Genealogy Chat

Its also good to see that a good number agree that privacy is more important than a hobby.

I've got a response from mine and he agrees that all personal information provided under pain of punishment should not be revealed for at least 100 years and will strenuously support that position. So yes, it is good to see the MP's taking part.

More importantly, he is prepared to lobby for this and is considering an EDM, which I know is not of great importance, but it gets the invasion of privacy into the public eye.

So thanks for bringing this to everyones attention!

Edit:

Some of us use aliases due to personal information beging taken and used in rather despicable ways from various people. If you're willing to risk that by using your own name so be it - some of us aren't inclined to let personal information into thepublic arena. Once bitten, twice shy I believe the saying goes.

I'm not going to start to get involved with the debate on whether to release or not, but just wanted to point out that with a budget deficit of >£150 billion a few million quid from releasing census early will make no difference at all to the state of the nation ...

Guy:
"I will not discuss with a person whose ideas of a discussion is to be discourteous, throw insults, twist what I have written or intimate that I am lying."

And that is precisely why *I* am not discussing anything with *you* here -- because all you have done from the outset is insult by evading and misrepresenting, both the facts and what other people have said. I am simply pointing out your evasions and misrepresentations. It's all one can do in such circumstances.


"I do you and everyone else here the courteously of using my own name which allows you and everyone else here the opportunity to research my background, motives and other statements I have made over the years."

First, regarding me personally, I have fully explained why I use a pen name on the internet -- because I have been stalked on line by a person with too many details about me, whom I had very good reason to fear. Second, the only place where I have ever made any statement about any of the issues in these two threads is in these two threads. So everything *I* have said is an open book and readily accessible at this very website. So I'm failing to take your point.

"I read and respond to points raised without twisting what has been said, I also try to look at a discussion from both sides and respond to the points raised rather than trying to score points by trying to blacken the character of those who take a different stance from myself."

I have no idea what you read. I do know that you use every trick in the demagogue's book to *avoid* responding to points raised that undermine your own case, and to portray the people making them as ignorant fools.


"I totally understand that cultural differences and the fact that writing does not show the inflections of the spoken word can make a difference in comprehension between one forum member and another."

Ah yes, Guy! I'm a foreigner! I don't understand anything! I should not be listened to!

Here's an interesting thing. One set of my own grandparents did not immigrate to Canada until after 1925, married but separately. The 1921 census could indeed answer some questions for me about them. Where were my grandmother and her eldest daughter in 1921, when my grandfather was apparently in the British military in Ireland, apparently committing crimes against humanity? And more interesting still, something I may have discovered just last night -- was he in fact really back home (his, not hers) in England, in a bigamous marriage, having children, between 1920 and 1925? Ah, if only people here would answer their PMs ... Thing is, one of the children in question actually appears still to be living. The birth certificate, which I could get, would tell me nothing if, as I suspect (and know re earlier events), my grandfather was using a false name. But the census data would tell me what I need to know, to confirm or deny. Aha! This morning I see that the person with the child in question in his tree has read my PM. Still no reply ... I must campaign for release of the 1921 data before it is too late! [/sarcasm]

I don't need inflections to see when someone is misrepresenting. You don't need inflections to understand anything I or anyone else has said here.


"I find your postings insulting to the extreme and will only reply to your postings if you moderate your tone."

I found your posts insulting in the extreme before you did. Mine are simply responses to your incivility. No further response is actually needed from you. Your evasions and misrepresentations are eloquent.

A couple of observations in this debate.
An objection given is that the census may show someone was in prison at the time. If they were in prison in 1921, then they would have been an adult by then (or at least the 1921 version of one), so would be well over 100 by now so almost certainly dead. Also, people could be imprisoned for many reasons, some would not even constitute a crime now. Many court records are available - the Old Bailey records are searchable online until 1913 and as these would be the most serious crimes, they would likely still be inside in 1921. Other court records are also available.
Another objection is that information of living people should be kept secret as it may show things like their mother was "living in a brothel when they were born". Well, information like that is also shown on the birth cert, as is the fact that the father wasn't married to the mother (or even present). This birth cert is freely available for people on the 1921 census. In fact it is relatively easy to obtain certs for even very recent events (which I personally find more concerning).
Finally an argument used is that turning a blind eye to the 100 year rule (which may or may not be a false statement) may stop people completing the census in future years. Well only two weeks ago, BBC news ran a story saying that the 2011 census would almost certainly be the last, so...

Do you want to ignore the responses to various of those remarks that have already been given, RobG?

Most are in the thread on Chat. Particularly as regards the birth certificate situation (how *not everyone told the truth* on those records, and how they can't be found unless someone *knows what they are looking for*, in particular).

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards.asp?wci=thread&tk=1232058

Janey,

With all due respect, I am not "ignoring the responses to those various remarks" that you say are to found on Chat. I never going on to Chat these days, as when I last did it contained mainly threads that were nothing to do with why I pay my money to GR. Also, I did not go looking for what sounds like a duplicate thread, as those would be against GR's T&Cs ;-)
So, it's OK to be able to get a (for example) birth cert for even a recent event because "not everyone told the truth on those records" !!! I must be unlucky then, because I have many examples where they didn't tell the truth on the censues too!! Maybe I'm being naive, but for me it is less of an invasion of privacy finding out where someone was on one specific night 90 years ago, than for someone to obtain my birth and marriage certs with very little trouble, which enables them to go a large part of the way to stealing my identity.

