators' hands and giving it to the people!

     

    That would be true democracy!

    • Haha 1

  12. 4 minutes ago, Basil B said:

    I am going to be pedantic now.

     

    AV not STV big difference, STV is useful when electing multiple candidates but complicated as surplus votes have to be worked out in fractions, also for a referendum counted in many different centres it would be a logistical nightmare to conduct. 

     

    A good explanation on STV Vs AV: https://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/a-very-short-guide-to-stv-and-av-elections/

     

     Ok, whatever it's called.


  13. 1 minute ago, Patriot1066 said:

    The law as it stands says we left on the 29th Remain rely on a convicted fraudster in the last vote how great the UK politics is

     

    Thailand is more democratic!

    Onasanya was convicted of perverting the course of justice, not fraud.

     

    She is suspended from the Labour party, and in my opinion she should have been suspended from Parliament as well. Had she received a sentence of 12 months or more she would have been automatically barred from being an MP and there would have been a by election in which she could not have stood.

     

    But she didn't, so it's up to her constituency to start a recall petition which they have done. this would need to be signed by at least 10% of registered voters there for a by election to be called. She could, if she wished, stand in this by election. Public notice of petition to remove the MP for Peterborough Fiona Onasany.

     

    Unless and until she is recalled, she is still an MP and so entitled to vote in divisions. No matter how daft that sounds.

     

    But her vote for was cancelled out by that of Chris Davies who voted against. Davies is currently awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to two charges of fraud. 

    • Like 1

  14. 4 hours ago, evadgib said:

    I would prefer to leave on Friday without a deal and to keep both hands on our finances/assets until agreement is reached afterwards & in the meantime resorting to WTO.

    But that would mean Parliament agreeing to this by then; which it wont.

     

    So I ask you again; as Parliament wont decide, who would you prefer to make the decision on this matter; the EU or the British public?

     

    4 hours ago, evadgib said:

    With hindsight Cameron & Co should have thrashed everything out beforehand.

    Cameron did; he had renegotiated the terms of our membership. That is the deal that was on offer at the time of the referendum. That was the deal we would have had if we had voted to remain. You may not have liked that deal, but it was there.

     

    4 hours ago, evadgib said:

    He & his cabinet are entirely responsible for this 21st century & oh so British civil war

    Nothing to do with Cameron; except that we wouldn't be in this mess had he not called a referendum!

     

    May negotiated the best deal possible. That deal was not acceptable to the ECG nor the DUP. So they voted against it each and every time. As did Labour.

     

    At least the ECG and DUP voted against it on principle; unlike Labour who voted against it because it was May's deal, not Corbyn's!

     

    4 hours ago, evadgib said:

    et popular opinion & the media instead prefer to paint 'the other side' with whatever label takes their fancy. In the case of Leavers (by Remainers) those typical insults include;

     

    "Ficker than us" yet were educated in the very same schools/colleges/uni's.

     

    "Far Right" while actually being perfectly moderate albeit a little miffed as is entirely in keeping with British culture.

    Yes, some Remainers do stoop to insults, but so do some Brexiteers! What's sauce for the goose etc.

     

    In these various Brexit threads i have been called everything from an elitist Tory toff to a far left traitor who hates my country. One member even stated that my Father must have fought for the Nazis in the war!

     

    4 hours ago, evadgib said:

    "Hard" simply for expecting what they voted for

    What exactly did Brexiteers vote for?

     

    Some voted for a complete cut of all ties with the EU and the lunacy of joining Mauretania in being a country with no trade deals with any of our trading partners; let alone our largest.

     

    Some voted simply to leave the administrative, legislative and judiciary parts of the EU, but keep the customs union and free market.

     

    Some voted to stop immigrants.

     

    Etc., etc..

     

    Even your hero Jacob admitted a couple of weeks ago that he had no idea what form Brexit  would take at the time of the referendum!

     

    4 hours ago, evadgib said:

    rather than accepting a watered down version forced upon them by the losing team with the assistance of a thoroughly untrustworthy Parliament filled to the gunwales with remainers (see earlier comment re Cameron).

    As said, your earlier comment about Cameron is incorrect.

     

    As for the rest, I agree; Parliament has shown itself to be incapable of making a decision, so let the people decide in a legally binding STV referendum:

    1. leave with May's deal (as amended if so),
    2. leave with no deal,
    3. cancel Article 50 and remain.

    But such an idea is an anathema to many Brexiteers who claim to support democracy but are against this simple, democratic way of resolving the impasse!

     

    As shown earlier, whilst May's plan is to keep on asking the EU for extension after extension in the vain hope she can get Parliament to agree to her plan, as amended, support for a second referendum is growing among MPs. So hopefully it will happen before the EU loses all patience with us and kicks us out with no deal.

     


  15. 11 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

    Incorrect your have forgotten about the fullfact claim that 

    You can sign the Revoke Article 50 petition using any name you want.

    and their 

    Conclusion

    It is possible to sign using a false name.

    And you have forgotten the rest of the article in which they confirm if fraud is used to sign multiple times those signatures are removed when, not if, spotted and that those who use any fraud to sign multiple times are not told their signatures have been removed.

