No, the standard test procedure at the time was to use some set amount of stick pressure, typically 60 pounds, that they thought was as much as the average pilot could apply. In some planes it is both easier and more effective if you apply more pressure to the stick, which allows some planes to handily exceed their test numbers!

That maybe true but as you have provided no evidence it is a totally worthless statement

 One more point! At that time, the early 1940's, the RAF did not even test for Rate of Roll response!

and just how do you reckon that? as pointed out before the roll rate was assessed but as the answer dissagrees with your preconceptions you egnore them completely

 So they must not have thought it was important until the Fw-190 showed them the error of their ways!

no they realised that the roll rate gave an advantage over the MKV, the spped at lower altitude and other characteristics also gave the FW190 an advantage, increasing the roll rate was only ONE method of making the Spit more competative, and the introduction of the MKIX mean that the FW190 advatage was largely negated (even tjough the MKIX didnt roll as fast as the 190 it was pretty superior in most other flight characteristics)

 Before you can even beguine to address this last point, you have to find a copy of those Pre Fw-190 Rate of Roll tests done by or for the RAF.

Hint, after maybe ten years here and on other boards, no-one has ever been able to find those reports! Good luck finding them and I sincerely hope that you do find them, because then they will prove beyond all doubt that the Spit was the second worst RoR plane at speeds over 300 MPH during the entire War!

so what you are saying is that you have a theory but cannot prove it because you cannot find the evidence but everyone else is wrong!

this evaluation whould tend to say your claim is bogus

No, the standard test procedure at the time was to use some set amount of stick pressure, typically 60 pounds, that they thought was as much as the average pilot could apply. In some planes it is both easier and more effective if you apply more pressure to the stick, which allows some planes to handily exceed their test numbers! That maybe true but as you have provided no evidence it is a totally worthless statement
 

and just how do you reckon that? Lack of any mention of same in every single know test report! as pointed out before the roll rate was assessed How do you know that? It was not mentioned except as a by product of the coordination of the controls, or control harmony. but as the answer dissagrees with your preconceptions you egnore them completely
The answer does not disagree, or even dispute anything I stated. It was not important enough to them that they required it to be tested. Plus, the Hurricane was found to be the faster rolling of the two planes in side by side comps!

So they must not have thought it was important until the Fw-190 showed them the error of their ways!
no they realised that the roll rate gave an advantage over the MKV, the spped at lower altitude and other characteristics also gave the FW190 an advantage, increasing the roll rate was only ONE method of making the Spit more competative, and the introduction of the MKIX mean that the FW190 advatage was largely negated (even tjough the MKIX didnt roll as fast as the 190 it was pretty superior in most other flight characteristics)
I guess this brings on the argument about which is more important, agility or speed? Because the 190 had one solidly and the spit had the other just as solidly. Note the lack of conclusion and or opinion in the question above. 
  
Before you can even beguine to address this last point, you have to find a copy of those Pre Fw-190 Rate of Roll tests done by or for the RAF.

Hint, after maybe ten years here and on other boards, no-one has ever been able to find those reports! Good luck finding them and I sincerely hope that you do find them, because then they will prove beyond all doubt that the Spit was the second worst RoR plane at speeds over 300 MPH during the entire War!

so what you are saying is that you have a theory but cannot prove it because you cannot find the evidence but everyone else is wrong!
No. What I am saying is that I have ample evidence in the form of lack of early test reports, and RoR tests on later types and the opinions of many test and fighter pilots who have flow with or against the Spitfire, like the quote from Captain Brown, that the Spitfire in ALL it's War time Variants was slower rolling than the German's and most other Nation's planes. When combined with the inability of all here and elsewhere to find test reports that could be used to challenge that series of facts and well known opinions means that it therefore MUST be true! The Spitfire was one of the slowest Rolling planes of the war at higher speed!

this evaluation whould tend to say your claim is bogus
 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-roll.jpg
We have all gone over this report numerous times and it states nothing of the sort! If you doubt any of this, cut and paste the relevant parts here for us all to see.

by any argument it shows that thier were worse which clearly disproves you
No, those results were all found at lower speeds, not really relevant to late war combat. 

When combined with the many Pilot's anecdotal stories, the opinions of people like Captain Brown who flew those tests and the fact that at up to 400 MPH, the Fw-190 was faster rolling than the post war Mk-21. I claim that the Mk-21 Spitfire was post war because of it's late entry into service squadrons, the very small numbers that were made and the absolute lack of even one Victory in actual combat.

So they must not have thought it was important until the Fw-190 showed them the error of their ways!Secondly, The rest of Captain Brown's interview explains why he thinks the Mk-XIV was the best fighter plane of the war and the ability, or should I state lack of ability to "Snap Roll" was not part of it!