Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Patmobile's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Whether you get a chance to send in a postal vote depends on the constituency you last lived in in UK My mother used to live in the Fareham constituency before joining us here in France 4 years ago. She gets her postal vote in good time and has voted in the last General Election and in the AV referendum. We were last registered as living in Tower Hamlets where there is a huge amount of Postal Voting by "ghost" voters who live, oddly enough, by the hundreds in houses belonging to local political figures and their friends and families, but who are never actually seen coming and going. These "ghost" postal voters always get their voting papers in good time. Too bad, however, if you live abroad like us. We either get our papers way too late (like posted to us the day before the election) or not at all. Last I heard, this transparent vote-rigging in the constituency was going to be investigated. I did e-mail the Prime Minister after the last General Election to complain about my, probably deliberate, disenfranchisement. I still haven't had any AV referendum voting papers, though.
  2. Or, even better, get an i-Pod Touch which costs about half the price of an i-Pad and does all the same things - plus you can carry it around in your shirt pocket, unlike an i-Pad or a laptop. I have an i-Pad but I use my i-Pod Touch most of the time simply because it's in my pocket.
  3. If your the seller who also has a Viners cutlery set for sale, then I've just put in a bid! My Belkin gear just doesn't seem to like being in a network with a Livebox 2.  It's a few years old, and I haven't used it for 3 years, but I installed it like it says in the manual, and ran the CD that came with it.  It is supposed to be able to work in "Bridge" mode, but as someone already said, Belkin products don't seem to always like being with non-Belkin stuff.  I have a redundant netgear router with wi-fi that I could experiment with, but if I get the eBay auction stuff - and if it works - then I'll know not to mess about any further. Patrick
  4. Well, that certainly looks simple - and thanks for the link.  It is, in theory just a neater version of what I've cobbled up for myself - but presumably, as it's designed to work with a Livebox, it should just plug and play. I still don't see why my system doesn't work, though Patrick
  5. I really need to be able to work online while I'm in other parts of the house, so does my wife.  I would appreciate a reply from someone with some technical expertise. For exercise we already have bikes, a rowing boat, a well-equipped gym, a huge garden to mow, sweep, weed and look after, and a 3 storey house to renovate, maintain and clean.    As well as running businesses, we're up and down the stairs, or ladders, all day and that we sometimes have to phone each other to communicate if we're in different parts of the house. This is a serious question - so if someone can help I'll be grateful  Patrick 
  6. I live in a large house built of concrete and steel.  It's about the size of a small block of flats and my wi-fi coverage is restricted at present to a couple of rooms in one corner of the building.  I would like to extend my effective wi-fi zone to cover more of the house, but I'm having problems making everything work together. In my office I have a couple of desk PCs hard wired in a network via a switch, which is in turn wired to the Livebox on the ADSL line.  My wife and I work side-by-side and occasionally add one or both of our laptops into the network, either by plugging in a patch cable to the switch, or, from another room nearby, by wi-fi via the Livebox.  All this works OK with few problems except that, only very occasionally, our 4 different versions of Windows refuse to co-operate with each other. To extend the network further around the house I bought a couple of Devolo dLAN 200 AVmini network extender plugs which use the electric mains wiring in the house to carry the network.  This works, but involves carrying cables about and plugging in the adaptors, the laptops (their batteries don't last long when you're working) and trailing network cables. I also have an iPod Touch which connects to the internet only by wi-fi, so is limited to use in a small part of the house.  It's so useful my wife wants one, too. I tried to extend the wi-fi zone using an old but serviceable Belkin Wireless Network Access Point that I had used in our previous home.  I connected it in another part of the house to the network switch via the Devolo adapters.  The PC in the office with the Belkin management software installed is definitely communicating with the Access Point this way.  The Livebox can also see the Belkin unit, so there appears to be no lack of  network connectivity.  Encription is not a problem - I have not set it up on either the Belkin or the Livebox, as the house stands in the middle of 3 acres of walled and gated grounds, so there's no-one nearby. When I go into the room where the Belkin Access Point is installed, I would expect my laptop and my iPod to find my wi-fi network, exactly as they do when they are near the Livebox.  Nothing doing! Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong? Patrick            
  7. REUTERS "Viviane Reding, the EU's fundamental rights commissioner, dropped her previous accusation that the “disgraceful” policy amounted to illegal discrimination against gipsies. Instead, she warned France that it was in technical breach of EU law by failing to properly incorporate a 2004 free movement directive into national law, a substantial softening of her previous position. “The Commission accepted France’s assurances that the measures taken have neither the aim nor the effect of targeting a specific 'minority’ and that French authorities apply EU law in a non-discriminatory fashion,” said a two-page statement. The case has strained relations between Paris and Brussels after an angry confrontation between Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, and senior Commission officials at an EU summit on Sep 16. Mrs Reding was forced to withdraw her comparison of the Roma policy with Vichy France’s Second World War collaboration with Nazi round-ups of ethnic minorities after President Nicolas Sarkozy demanded an apology for a “disgusting and shameful attack on the honour of France”. Eric Besson, the French immigration minister, proclaimed victory for France." Brussels lawyers, at great expense, no doubt, have advised that though France is in technical breach of EU law, there is no Human Rights case to answer.  I could have saved them the time and (most of) the expense Patrick PS:  NormanH, I read, write and speak French, English and German and have at least "a modicum" of legal training, but it wouldn't take a multilingual international lawyer to find the flaws in the EU's "case".  I never said what Sarkozy did was nice, just that he, and France, broke no laws and infringed no-one's human rights.  Their human dignity, maybe...
