Being safe on the internet (was Re: Here we go again - ISP DPI, but is it interception?)

[Roland Perry]

In article <4C58579A.40208 at ernest.net>, Nicholas Bohm <nbohm at ernest.net> 
writes
>(Where Poole messed up was that no surveillance to find out where
>someone was currently living could be proportionate where the issue was
>where they had been living at some earlier qualifying date.  Against
>stupidity the gods themselves etc.)

Straying a bit off topic, but my school solves the "Poole Problem" by 
putting the burden of proof [of residence at a specific address on the 
qualifying date - which is typically in October the *previous* year] 
onto the applicant.

But proving actual residence, rather than simply the existence of a 
pied-à-terre, is realised to be difficult; so for rented accommodation 
the school now asks for sight of a "minimum 12 months tenancy" 
agreement. Which I have always felt to be an unusual animal, and 
something an innocent person moving to the area and getting housed, 
before approaching the school, might find caused some difficulty.

In my own case, for example, I moved to the town in June, then had two 
different six month rentals inside the catchment area, before buying a 
house just one street outside the catchment area. However, at the time, 
the tail end of the first six month rental was sufficient - had I been 
asked to produce some credentials - even though by the time my child 
entered the school we'd been living outside for three months (but 
because the area is oddly-shaped, actually closer to the school than 
other streets that are inside!)
-- 
Roland Perry