     

    No one is saying the system is foolproof; but it is not as open to abuse as you are trying to convince people. But let's assume that as many as 25% of the signatures are fraudulent, that still leaves well over 4 million which are genuine!

     

    BTW. you haven't said why you tried to convince people that your Farage deception was the words of Full Fact. Ever going to do so?


  16. Just now, vinny41 said:

    Who cares about percentages I don't but I do know 286 MP voting for May deal is a higher number than the 268 voting for a  2nd referendum May deal vote had 18 more MP's than the 2nd referendum deal vote

     

    17 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

    As i said before, if you have a problem with the article using the percentages of those who actually voted, take it up with The New Statesman!

     But you are missing the point; 268 MPs voted in favour of a second referendum. That is a significant number, no matter how many voted for May's deal.

     

    Of course, that support for a second referendum is growing both inside and outside parliament is an anathema to you and your fellow Brexiteers; it's the last thing you want!

    • Haha 1

  17. 5 hours ago, evadgib said:

    - If i'm against anything it's their failure to deliver.

    - Wasting more time.

     

    I, too, am against Parliament's failure to deliver.

     

    A failure caused by Corbyn playing party politics rather than putting the country first. Had he done the right thing and given his MPs a free vote then this matter would been done and dusted long ago and we'd have left on the 29th March as originally scheduled.

     

    Wasting more time? What is more time wasting than asking the EU to extend, extend, extend ad infinitum because parliament can't or wont agree. Eventually the EU will lose patience with us (I'm amazed they haven't already) and say that as we can't agree a deal,  it's no deal.

     

    Whether you believe no deal to be the best option or not; who would you rather make that decision; the EU or the British public in a democratic, legally binding referendum?


  18. 5 hours ago, vinny41 said:

    Is it possible to repeatedly sign a parliamentary petition using the same email address?

    Claim

    You can sign the Revoke Article 50 petition repeatedly using the same email address.

    You can sign the Revoke Article 50 petition using any name you want.

    Conclusion

    It’s possible to use the same email address twice but no more than that.

    It is possible to sign using a false name.

    A House of Commons spokesperson told us it’s possible to sign a petition up to two times from the same email address, but no more than that.

    So anyone creating an email address in the name of Nigel Farage@gmail.com looking up his home address is able to vote for a petition that everyone knows that Nigel wouldn't sign up for 

    https://fullfact.org/europe/possible-repeatedly-sign-parliamentary-petition/?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=first_row

    Is there any reason why you didn't out your quote from Full Fact into a quote box?

     

    More importantly; why did you add "So anyone creating an email address in the name of Nigel Farage@gmail.com looking up his home address is able to vote for a petition that everyone knows that Nigel wouldn't sign up for" before the link and without starting a new paragraph so that it looks to the casual reader who hasn't read the actual article to be the words of Full Fact when they are actually your words?

     

    I can see one reason for your deception; the article actually confirms what I have been saying!

     

    Quote

    A House of Commons spokesperson told us “Many people share an email account with a partner or do not have access to email. To ensure that the petitions system is as accessible as possible, up to two people can sign from the same email address. An email address can only be used twice.

    “The number of these signatures is strictly monitored to ensure that this feature is not abused. The number of these signatures on the article 50 petition is within the normal range—around 1%.

    “The Government Digital Service have a number of ways of identifying and preventing fraudulent activity based around blocking, removing and monitoring signatures as appropriate.

    “Some types of fraud are monitored to ensure that it does not affect the integrity of the petition. Evidence of fraud may affect whether the Petitions Committee choose to act on the petition.

    “We do not comment in detail on fraud. Ideally someone who has tried to fraudulently sign the petition would never realise that they have failed.”

     

    I have to wonder why you linked to it at all; did you not read it?

     

    Or maybe you did, but hoped others wouldn't and your brief actual quote added to your Farage deception would work and convince people the petition is seriously flawed?

     

    But surely you can't think your fellow Brexiteers are that stupid! Can you?


  19. 12 minutes ago, evadgib said:

    If you can answer questions 6 months in advance please confirm who wins the Rugby World Cup?

    I asked you 

    1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

    Drafted and to be submitted by whom?

     

    How will you overcome the objections to this I raised earlier...….

     How is that asking you to answer questions 6 months in advance?

     

    Addendum; You've plenty of time to think of a proper answer as I'm off for my dinner and then the pub.

     


  20. 10 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

    Show me the post where i stated " I have stated many times on these forums that all petitions are pointless and worthless without a correct verification process in place" in December December is your timeframe not mine

    Yet again I repeat:

     

    I cannot show you such a post because I believe it does not exist.

     

    I believe that you most definitely did not question the validity of pro Brexit petitions last December and only started to question the validity of Parliamentary petitions at all when this pro Remain one achieved it's record number of signatures.

     

     

     

     


  21. 8 minutes ago, evadgib said:

    A common belief in our camp is that a second referendum would deliver a much bigger landslide in our favour. I don't want one but have no fear whatsoever if they head in that direction.

    So why are you all so against taking the decision out of the hands of a Parliament who can't or wont decide and giving it to the people to decide?

     

    If you are so confident that you'll win, what have you to fear?

     

    (Sorry if that's too long for you to read, but I don't see how I could have made it shorter!)

×
×
  • Create New...