  8. Brussels has withdrawn the threat of legal action in the European Court.  It's clear they have realised they have no winnable case.  As predicted by.... Patrick
  9. I'll believe he wants to distance himself from his predecessors when he denounces the "dodgy dossier" cooked up by Blair and his cronies and calls for a proper judicial enquiry. What's the betting all the paperwork has been "mislaid" just like Blair's expenses records. Patrick
  10. [quote user="Quillan"]I don't think its right to target a specific group like this. I agree with what the EU has said and to which Ade100 refers in that as a citizen/passport holder of an EU member state you can freely move around the European Union but you can't be a drain on the resources of the country in which you have chosen to reside. The only problem of throwing out all those that are a drain is that it would undoubtedly upset many other EU states when their citizens are returned. I mean, if you implement a law based on this EU directive then it has to be applied equally and fairly to all. I also don't understand why, like many Brits who paid very little in to the French State system, they can't be given some form of grace in the same way like if you have filled in a tax return for the last 5 years but the amount is zero or whatever you can stay. [/quote] If this ever went to court, which it won't, because of the acute flimsiness of the Brussels case, the French government would say, quite justifiably, they are not "targetting" Roma but "prioritising" their removal from shanty encampments.  If multiple large gangs of illegal Brits were setting up unsightly,illegal, unlicensed, unhealthy camps on both public and private property and using them as bases for various unwelcome forms of illegal activity, they could expect to be "targetted" in the same way.    
  11. I'm not arguing any moral point here.  I'm simply suggesting Brussels should butt out and shut up.  There is no point them wasting European taxpayers' money trying to take such a weak case to court. The Brussels bureaucrats simply can't say that other EU citizens wouldn't be treated in the same way - no other vagrant ethnic group from another EU country has taken advantage of EU rules to come to France and set up shanty encampments.  But, if large parties of Celts, say from Cornwall and Wales, or Gaels from Ireland and Scotland came into France and squatted illegally on public and private land, are they saying they would not be seen as lawbreakers by the French government, and be treated in some other more favourable way?  Are they suggesting the French government would not make it a priority to clean up the camp sites and send the vagrants back?   Are they suggesting the name of the ethnic group the squatters, themselves, proudly claim should not be used when discussing them? If Brussels could give examples of different official French treatment for different races in the same circumstances they might stand a chance of winning a court case, otherwise they should stop wasting everyone's money and time by threatening pointless legal action.  Patrick  
  12. [quote user="Albert the InfoGipsy"][quote user="Patmobile"]There might also be an argument as to whether "Roma" is in fact a distinct race or just a name for people of no particular race or nationality who live a nomadic way of life.  [/quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people Particularly have a look at 'Origins'. As you suggested, I'm considering changing my forum name.  [/quote] Hi Albert, I'm not saying there is no Roma, Romany, Rom, or whatever race, just that even to start to prove an act of racism you would potentially have to overcome first any defence argument that various groups of Romanian and Bulgarian travellers camping illegally could not be considered to be of one identifiable racial type.   Patrick
  13. [quote user="pachapapa"] But following your line of thought that, a priori, gets SNCF off the hook during the Vichy France Era; they were just transporting a mixed group of undesirables of multiple creeds and ethnicities. But I fancy with a proper court and VERY competent lawyers in california it wont be a done deal; interesting to see how it turns out though as there are similar TGV projects for Texas,the Chicago area, Florida, NewYork, etc. [/quote] The crux of this very different case is that these people, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc., mostly of French nationality, were being rounded up in their own country, having committed no crime other than belonging to a particular racial, religious or genetic group, and knowingly transported by SNCF to slavery or death camps. It's a completely different case in almost every way. Sarkozy's government has not infringed the Human Rights of the Roma shanty dwellers.  They have not complied with the law and are expelled (though with financial comfort) to their country of origin where they are not enslaved, tortured or shot, and they are not prevented from returning whenever they like.  Moreover, they will be permitted to stay, the next time, provided they are in full compliance with France's legitimate requirement that they have jobs or are capable of supporting themselves, and are not breaking the law by creating unlicensed encampments. Patrick
  14. It might be considered a racist policy if there were no other criteria for action other than being "Roma".  However, as I read it the government called for action to clear illegal encampments of all types - adding, perhaps unwisely, Roma encampments as a priority. I reckon in a proper court any reasonably competent lawyer could argue sucessfully that the government meant no racial bias, merely setting an order in which action was to be taken against any and all offenders, excepting none. There might also be an argument as to whether "Roma" is in fact a distinct race or just a name for people of no particular race or nationality who live a nomadic way of life.  If it goes to court France should win this case. Patrick  
  • Create New...