On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:27:36 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <hn4f1illnirvk9e414hkmsvik43ffu0rjb@4ax.com>, at 23:13:57 on
>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:59:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <ld3d1i9v68254hbg4g3fa1ada400ocm0eq@4ax.com>, at 04:25:39 on
>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:24:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <l0a21itdsvcphnk6hll8lrt4c093ae77ug@4ax.com>, at 02:06:52 on
>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
>>>>>>>anonymous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>So that is one card that might be more secure than some of the others.
>>>>>
>>>>>How many of the classes of bus-pass approved for voter-ID don't have a
>>>>>photo on them?
>>>>>
>>>>Try "How many bus passes don't have the photograph of the true holder
>>>>on them?".
>>>
>>>Sounds like a good topic for an FOI on a representative sample of
>>>issuers.
>>>
>>>But why pick bus passes - some people have false passports.
>>>
>>A bus pass involves rather less critical circumstances (thus involves
>>lower security standards) than a passport.
>
>And hence because the rewards are higher, wouldn't one expect far more
>forged passports than forged bus passes?
>
No. One is low level crime, the other is high level crime with more
risk of severe consequences.

>>>>>Assuming there's no such thing as a photo-smartcard vending machine,
>>>>>they'll have (like bus passes and blue badges) some sort of application
>>>>>process, with the card then sent out in the post - so there's an address
>>>>>involved.
>>>>>
>>>>Which is not inevitably that of the person collecting it from the pile
>>>>of post at many HMOs.
>>>
>>>Which is true of numerous items of value sent through the post. Each
>>>project has its own risk assessment. I forget what it was, but had a
>>>letter recently marked "do not redirect", which was aimed at the postie
>>>who might otherwise have run it through the commissioned redirection
>>>scheme (rather than the person now living at that address, who might or
>>>might not have a relevant forwarding address to hand).
>>>
>>"Do not redirect" is not aimed at the delivery staff but at the
>>returned letter section who get the letters back from the recipents
>>who actually bother to put them back in the post.
>
>That's plain wrong. It's *precisely* aimed at the posties who would
>otherwise by-rote redirect the mail to the addressee's purported new
>address.
>
Delivery staff do not intentionally redirect letters; that is done at
the sorting office. Otherwise it is done by people at the delivery
address when they can be bothered and dealt with separately at the
sorting office. It fails if the original address is still visible to
OCR (i.e. you haven't crossed through/over the original address)
and/or the machine sorting marks are not spoiled; that is why you can
get the same letter coming back again.

>The aim is to circumvent instances of where a person's address has been
>fraudulently signed up for redirection.
>
All the "Do Not Redirect" letters I deal with are ones where the
different address invalidates the subject matter, most recently from
ATGC.

In message <t0mm1i586e71ju9154au5uj2ir7921321j@4ax.com>, at 19:35:41 on
Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:20:51 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <ov3f1ill8jolg50trnn9olvjpccsbui7gi@4ax.com>, at 22:47:49 on
>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:45:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <9n1d1idm6l8d2nhrajcp7ononp90nsh0e1@4ax.com>, at 04:01:16 on
>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>If you try following me into some places waving your bus pass
>>>>>>>>>then you will find yourself with a large chap/ess sitting on you or
>>>>>>>>>shoving their gun up your nose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What an odd place to a have a polling booth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am not referring to polling booths; I am referring to a place where
>>>>>>>a bus pass is definitely not accepted as ID despite being accepted as
>>>>>>>such by other parts of officialdom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What possible enlightenment are we supposed to gain from such a
>>>>>>statement of the obvious?
>>>>>>
>>>>>That you will start an argument and then claim there is no argument?
>>>>
>>>>I didn't wish to have an argument, let alone start one. You appear to
>>>>have chip on you shoulder about voter-ID in general (but that ship
>>>>sailed long ago) and make disparaging remarks about the people
>>>>implementing it.
>>>>
>>>Many people have your perceived "chip". We don't like an inherently
>>>dishonest government implying that the voters are significantly
>>>dishonest.
>>
>>No, the chip on your shoulder is just as much about your implication
>>that the people implementing the political decision (made by a
>>democratically elected government) are incompetent.
>>
>Wrong.
>I am not implying anything about the competence of those running
>polling places.

Actually you have done exactly that - querying their training/competence
to verify the admittedly wide range of voter-ID they might have thrust
in front of them. And by extension, querying the competence of those
tasked with training them.

But that wasn't what I meant. It was about the people involved in the
vetting/selection process for suitable forms of ID to add to the
permitted list.

>>>Many people also recognise that there is no general problem
>>>to be dealt with rather than odd localised occurrences which have been
>>>dealt with under existing law and which do not evince that there is a
>>>general problem to be solved.
>>>See also sledgehammer v. nut.
>>
>>That ship sailed years ago. Where were you then?
>>
>Did you see this ship sail?

I was watching others sail. Too many ships, not enough time.

Thus, when I had a moan the other week about council officer ID badges
not being on the list, I knew I was partly to blame; because had I been
watching the ship, I might have brought up that omission before it
sailed.

People could then have come up with plausible reasons not to include it
(for example they don't have an address on them, if that matters - but
neither does a bus pass). But at least I would have tried.
--
Roland Perry

In message <a5mm1i9i5n7ubvk7kv1f5te8pvv0qnsukq@4ax.com>, at 19:36:36 on
Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:22:58 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <sc4f1i5cpoibq4kbdud7kqadkleg2hvu84@4ax.com>, at 22:55:18 on
>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:47:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <i92d1idqrrkl94f0q0v5dn3m2p36c0eurm@4ax.com>, at 04:20:08 on
>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:20:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at 01:32:49 on
>>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>
>>>>>>>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of
>>>>>>>>the card issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going
>>>>>>>>to take careful steps to make sure the person applying is who they
>>>>>>>>say they are. A Scotrail photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who
>>>>>>>>uploads a photo and types in a name on the website.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>>>>>>>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>>>>>>>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>>>>>>>be non-existent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't feature on
>>>>>>the list for Voter-ID.
>>>>>>
>>>>>A Voter Authority Certificate only requires submission of a NI number
>>>>>and a photograph. Where is the security in that?
>>>>
>>>>Sufficient for the purposes of the scheme.
>>>>
>>>>>It can also be issued without supplying an NI number but the list of
>>>>>documents is still not proof against personation as the list of
>>>>>alternative documents can still be ultimately founded upon the use of
>>>>>another person's birth registration. The number of people likely to be
>>>>>doing it is probably still miniscule thus it remains as a non-problem
>>>>>that doesn't need solving.
>>>>
>>>>Others disagree. I don't think it's as difficult as some people make out
>>>>to obtain something sufficient to allow one to vote - most complaints
>>>>are about the non-problem of people who might.
>>>>
>>>When it draws criticism from across the media ranging from the Morning
>>>Star to the Daily Express and others in between then there is clearly
>>>something widely regarded as wrong with voter ID and that there is not
>>>a "non-problem".
>>
>>They should have spoken up years ago, not now it's a done deal.
>>
>>Heavens above, you make Remoaners look like angels.
>>
>What has it got to do with the EU?

Not the EU, but people who have been given that name as a result of a
perception they can't accept that a different ship has sailed.
--
Roland Perry

In message <97mm1itj5s2f5ernkk9poflfo7t1ddn0g9@4ax.com>, at 19:52:34 on
Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:27:36 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <hn4f1illnirvk9e414hkmsvik43ffu0rjb@4ax.com>, at 23:13:57 on
>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:59:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <ld3d1i9v68254hbg4g3fa1ada400ocm0eq@4ax.com>, at 04:25:39 on
>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:24:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <l0a21itdsvcphnk6hll8lrt4c093ae77ug@4ax.com>, at 02:06:52 on
>>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
>>>>>>>>anonymous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So that is one card that might be more secure than some of the others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How many of the classes of bus-pass approved for voter-ID don't have a
>>>>>>photo on them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Try "How many bus passes don't have the photograph of the true holder
>>>>>on them?".
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like a good topic for an FOI on a representative sample of
>>>>issuers.
>>>>
>>>>But why pick bus passes - some people have false passports.
>>>>
>>>A bus pass involves rather less critical circumstances (thus involves
>>>lower security standards) than a passport.
>>
>>And hence because the rewards are higher, wouldn't one expect far more
>>forged passports than forged bus passes?
>>
>No. One is low level crime, the other is high level crime with more
>risk of severe consequences.
>
>>>>>>Assuming there's no such thing as a photo-smartcard vending machine,
>>>>>>they'll have (like bus passes and blue badges) some sort of application
>>>>>>process, with the card then sent out in the post - so there's an address
>>>>>>involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Which is not inevitably that of the person collecting it from the pile
>>>>>of post at many HMOs.
>>>>
>>>>Which is true of numerous items of value sent through the post. Each
>>>>project has its own risk assessment. I forget what it was, but had a
>>>>letter recently marked "do not redirect", which was aimed at the postie
>>>>who might otherwise have run it through the commissioned redirection
>>>>scheme (rather than the person now living at that address, who might or
>>>>might not have a relevant forwarding address to hand).
>>>>
>>>"Do not redirect" is not aimed at the delivery staff but at the
>>>returned letter section who get the letters back from the recipents
>>>who actually bother to put them back in the post.
>>
>>That's plain wrong. It's *precisely* aimed at the posties who would
>>otherwise by-rote redirect the mail to the addressee's purported new
>>address.
>>
>Delivery staff do not intentionally redirect letters; that is done at
>the sorting office.

Traditionally by the delivery people, when they are sorting their round
into a convenient order for them to pull sequentially out of their bag.

>Otherwise it is done by people at the delivery address when they can be
>bothered and dealt with separately at the sorting office.

That's a completely different stage, and too late for the purposes of
the people who addressed the mail.

>It fails if the original address is still visible to OCR (i.e. you
>haven't crossed through/over the original address) and/or the machine
>sorting marks are not spoiled; that is why you can get the same letter
>coming back again.

Not only is that once again a completely different class of redirection,
but it's not an OCR machine which re-addresses mail that people have
paid to have redirected (for three/six months or whatever).

>>The aim is to circumvent instances of where a person's address has been
>>fraudulently signed up for redirection.
>>
>All the "Do Not Redirect" letters I deal with

Are you a postie in your spare time?

>are ones where the different address invalidates the subject matter,
>most recently from ATGC.

Are you sure it's not because the contents could be sensitive in some
way, and they don't want it to end up in the hands of someone who has
fraudulently re-dircted your mail (in order to intercept it - usually
done to perpetrate some sort of financial fraud).
--
Roland Perry

On 23/03/2023 11:16, Roland Perry wrote:
> Traditionally by the delivery people, when they are sorting their round
> into a convenient order for them to pull sequentially out of their bag.

In the old days, if I was working away from home then the post (and even
some carriers) would leave larger items at my work.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:04:56 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <t0mm1i586e71ju9154au5uj2ir7921321j@4ax.com>, at 19:35:41 on
>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:20:51 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <ov3f1ill8jolg50trnn9olvjpccsbui7gi@4ax.com>, at 22:47:49 on
>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:45:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <9n1d1idm6l8d2nhrajcp7ononp90nsh0e1@4ax.com>, at 04:01:16 on
>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>If you try following me into some places waving your bus pass
>>>>>>>>>>then you will find yourself with a large chap/ess sitting on you or
>>>>>>>>>>shoving their gun up your nose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What an odd place to a have a polling booth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am not referring to polling booths; I am referring to a place where
>>>>>>>>a bus pass is definitely not accepted as ID despite being accepted as
>>>>>>>>such by other parts of officialdom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What possible enlightenment are we supposed to gain from such a
>>>>>>>statement of the obvious?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>That you will start an argument and then claim there is no argument?
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't wish to have an argument, let alone start one. You appear to
>>>>>have chip on you shoulder about voter-ID in general (but that ship
>>>>>sailed long ago) and make disparaging remarks about the people
>>>>>implementing it.
>>>>>
>>>>Many people have your perceived "chip". We don't like an inherently
>>>>dishonest government implying that the voters are significantly
>>>>dishonest.
>>>
>>>No, the chip on your shoulder is just as much about your implication
>>>that the people implementing the political decision (made by a
>>>democratically elected government) are incompetent.
>>>
>>Wrong.
>>I am not implying anything about the competence of those running
>>polling places.
>
>Actually you have done exactly that - querying their training/competence
>to verify the admittedly wide range of voter-ID they might have thrust
>in front of them. And by extension, querying the competence of those
>tasked with training them.
>
Still wrong. Try further up the food chain and closer to the Thames.

>But that wasn't what I meant. It was about the people involved in the
>vetting/selection process for suitable forms of ID to add to the
>permitted list.
>
>>>>Many people also recognise that there is no general problem
>>>>to be dealt with rather than odd localised occurrences which have been
>>>>dealt with under existing law and which do not evince that there is a
>>>>general problem to be solved.
>>>>See also sledgehammer v. nut.
>>>
>>>That ship sailed years ago. Where were you then?
>>>
>>Did you see this ship sail?
>
>I was watching others sail. Too many ships, not enough time.
>
>Thus, when I had a moan the other week about council officer ID badges
>not being on the list, I knew I was partly to blame; because had I been
>watching the ship, I might have brought up that omission before it
>sailed.
>
>People could then have come up with plausible reasons not to include it
>(for example they don't have an address on them, if that matters - but
>neither does a bus pass). But at least I would have tried.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:08:32 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <a5mm1i9i5n7ubvk7kv1f5te8pvv0qnsukq@4ax.com>, at 19:36:36 on
>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:22:58 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <sc4f1i5cpoibq4kbdud7kqadkleg2hvu84@4ax.com>, at 22:55:18 on
>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:47:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <i92d1idqrrkl94f0q0v5dn3m2p36c0eurm@4ax.com>, at 04:20:08 on
>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:20:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at 01:32:49 on
>>>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of
>>>>>>>>>the card issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going
>>>>>>>>>to take careful steps to make sure the person applying is who they
>>>>>>>>>say they are. A Scotrail photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who
>>>>>>>>>uploads a photo and types in a name on the website.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>>>>>>>>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>>>>>>>>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>>>>>>>>be non-existent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't feature on
>>>>>>>the list for Voter-ID.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>A Voter Authority Certificate only requires submission of a NI number
>>>>>>and a photograph. Where is the security in that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Sufficient for the purposes of the scheme.
>>>>>
>>>>>>It can also be issued without supplying an NI number but the list of
>>>>>>documents is still not proof against personation as the list of
>>>>>>alternative documents can still be ultimately founded upon the use of
>>>>>>another person's birth registration. The number of people likely to be
>>>>>>doing it is probably still miniscule thus it remains as a non-problem
>>>>>>that doesn't need solving.
>>>>>
>>>>>Others disagree. I don't think it's as difficult as some people make out
>>>>>to obtain something sufficient to allow one to vote - most complaints
>>>>>are about the non-problem of people who might.
>>>>>
>>>>When it draws criticism from across the media ranging from the Morning
>>>>Star to the Daily Express and others in between then there is clearly
>>>>something widely regarded as wrong with voter ID and that there is not
>>>>a "non-problem".
>>>
>>>They should have spoken up years ago, not now it's a done deal.
>>>
>>>Heavens above, you make Remoaners look like angels.
>>>
>>What has it got to do with the EU?
>
>Not the EU, but people who have been given that name as a result of a
>perception they can't accept that a different ship has sailed.
>
Ships often return.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:16:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <97mm1itj5s2f5ernkk9poflfo7t1ddn0g9@4ax.com>, at 19:52:34 on
>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:27:36 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <hn4f1illnirvk9e414hkmsvik43ffu0rjb@4ax.com>, at 23:13:57 on
>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:59:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <ld3d1i9v68254hbg4g3fa1ada400ocm0eq@4ax.com>, at 04:25:39 on
>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:24:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <l0a21itdsvcphnk6hll8lrt4c093ae77ug@4ax.com>, at 02:06:52 on
>>>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
>>>>>>>>>anonymous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So that is one card that might be more secure than some of the others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How many of the classes of bus-pass approved for voter-ID don't have a
>>>>>>>photo on them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Try "How many bus passes don't have the photograph of the true holder
>>>>>>on them?".
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like a good topic for an FOI on a representative sample of
>>>>>issuers.
>>>>>
>>>>>But why pick bus passes - some people have false passports.
>>>>>
>>>>A bus pass involves rather less critical circumstances (thus involves
>>>>lower security standards) than a passport.
>>>
>>>And hence because the rewards are higher, wouldn't one expect far more
>>>forged passports than forged bus passes?
>>>
>>No. One is low level crime, the other is high level crime with more
>>risk of severe consequences.
>>
>>>>>>>Assuming there's no such thing as a photo-smartcard vending machine,
>>>>>>>they'll have (like bus passes and blue badges) some sort of application
>>>>>>>process, with the card then sent out in the post - so there's an address
>>>>>>>involved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which is not inevitably that of the person collecting it from the pile
>>>>>>of post at many HMOs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is true of numerous items of value sent through the post. Each
>>>>>project has its own risk assessment. I forget what it was, but had a
>>>>>letter recently marked "do not redirect", which was aimed at the postie
>>>>>who might otherwise have run it through the commissioned redirection
>>>>>scheme (rather than the person now living at that address, who might or
>>>>>might not have a relevant forwarding address to hand).
>>>>>
>>>>"Do not redirect" is not aimed at the delivery staff but at the
>>>>returned letter section who get the letters back from the recipents
>>>>who actually bother to put them back in the post.
>>>
>>>That's plain wrong. It's *precisely* aimed at the posties who would
>>>otherwise by-rote redirect the mail to the addressee's purported new
>>>address.
>>>
>>Delivery staff do not intentionally redirect letters; that is done at
>>the sorting office.
>
>Traditionally by the delivery people, when they are sorting their round
>into a convenient order for them to pull sequentially out of their bag.
>
That is done at the sorting office by the staff who work there. The
sequence of the round is not the delivery staff's choice. "Tradition"
went out years ago, replaced by efficiency[TM].

>>Otherwise it is done by people at the delivery address when they can be
>>bothered and dealt with separately at the sorting office.
>
>That's a completely different stage, and too late for the purposes of
>the people who addressed the mail.
>
Not if it gets the post to them.

>>It fails if the original address is still visible to OCR (i.e. you
>>haven't crossed through/over the original address) and/or the machine
>>sorting marks are not spoiled; that is why you can get the same letter
>>coming back again.
>
>Not only is that once again a completely different class of redirection,
>but it's not an OCR machine which re-addresses mail that people have
>paid to have redirected (for three/six months or whatever).
>
Paying for redirection does not guarantee the positive identification
of all mail intended for one of several recipients at the same
address.

>>>The aim is to circumvent instances of where a person's address has been
>>>fraudulently signed up for redirection.
>>>
>>All the "Do Not Redirect" letters I deal with
>
>Are you a postie in your spare time?
>
I am still in the same union and thus kept aware of many of the
workings of mail delivery from the POV of those actually doing the
job. In earlier times it was the Post Office who I worked for and
shared workspace with postal staff. How long did you spend working for
the GPO/PO/RM ?

>>are ones where the different address invalidates the subject matter,
>>most recently from ATGC.
>
>Are you sure it's not because the contents could be sensitive in some
>way, and they don't want it to end up in the hands of someone who has
>fraudulently re-dircted your mail (in order to intercept it - usually
>done to perpetrate some sort of financial fraud).
>
A vehicle registration becomes invalid if the owner/keeper has moved
thus there is no point forwarding associated documentation even if it
is going to the correct person. Even with e.g. DWP correspondence
there is not inevitably fraud rather than a simple failure to keep
details up to date as might happen if a pensioner changes address
without leaving the relevant country/state.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:57:30 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 23/03/2023 11:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Traditionally by the delivery people, when they are sorting their round
>> into a convenient order for them to pull sequentially out of their bag.
>
>
>In the old days, if I was working away from home then the post (and even
>some carriers) would leave larger items at my work.
>
Possibly still done in places where the job is less frantic but at
increased risk of disciplinary action.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 23/03/2023 11:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Traditionally by the delivery people, when they are sorting their round
>> into a convenient order for them to pull sequentially out of their bag.
>
>
> In the old days, if I was working away from home then the post (and even
> some carriers) would leave larger items at my work.
>

Are Posties actually allowed to do that ? But then in old days things were
a bit more relaxed, it was nearly a 3 mile cycle ride from my primary
school to our farm and naturally I passed a couple of others on the way.
The postman would sometimes ask me to drop a letter off to them to save him
having to ride out himself for the afternoon delivery.
Our Postman sometimes gets strange looks from visitors in the pub garden .
He is a young chap and a member of the village cricket club and in the
season acts as grounds man for the pitch. Like many places house prices
means his first home isn’t here but in a nearby town so it would mean
driving back out to mow or water the square. Fortunately in a case of
sensible management his boss allows him once the round has been completed
to do his groundsman job before returning to the sorting office but it does
look unusual to see a postie park up the van by the pavilion and get the
ride on mower out to trim the grass and then return to the van and leave.

GH

On 24 Mar 2023 01:47:16 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 23/03/2023 11:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Traditionally by the delivery people, when they are sorting their round
>>> into a convenient order for them to pull sequentially out of their bag.
>>
>>
>> In the old days, if I was working away from home then the post (and even
>> some carriers) would leave larger items at my work.
>>
>
>Are Posties actually allowed to do that ?
>
No they aren't but it probably still happens in places where plenty of
people know each other and the postie is certain that something is
going to the right person.
When it suits them, RM management will hold it against staff as an
interference with mail contrary to the Postal Services Act 2000,
sometimes piling on an accusation of taking and driving away any
vehicle used.

>But then in old days things were
>a bit more relaxed, it was nearly a 3 mile cycle ride from my primary
>school to our farm and naturally I passed a couple of others on the way.
>The postman would sometimes ask me to drop a letter off to them to save him
>having to ride out himself for the afternoon delivery.
>Our Postman sometimes gets strange looks from visitors in the pub garden .
>He is a young chap and a member of the village cricket club and in the
>season acts as grounds man for the pitch. Like many places house prices
>means his first home isn’t here but in a nearby town so it would mean
>driving back out to mow or water the square. Fortunately in a case of
>sensible management his boss allows him once the round has been completed
>to do his groundsman job before returning to the sorting office but it does
>look unusual to see a postie park up the van by the pavilion and get the
>ride on mower out to trim the grass and then return to the van and leave.
>
>GH

In message <v64p1i1p1aua4hsh3vgmsmminas9983tmk@4ax.com>, at 17:49:08 on
Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:04:56 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <t0mm1i586e71ju9154au5uj2ir7921321j@4ax.com>, at 19:35:41 on
>>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:20:51 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <ov3f1ill8jolg50trnn9olvjpccsbui7gi@4ax.com>, at 22:47:49 on
>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:45:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <9n1d1idm6l8d2nhrajcp7ononp90nsh0e1@4ax.com>, at 04:01:16 on
>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>If you try following me into some places waving your bus pass
>>>>>>>>>>>then you will find yourself with a large chap/ess sitting on you or
>>>>>>>>>>>shoving their gun up your nose.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What an odd place to a have a polling booth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I am not referring to polling booths; I am referring to a place where
>>>>>>>>>a bus pass is definitely not accepted as ID despite being accepted as
>>>>>>>>>such by other parts of officialdom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What possible enlightenment are we supposed to gain from such a
>>>>>>>>statement of the obvious?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That you will start an argument and then claim there is no argument?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't wish to have an argument, let alone start one. You appear to
>>>>>>have chip on you shoulder about voter-ID in general (but that ship
>>>>>>sailed long ago) and make disparaging remarks about the people
>>>>>>implementing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Many people have your perceived "chip". We don't like an inherently
>>>>>dishonest government implying that the voters are significantly
>>>>>dishonest.
>>>>
>>>>No, the chip on your shoulder is just as much about your implication
>>>>that the people implementing the political decision (made by a
>>>>democratically elected government) are incompetent.
>>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>>I am not implying anything about the competence of those running
>>>polling places.
>>
>>Actually you have done exactly that - querying their training/competence
>>to verify the admittedly wide range of voter-ID they might have thrust
>>in front of them. And by extension, querying the competence of those
>>tasked with training them.
>>
>Still wrong. Try further up the food chain and closer to the Thames.

I'm not wrong that you cast aspersions on those implementing the scheme,
in particular at District Council level.

--
Roland Perry

In message <q94p1i90tkfisnpkcta3da373ag9n02jvs@4ax.com>, at 17:50:04 on
Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:08:32 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <a5mm1i9i5n7ubvk7kv1f5te8pvv0qnsukq@4ax.com>, at 19:36:36 on
>>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:22:58 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <sc4f1i5cpoibq4kbdud7kqadkleg2hvu84@4ax.com>, at 22:55:18 on
>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:47:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <i92d1idqrrkl94f0q0v5dn3m2p36c0eurm@4ax.com>, at 04:20:08 on
>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:20:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at 01:32:49 on
>>>>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of
>>>>>>>>>>the card issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going
>>>>>>>>>>to take careful steps to make sure the person applying is who they
>>>>>>>>>>say they are. A Scotrail photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who
>>>>>>>>>>uploads a photo and types in a name on the website.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>>>>>>>>>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>>>>>>>>>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>>>>>>>>>be non-existent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't feature on
>>>>>>>>the list for Voter-ID.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A Voter Authority Certificate only requires submission of a NI number
>>>>>>>and a photograph. Where is the security in that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sufficient for the purposes of the scheme.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It can also be issued without supplying an NI number but the list of
>>>>>>>documents is still not proof against personation as the list of
>>>>>>>alternative documents can still be ultimately founded upon the use of
>>>>>>>another person's birth registration. The number of people likely to be
>>>>>>>doing it is probably still miniscule thus it remains as a non-problem
>>>>>>>that doesn't need solving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Others disagree. I don't think it's as difficult as some people make out
>>>>>>to obtain something sufficient to allow one to vote - most complaints
>>>>>>are about the non-problem of people who might.
>>>>>>
>>>>>When it draws criticism from across the media ranging from the Morning
>>>>>Star to the Daily Express and others in between then there is clearly
>>>>>something widely regarded as wrong with voter ID and that there is not
>>>>>a "non-problem".
>>>>
>>>>They should have spoken up years ago, not now it's a done deal.
>>>>
>>>>Heavens above, you make Remoaners look like angels.
>>>>
>>>What has it got to do with the EU?
>>
>>Not the EU, but people who have been given that name as a result of a
>>perception they can't accept that a different ship has sailed.
>>
>Ships often return.

That's actually one of the good things about Brussels. Ships there *do*
have scheduled returns, typically every ten years. Whereas in the UK not
only is there no such formal schedule, but twenty years is the best we
seem to be able to manage most of the time.

Apart from various laws regarding public order and vehicular traffic,
where we are still stuck with legislation from Queen Victoria's time.
--
Roland Perry

In message <0b4p1ihg32rl9sjmmgs1r9oahfdupsv922@4ax.com>, at 18:09:52 on
Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:16:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <97mm1itj5s2f5ernkk9poflfo7t1ddn0g9@4ax.com>, at 19:52:34 on
>>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:27:36 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <hn4f1illnirvk9e414hkmsvik43ffu0rjb@4ax.com>, at 23:13:57 on
>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:59:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <ld3d1i9v68254hbg4g3fa1ada400ocm0eq@4ax.com>, at 04:25:39 on
>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:24:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In message <l0a21itdsvcphnk6hll8lrt4c093ae77ug@4ax.com>, at 02:06:52 on
>>>>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
>>>>>>>>>>anonymous.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So that is one card that might be more secure than some of the others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How many of the classes of bus-pass approved for voter-ID don't have a
>>>>>>>>photo on them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Try "How many bus passes don't have the photograph of the true holder
>>>>>>>on them?".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sounds like a good topic for an FOI on a representative sample of
>>>>>>issuers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But why pick bus passes - some people have false passports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>A bus pass involves rather less critical circumstances (thus involves
>>>>>lower security standards) than a passport.
>>>>
>>>>And hence because the rewards are higher, wouldn't one expect far more
>>>>forged passports than forged bus passes?
>>>>
>>>No. One is low level crime, the other is high level crime with more
>>>risk of severe consequences.
>>>
>>>>>>>>Assuming there's no such thing as a photo-smartcard vending machine,
>>>>>>>>they'll have (like bus passes and blue badges) some sort of application
>>>>>>>>process, with the card then sent out in the post - so there's an address
>>>>>>>>involved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which is not inevitably that of the person collecting it from the pile
>>>>>>>of post at many HMOs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which is true of numerous items of value sent through the post. Each
>>>>>>project has its own risk assessment. I forget what it was, but had a
>>>>>>letter recently marked "do not redirect", which was aimed at the postie
>>>>>>who might otherwise have run it through the commissioned redirection
>>>>>>scheme (rather than the person now living at that address, who might or
>>>>>>might not have a relevant forwarding address to hand).
>>>>>>
>>>>>"Do not redirect" is not aimed at the delivery staff but at the
>>>>>returned letter section who get the letters back from the recipents
>>>>>who actually bother to put them back in the post.
>>>>
>>>>That's plain wrong. It's *precisely* aimed at the posties who would
>>>>otherwise by-rote redirect the mail to the addressee's purported new
>>>>address.
>>>>
>>>Delivery staff do not intentionally redirect letters; that is done at
>>>the sorting office.
>>
>>Traditionally by the delivery people, when they are sorting their round
>>into a convenient order for them to pull sequentially out of their bag.
>>
>That is done at the sorting office by the staff who work there.

I'm sure you'll find that "sorting office" is the wrong terminology. My
local sorting office is Peterborough, and I'd be very surprised if the
people/machines there were responsible for attaching the redirecting
sticky labels. Let alone dictating what order the postie on his walk
would like the letters bundled in.

>The sequence of the round is not the delivery staff's choice.
>"Tradition" went out years ago, replaced by efficiency[TM].
>
>>>Otherwise it is done by people at the delivery address when they can be
>>>bothered and dealt with separately at the sorting office.
>>
>>That's a completely different stage, and too late for the purposes of
>>the people who addressed the mail.
>>
>Not if it gets the post to them.

I very much doubt that the Post Office issues the redirection sticky
labels to householders to attach, should the Royal Mail's internal
systems have let one letter escape through, all the way to that
householder's doormat.

>>>It fails if the original address is still visible to OCR (i.e. you
>>>haven't crossed through/over the original address) and/or the machine
>>>sorting marks are not spoiled; that is why you can get the same letter
>>>coming back again.
>>
>>Not only is that once again a completely different class of redirection,
>>but it's not an OCR machine which re-addresses mail that people have
>>paid to have redirected (for three/six months or whatever).
>>
>Paying for redirection does not guarantee the positive identification
>of all mail intended for one of several recipients at the same
>address.

The only things *guaranteed* are death and taxes. However, the Post
Office does presume to promise to redirect the mail for a named list of
recipients at any one address. There's not box to tick for "everyone",
not least because that would also redirect the mail for the new
occupants!!

Some will slip through the system, but all the new householder can do
(unless they've volunteered to do amateur re-direction for the previous
tenants) is sick such letters in a pillar box so the redirection process
can be re-tried.

If that same latter turns up a couple of days later, then the
householder might conclude that the previous tenants's redirection
subscription has expired, at which point the protocol is to endorse
the envelope "GONE AWAY", and stick *that* in a pillar box.

>>>>The aim is to circumvent instances of where a person's address has been
>>>>fraudulently signed up for redirection.
>>>>
>>>All the "Do Not Redirect" letters I deal with
>>
>>Are you a postie in your spare time?
>>
>I am still in the same union and thus kept aware of many of the
>workings of mail delivery from the POV of those actually doing the
>job. In earlier times it was the Post Office who I worked for and
>shared workspace with postal staff.

Surprising how uninformed you appear to be, then.

>How long did you spend working for the GPO/PO/RM ?

I did some work for RM HQ when it was in its "Consignia" phase. The rest
is based on close study of the redirection scheme as it has evolved,
both as a customer and a victim (the latter being in receipt of mail for
others)

>>>are ones where the different address invalidates the subject matter,
>>>most recently from ATGC.
>>
>>Are you sure it's not because the contents could be sensitive in some
>>way, and they don't want it to end up in the hands of someone who has
>>fraudulently re-dircted your mail (in order to intercept it - usually
>>done to perpetrate some sort of financial fraud).
>>
>A vehicle registration becomes invalid if the owner/keeper has moved
>thus there is no point forwarding associated documentation even if it
>is going to the correct person.

The vehicle registration is still valid, but the keeper has committed a
technical offence by failing to update DVLA with their contact details.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:24:48 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <v64p1i1p1aua4hsh3vgmsmminas9983tmk@4ax.com>, at 17:49:08 on
>Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:04:56 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <t0mm1i586e71ju9154au5uj2ir7921321j@4ax.com>, at 19:35:41 on
>>>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:20:51 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <ov3f1ill8jolg50trnn9olvjpccsbui7gi@4ax.com>, at 22:47:49 on
>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:45:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <9n1d1idm6l8d2nhrajcp7ononp90nsh0e1@4ax.com>, at 04:01:16 on
>>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>If you try following me into some places waving your bus pass
>>>>>>>>>>>>then you will find yourself with a large chap/ess sitting on you or
>>>>>>>>>>>>shoving their gun up your nose.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What an odd place to a have a polling booth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I am not referring to polling booths; I am referring to a place where
>>>>>>>>>>a bus pass is definitely not accepted as ID despite being accepted as
>>>>>>>>>>such by other parts of officialdom.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What possible enlightenment are we supposed to gain from such a
>>>>>>>>>statement of the obvious?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That you will start an argument and then claim there is no argument?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I didn't wish to have an argument, let alone start one. You appear to
>>>>>>>have chip on you shoulder about voter-ID in general (but that ship
>>>>>>>sailed long ago) and make disparaging remarks about the people
>>>>>>>implementing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Many people have your perceived "chip". We don't like an inherently
>>>>>>dishonest government implying that the voters are significantly
>>>>>>dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, the chip on your shoulder is just as much about your implication
>>>>>that the people implementing the political decision (made by a
>>>>>democratically elected government) are incompetent.
>>>>>
>>>>Wrong.
>>>>I am not implying anything about the competence of those running
>>>>polling places.
>>>
>>>Actually you have done exactly that - querying their training/competence
>>>to verify the admittedly wide range of voter-ID they might have thrust
>>>in front of them. And by extension, querying the competence of those
>>>tasked with training them.
>>>
>>Still wrong. Try further up the food chain and closer to the Thames.
>
>I'm not wrong that you cast aspersions on those implementing the scheme,
>in particular at District Council level.
>
You are wrong.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:28:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <q94p1i90tkfisnpkcta3da373ag9n02jvs@4ax.com>, at 17:50:04 on
>Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:08:32 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <a5mm1i9i5n7ubvk7kv1f5te8pvv0qnsukq@4ax.com>, at 19:36:36 on
>>>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:22:58 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <sc4f1i5cpoibq4kbdud7kqadkleg2hvu84@4ax.com>, at 22:55:18 on
>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:47:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <i92d1idqrrkl94f0q0v5dn3m2p36c0eurm@4ax.com>, at 04:20:08 on
>>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:20:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at 01:32:49 on
>>>>>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of
>>>>>>>>>>>the card issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going
>>>>>>>>>>>to take careful steps to make sure the person applying is who they
>>>>>>>>>>>say they are. A Scotrail photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who
>>>>>>>>>>>uploads a photo and types in a name on the website.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>>>>>>>>>>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>>>>>>>>>>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>>>>>>>>>>be non-existent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't feature on
>>>>>>>>>the list for Voter-ID.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A Voter Authority Certificate only requires submission of a NI number
>>>>>>>>and a photograph. Where is the security in that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sufficient for the purposes of the scheme.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It can also be issued without supplying an NI number but the list of
>>>>>>>>documents is still not proof against personation as the list of
>>>>>>>>alternative documents can still be ultimately founded upon the use of
>>>>>>>>another person's birth registration. The number of people likely to be
>>>>>>>>doing it is probably still miniscule thus it remains as a non-problem
>>>>>>>>that doesn't need solving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Others disagree. I don't think it's as difficult as some people make out
>>>>>>>to obtain something sufficient to allow one to vote - most complaints
>>>>>>>are about the non-problem of people who might.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>When it draws criticism from across the media ranging from the Morning
>>>>>>Star to the Daily Express and others in between then there is clearly
>>>>>>something widely regarded as wrong with voter ID and that there is not
>>>>>>a "non-problem".
>>>>>
>>>>>They should have spoken up years ago, not now it's a done deal.
>>>>>
>>>>>Heavens above, you make Remoaners look like angels.
>>>>>
>>>>What has it got to do with the EU?
>>>
>>>Not the EU, but people who have been given that name as a result of a
>>>perception they can't accept that a different ship has sailed.
>>>
>>Ships often return.
>
>That's actually one of the good things about Brussels. Ships there *do*
>have scheduled returns, typically every ten years. Whereas in the UK not
>only is there no such formal schedule, but twenty years is the best we
>seem to be able to manage most of the time.
>
>Apart from various laws regarding public order and vehicular traffic,
>where we are still stuck with legislation from Queen Victoria's time.
>
See also "If it ain't broke then don't fix it." Magistrates' Courts
have no trouble working daily with 14th century legislation.

The oldest Public Order Act only dates from 1936 and none of the 3
surviving sections of the Highway Act 1835 survives in unamended form
while the next oldest Highway Act is only from 1959.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:50:56 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <0b4p1ihg32rl9sjmmgs1r9oahfdupsv922@4ax.com>, at 18:09:52 on
>Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:16:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <97mm1itj5s2f5ernkk9poflfo7t1ddn0g9@4ax.com>, at 19:52:34 on
>>>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:27:36 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <hn4f1illnirvk9e414hkmsvik43ffu0rjb@4ax.com>, at 23:13:57 on
>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:59:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <ld3d1i9v68254hbg4g3fa1ada400ocm0eq@4ax.com>, at 04:25:39 on
>>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:24:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In message <l0a21itdsvcphnk6hll8lrt4c093ae77ug@4ax.com>, at 02:06:52 on
>>>>>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
>>>>>>>>>>>anonymous.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So that is one card that might be more secure than some of the others.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How many of the classes of bus-pass approved for voter-ID don't have a
>>>>>>>>>photo on them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Try "How many bus passes don't have the photograph of the true holder
>>>>>>>>on them?".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sounds like a good topic for an FOI on a representative sample of
>>>>>>>issuers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But why pick bus passes - some people have false passports.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>A bus pass involves rather less critical circumstances (thus involves
>>>>>>lower security standards) than a passport.
>>>>>
>>>>>And hence because the rewards are higher, wouldn't one expect far more
>>>>>forged passports than forged bus passes?
>>>>>
>>>>No. One is low level crime, the other is high level crime with more
>>>>risk of severe consequences.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Assuming there's no such thing as a photo-smartcard vending machine,
>>>>>>>>>they'll have (like bus passes and blue badges) some sort of application
>>>>>>>>>process, with the card then sent out in the post - so there's an address
>>>>>>>>>involved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Which is not inevitably that of the person collecting it from the pile
>>>>>>>>of post at many HMOs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which is true of numerous items of value sent through the post. Each
>>>>>>>project has its own risk assessment. I forget what it was, but had a
>>>>>>>letter recently marked "do not redirect", which was aimed at the postie
>>>>>>>who might otherwise have run it through the commissioned redirection
>>>>>>>scheme (rather than the person now living at that address, who might or
>>>>>>>might not have a relevant forwarding address to hand).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Do not redirect" is not aimed at the delivery staff but at the
>>>>>>returned letter section who get the letters back from the recipents
>>>>>>who actually bother to put them back in the post.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's plain wrong. It's *precisely* aimed at the posties who would
>>>>>otherwise by-rote redirect the mail to the addressee's purported new
>>>>>address.
>>>>>
>>>>Delivery staff do not intentionally redirect letters; that is done at
>>>>the sorting office.
>>>
>>>Traditionally by the delivery people, when they are sorting their round
>>>into a convenient order for them to pull sequentially out of their bag.
>>>
>>That is done at the sorting office by the staff who work there.
>
>I'm sure you'll find that "sorting office" is the wrong terminology. My
>local sorting office is Peterborough, and I'd be very surprised if the
>people/machines there were responsible for attaching the redirecting
>sticky labels.
>
The delivery office is the final sorting office that incoming mail
goes into one stream thus the logical place to intercept items for
diversion.

>Let alone dictating what order the postie on his walk
>would like the letters bundled in.
>
Local management dictates the order. The postie doesn't usually get a
choice.

>>The sequence of the round is not the delivery staff's choice.
>>"Tradition" went out years ago, replaced by efficiency[TM].
>>
>>>>Otherwise it is done by people at the delivery address when they can be
>>>>bothered and dealt with separately at the sorting office.
>>>
>>>That's a completely different stage, and too late for the purposes of
>>>the people who addressed the mail.
>>>
>>Not if it gets the post to them.
>
>I very much doubt that the Post Office issues the redirection sticky
>labels to householders to attach, should the Royal Mail's internal
>systems have let one letter escape through, all the way to that
>householder's doormat.
>
They don't. Householders have devices known as "pens" for any items
that get past official re-direction.

>>>>It fails if the original address is still visible to OCR (i.e. you
>>>>haven't crossed through/over the original address) and/or the machine
>>>>sorting marks are not spoiled; that is why you can get the same letter
>>>>coming back again.
>>>
>>>Not only is that once again a completely different class of redirection,
>>>but it's not an OCR machine which re-addresses mail that people have
>>>paid to have redirected (for three/six months or whatever).
>>>
>>Paying for redirection does not guarantee the positive identification
>>of all mail intended for one of several recipients at the same
>>address.
>
>The only things *guaranteed* are death and taxes. However, the Post
>Office does presume to promise to redirect the mail for a named list of
>recipients at any one address. There's not box to tick for "everyone",
>not least because that would also redirect the mail for the new
>occupants!!
>
>Some will slip through the system, but all the new householder can do
>(unless they've volunteered to do amateur re-direction for the previous
>tenants) is sick such letters in a pillar box so the redirection process
>can be re-tried.
>
>If that same latter turns up a couple of days later, then the
>householder might conclude that the previous tenants's redirection
>subscription has expired, at which point the protocol is to endorse
>the envelope "GONE AWAY", and stick *that* in a pillar box.
>
Or even more helpfully put the new address on the envelope and save an
unwanted return journey over the Irish Sea.

>>>>>The aim is to circumvent instances of where a person's address has been
>>>>>fraudulently signed up for redirection.
>>>>>
>>>>All the "Do Not Redirect" letters I deal with
>>>
>>>Are you a postie in your spare time?
>>>
>>I am still in the same union and thus kept aware of many of the
>>workings of mail delivery from the POV of those actually doing the
>>job. In earlier times it was the Post Office who I worked for and
>>shared workspace with postal staff.
>
>Surprising how uninformed you appear to be, then.
>
Maybe I don't know absolutely everything like you do?

In message <ab552idjanp5rhng9e0mtsmhm9k7hqcb03@4ax.com>, at 08:21:49 on
Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:24:48 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <v64p1i1p1aua4hsh3vgmsmminas9983tmk@4ax.com>, at 17:49:08 on
>>Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:04:56 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <t0mm1i586e71ju9154au5uj2ir7921321j@4ax.com>, at 19:35:41 on
>>>>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:20:51 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <ov3f1ill8jolg50trnn9olvjpccsbui7gi@4ax.com>, at 22:47:49 on
>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:45:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In message <9n1d1idm6l8d2nhrajcp7ononp90nsh0e1@4ax.com>, at 04:01:16 on
>>>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you try following me into some places waving your bus pass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>then you will find yourself with a large chap/ess sitting on you or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>shoving their gun up your nose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>What an odd place to a have a polling booth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I am not referring to polling booths; I am referring to a place where
>>>>>>>>>>>a bus pass is definitely not accepted as ID despite being accepted as
>>>>>>>>>>>such by other parts of officialdom.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What possible enlightenment are we supposed to gain from such a
>>>>>>>>>>statement of the obvious?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That you will start an argument and then claim there is no argument?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I didn't wish to have an argument, let alone start one. You appear to
>>>>>>>>have chip on you shoulder about voter-ID in general (but that ship
>>>>>>>>sailed long ago) and make disparaging remarks about the people
>>>>>>>>implementing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Many people have your perceived "chip". We don't like an inherently
>>>>>>>dishonest government implying that the voters are significantly
>>>>>>>dishonest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, the chip on your shoulder is just as much about your implication
>>>>>>that the people implementing the political decision (made by a
>>>>>>democratically elected government) are incompetent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>>I am not implying anything about the competence of those running
>>>>>polling places.
>>>>
>>>>Actually you have done exactly that - querying their training/competence
>>>>to verify the admittedly wide range of voter-ID they might have thrust
>>>>in front of them. And by extension, querying the competence of those
>>>>tasked with training them.
>>>>
>>>Still wrong. Try further up the food chain and closer to the Thames.
>>
>>I'm not wrong that you cast aspersions on those implementing the scheme,
>>in particular at District Council level.
>>
>You are wrong.

I didn't imagine it.
--
Roland Perry

In message <fd552i972gsicoonko7o8h7qppb9tf2idv@4ax.com>, at 08:38:52 on
Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:28:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <q94p1i90tkfisnpkcta3da373ag9n02jvs@4ax.com>, at 17:50:04 on
>>Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:08:32 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <a5mm1i9i5n7ubvk7kv1f5te8pvv0qnsukq@4ax.com>, at 19:36:36 on
>>>>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:22:58 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <sc4f1i5cpoibq4kbdud7kqadkleg2hvu84@4ax.com>, at 22:55:18 on
>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:47:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In message <i92d1idqrrkl94f0q0v5dn3m2p36c0eurm@4ax.com>, at 04:20:08 on
>>>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:20:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>01:32:49 on
>>>>>>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of
>>>>>>>>>>>>the card issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going
>>>>>>>>>>>>to take careful steps to make sure the person applying is who they
>>>>>>>>>>>>say they are. A Scotrail photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who
>>>>>>>>>>>>uploads a photo and types in a name on the website.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>>>>>>>>>>>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>>>>>>>>>>>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>>>>>>>>>>>be non-existent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't
>>>>>>>>>>feature on
>>>>>>>>>>the list for Voter-ID.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A Voter Authority Certificate only requires submission of a NI number
>>>>>>>>>and a photograph. Where is the security in that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sufficient for the purposes of the scheme.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It can also be issued without supplying an NI number but the list of
>>>>>>>>>documents is still not proof against personation as the list of
>>>>>>>>>alternative documents can still be ultimately founded upon the use of
>>>>>>>>>another person's birth registration. The number of people likely to be
>>>>>>>>>doing it is probably still miniscule thus it remains as a non-problem
>>>>>>>>>that doesn't need solving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Others disagree. I don't think it's as difficult as some people make out
>>>>>>>>to obtain something sufficient to allow one to vote - most complaints
>>>>>>>>are about the non-problem of people who might.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When it draws criticism from across the media ranging from the Morning
>>>>>>>Star to the Daily Express and others in between then there is clearly
>>>>>>>something widely regarded as wrong with voter ID and that there is not
>>>>>>>a "non-problem".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They should have spoken up years ago, not now it's a done deal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Heavens above, you make Remoaners look like angels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>What has it got to do with the EU?
>>>>
>>>>Not the EU, but people who have been given that name as a result of a
>>>>perception they can't accept that a different ship has sailed.
>>>>
>>>Ships often return.
>>
>>That's actually one of the good things about Brussels. Ships there *do*
>>have scheduled returns, typically every ten years. Whereas in the UK not
>>only is there no such formal schedule, but twenty years is the best we
>>seem to be able to manage most of the time.
>>
>>Apart from various laws regarding public order and vehicular traffic,
>>where we are still stuck with legislation from Queen Victoria's time.
>>
>See also "If it ain't broke then don't fix it." Magistrates' Courts
>have no trouble working daily with 14th century legislation.
>
>The oldest Public Order Act only dates from 1936 and none of the 3
>surviving sections of the Highway Act 1835 survives in unamended form
>while the next oldest Highway Act is only from 1959.

When I did a study (which resulted in my writing a Draft Private Members
Bill) of offences which needed to be brought up to date in the digital
era, the oldest was:

Offences against the Person Act 1861, section16, 20, 39, 47

Next oldest were:

Theft Act 1968, section 21
Criminal Damage Act 1971, section 2

Or should we count:

Suicide Act 1961 section 2(1) as amended by Coroners and Justice Act
2009

(There were another 26)
--
Roland Perry

In message <fd652ito2lsiadtdtjeloh36nk3oo2o5rt@4ax.com>, at 09:00:27 on
Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:50:56 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <0b4p1ihg32rl9sjmmgs1r9oahfdupsv922@4ax.com>, at 18:09:52 on
>>Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:16:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <97mm1itj5s2f5ernkk9poflfo7t1ddn0g9@4ax.com>, at 19:52:34 on
>>>>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:27:36 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <hn4f1illnirvk9e414hkmsvik43ffu0rjb@4ax.com>, at 23:13:57 on
>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:59:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In message <ld3d1i9v68254hbg4g3fa1ada400ocm0eq@4ax.com>, at 04:25:39 on
>>>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:24:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In message <l0a21itdsvcphnk6hll8lrt4c093ae77ug@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>02:06:52 on
>>>>>>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
>>>>>>>>>>>>anonymous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So that is one card that might be more secure than some of
>>>>>>>>>>>the others.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>How many of the classes of bus-pass approved for voter-ID don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>photo on them?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Try "How many bus passes don't have the photograph of the true holder
>>>>>>>>>on them?".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sounds like a good topic for an FOI on a representative sample of
>>>>>>>>issuers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But why pick bus passes - some people have false passports.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A bus pass involves rather less critical circumstances (thus involves
>>>>>>>lower security standards) than a passport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And hence because the rewards are higher, wouldn't one expect far more
>>>>>>forged passports than forged bus passes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>No. One is low level crime, the other is high level crime with more
>>>>>risk of severe consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Assuming there's no such thing as a photo-smartcard vending
>>>>>>>>>> they'll have (like bus passes and blue badges) some sort of
>>>>>>>>>>application process, with the card then sent out in the post -
>>>>>>>>>>so there's an address involved.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Which is not inevitably that of the person collecting it from the pile
>>>>>>>>>of post at many HMOs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Which is true of numerous items of value sent through the post. Each
>>>>>>>>project has its own risk assessment. I forget what it was, but had a
>>>>>>>>letter recently marked "do not redirect", which was aimed at the postie
>>>>>>>>who might otherwise have run it through the commissioned redirection
>>>>>>>>scheme (rather than the person now living at that address, who might or
>>>>>>>>might not have a relevant forwarding address to hand).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Do not redirect" is not aimed at the delivery staff but at the
>>>>>>>returned letter section who get the letters back from the recipents
>>>>>>>who actually bother to put them back in the post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's plain wrong. It's *precisely* aimed at the posties who would
>>>>>>otherwise by-rote redirect the mail to the addressee's purported new
>>>>>>address.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Delivery staff do not intentionally redirect letters; that is done at
>>>>>the sorting office.
>>>>
>>>>Traditionally by the delivery people, when they are sorting their round
>>>>into a convenient order for them to pull sequentially out of their bag.
>>>>
>>>That is done at the sorting office by the staff who work there.
>>
>>I'm sure you'll find that "sorting office" is the wrong terminology. My
>>local sorting office is Peterborough, and I'd be very surprised if the
>>people/machines there were responsible for attaching the redirecting
>>sticky labels.
>>
>The delivery office is the final sorting office that incoming mail
>goes into one stream thus the logical place to intercept items for
>diversion.

The only sorting which takes place is the postie putting them into round
order. At which point he does any commissioned redirections.

>>Let alone dictating what order the postie on his walk would like the
>>letters bundled in.
>>
>Local management dictates the order. The postie doesn't usually get a
>choice.

I'm sure they are entitled to put them in their bag in whatever order
they think fit. But that's irrelevant to this discussion of redirection.

>>>The sequence of the round is not the delivery staff's choice.
>>>"Tradition" went out years ago, replaced by efficiency[TM].
>>>
>>>>>Otherwise it is done by people at the delivery address when they can be
>>>>>bothered and dealt with separately at the sorting office.
>>>>
>>>>That's a completely different stage, and too late for the purposes of
>>>>the people who addressed the mail.
>>>>
>>>Not if it gets the post to them.
>>
>>I very much doubt that the Post Office issues the redirection sticky
>>labels to householders to attach, should the Royal Mail's internal
>>systems have let one letter escape through, all the way to that
>>householder's doormat.
>>
>They don't. Householders have devices known as "pens" for any items
>that get past official re-direction.

What's that got to do with the official redirection scheme? If a
householder is prepared to stick his neck out and handwrite what he
fondly believes is a relevant re-delivery address, that's probably not
an offence. But the simplest thing to do (if you think there's an
official redirection in place, which had a hiccup) is to simply pop it
in a pillar box.

With or without writing "Gone Away" on it.

....

>>Some will slip through the system, but all the new householder can do
>>(unless they've volunteered to do amateur re-direction for the previous
>>tenants) is sick such letters in a pillar box so the redirection process
>>can be re-tried.
>>
>>If that same latter turns up a couple of days later, then the
>>householder might conclude that the previous tenants's redirection
>>subscription has expired, at which point the protocol is to endorse
>>the envelope "GONE AWAY", and stick *that* in a pillar box.
>>
>Or even more helpfully put the new address on the envelope

See above

>and save an unwanted return journey over the Irish Sea.
>
An unendorsed one won't succumb to that fate.

>>>>>>The aim is to circumvent instances of where a person's address has been
>>>>>>fraudulently signed up for redirection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>All the "Do Not Redirect" letters I deal with
>>>>
>>>>Are you a postie in your spare time?
>>>>
>>>I am still in the same union and thus kept aware of many of the
>>>workings of mail delivery from the POV of those actually doing the
>>>job. In earlier times it was the Post Office who I worked for and
>>>shared workspace with postal staff.
>>
>>Surprising how uninformed you appear to be, then.
>>
>Maybe I don't know absolutely everything like you do?

On 01/04/2023 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>> "The DVLA is entitled to carry out, and frequently does, criminal
>> prosecutions in the Magistrates Court for certain offences. The most
>> common of these offences is failing to notify the DVLA of a change of
>> keeper for a vehicle."
>> [https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/srvmotoring/failing_to_n
>> otify_dvla/]
>> The current penalty seems to be a fine of up to 1000 pounds.
>
> And yet few people are prosecuted, and frankly no-one knows how long you
> can be in temporary accommodation before it kicks in. I was once in a
> hotel for two weeks in such circumstances (furniture in storage), should
> I have informed DVLA?
>

Temporary accomodation can be for as long as you like providing your
permanent address is still valid, cf students at uni.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 28/03/2023 09:00, Charles Ellson wrote:
> The delivery office is the final sorting office that incoming mail
> goes into one stream thus the logical place to intercept items for
> diversion.

I was told some time ago that mail can be sent quite a long distance for
sorting. Even local mail can sometimes be sorted a long way away.

I think it depends on the location and availability of the sorting
machinery.

In message <u09nnl$201d8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:56:20 on Sat, 1 Apr
2023, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 28/03/2023 09:00, Charles Ellson wrote:

>> The delivery office is the final sorting office that incoming mail
>> goes into one stream thus the logical place to intercept items for
>> diversion.
>
>I was told some time ago that mail can be sent quite a long distance
>for sorting. Even local mail can sometimes be sorted a long way away.
>
>I think it depends on the location and availability of the sorting
>machinery.

That's right. Here in the west of East Anglia, the only places which
actually do any sorting any more are I think Peterborough and
Chelmsford. I'm guessing, but maybe Norwich|Ipswich has one for east
East Anglia.

The Cambridge sorting office, which moved from a relatively central site
it occupied at least until the mid-70's, to opposite the station, is now
just a delivery office, and no longer rail-connected.
--
Roland Perry

In message <u09eru$1uir7$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:25:02 on Sat, 1 Apr
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 01/04/2023 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> "The DVLA is entitled to carry out, and frequently does, criminal
>>> prosecutions in the Magistrates Court for certain offences. The most
>>> common of these offences is failing to notify the DVLA of a change of
>>> keeper for a vehicle."
>>> [https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/srvmotoring/failing_to_n
>>> otify_dvla/]
>>> The current penalty seems to be a fine of up to 1000 pounds.

>> And yet few people are prosecuted, and frankly no-one knows how long
>>you can be in temporary accommodation before it kicks in. I was once
>>in a hotel for two weeks in such circumstances (furniture in
>>storage), should I have informed DVLA?
>
>Temporary accomodation can be for as long as you like providing your
>permanent address is still valid, cf students at uni.

I'm glad you brought that up: there's a school of thought which says
that students at uni should re-declare their accommodation (especially
if private rented) as their residence for the duration of their stay.
Typically only a year, but I know post-grads are more likely to stay in
the same property multiple years.
--
Roland Perry

On 01/04/2023 18:48, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <u09eru$1uir7$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:25:02 on Sat, 1 Apr
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 01/04/2023 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> "The DVLA is entitled to carry out, and frequently does, criminal
>>>> prosecutions in the Magistrates Court for certain offences. The most
>>>> common of these offences is failing to notify the DVLA of a change of
>>>> keeper for a vehicle."
>>>> [https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/srvmotoring/failing_to_n
>>>> otify_dvla/]
>>>> The current penalty seems to be a fine of up to 1000 pounds.
>
>>>  And yet few people are prosecuted, and frankly no-one knows how long
>>> you  can be in temporary accommodation before it kicks in. I was once
>>> in a  hotel for two weeks in such circumstances (furniture in
>>> storage), should  I have informed DVLA?
>>
>> Temporary accomodation can be for as long as you like providing your
>> permanent address is still valid, cf students at uni.
>
> I'm glad you brought that up: there's a school of thought which says
> that students at uni should re-declare their accommodation (especially
> if private rented) as their residence for the duration of their stay.
> Typically only a year, but I know post-grads are more likely to stay in
> the same property multiple years.

As far as the DVLA are concerned they just need an address to send the
speeding tickets and other summons to. So in the case of your sojourn
between moves I assume you had set up a mail redirect to cover that
period which should have been acceptable to the DVLA.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.