I see no reason to repeat any of the many responses that have been given to your points because *someone else* decided to duplicate this discussion on the Chat board and I and others were unaware of the thread on this board.

You now have notice of those responses, which exist whether you choose to read them or not (as many other facts and arguments in this world exist in many places and aren't all gathered together in one place for your convenience), and you are entirely free to ignore them if you wish. If you do, you will have failed to demonstrate your own intention of engaging in civil discourse -- that is, discussion in which participants acknowledge what has already been said and responded to, whenever and wherever that might be, rather than simply repeating what has already been responded to as if one were delivering irrefutable stone tablets.

(Would you assert that the earth is flat in a thread here at GR, and claim not to have to read or respond to evidence that it is not, that is found somewhere else?)

I myself have gone out of my way already to find and respond to things said. You don't have to look for anything; the url for the other thread is here.


"Maybe I'm being naive, but for me it is less of an invasion of privacy finding out where someone was on one specific night 90 years ago, than for someone to obtain my birth and marriage certs with very little trouble, which enables them to go a large part of the way to stealing my identity."

Do two wrongs make a right? Many peple object to the disclosure of vital records (BMDs) about living people to third parties. There is apparently nothing can be done about that in the UK. (In Canada, and other comparable sister countries of the UK, such access is prohibited. In Canada, it is also a criminal offence to disclose peronal information from lists of electors.)

If you stir yourself and demonstrate your sincere interest in discussion of the issues, you will find that it has been said *many times* that the public access to these records now allowed *does not* necessarily mean that anyone will actallly be able to find info about someone else, since they may not know what they are looking for (e.g. the surname in which a birth to unmarried parents was registered). Identity theft has never been the main concern expressed in this regard.

This isn't actually about you, you see.

Thank you for your considered response Janey. I will drop in to the thread on Chat. I will do this as I like to know all the available information, not because I wish to engage with you in "civil discourse", as it appears from your responses that you do not wish to be civil - but I will put that down to you having a bad day, rather than it being in your nature to be so condescending.
At the risk of making yet another point that has already been answered on another board (irony), my statement about the BMDs was indicitive. Many, many records exist in the public domain that more directly affect peoples privacy, than a snapshot of ninety years ago.

You can put anything down anywhere you want, RobG! Heck, you can even make presumptuous, offensive personal remarks to me. As you have demonstrated.

You might look up "civil discourse" somewhere on the net, and you will find that it has nothing at all to do with using nice words.

It has to do with being sincere and straightforward in one's exchanges with others. Someone who *sincerely* wants to exchange thoughts and ideas on a subject with others addresses what others say about it, in a straightforward manner.

Don't be taking your cues from Mr. Etchells in this regard, now. ;)

And no, there are things in a census taken 90 years ago, that people were required by law on pain of penalty to disclose, that aren't available by other means, actually.

If my new (as of last night) suspicion about a close ancestor of mine were to be correct, that census *would* almost certainly confirm it (or refute it, if my suspicion is wrong, of course), whereas other accessible records are unlikely to do so. This could be a matter of concern to a relation I have just met here at GR (and others, including my own more immediate family members) as it would touch directly on his parent's status and my close ancestor's character, and would actually be quite scandalous, in the legal sense.

Should third parties have access to that info? I'm thinking there's no reason for them to.

It is good to read a balance of views, many of which I think have been well formulated.

Any more views?

My husband's father was born in 1920. I have his birth certificate which gives his mother's maiden name. The parents were never married and the mother either left or was thrown out while my FIL was an infant. We know a great deal about the paternal side and nothing other than a name for the maternal side; no age, no place of birth, no pictures, zilch. We therefore have no way of discovering what became of her afterwards. Did she have more children? Did she marry? When and where did she die? Everybody else in the household is deceased, and I would be amazed if she has survived but until the 1921 is released, we can go no further.

Poolie Girl - one can try searching the BMD registration index, quarter by quarter, year by year, either on a paying site or at a records office or in a main library that stocks the fiches or films. It is possible that she married, had children or died before the 1921 census was undertaken.

Poolie Girl, unfortunately as the law stands the 1921 census will never be released.
That is why we need a change in the law.

The more people who write to the Members of Parliament and who add a rating and comment to the HMG Your Freedom website
http://tinyurl.com/2vju6b9 the more chance of getting the law changed.

Cheers
Guy

"Did she marry? When and where did she die? Everybody else in the household is deceased, and I would be amazed if she has survived but until the 1921 is released, we can go no further." -

Poolie Girl - one can go further, as I posted: one can try searching the BMD registration index, quarter by quarter, year by year, either on a paying site or at a records office or in a main library that stocks the fiches or films. It is possible that she married, had children or died before the 1921 census was undertaken.
Happy hunting :-)

"Poolie Girl, unfortunately as the law stands the 1921 census will never be released."

Hi Guy,

please just forget the law and your interpretation of it for the moment (that's not meant to be rude by the way :) ) did someone actually come out & say that the 1921 census won't be released under the present law - before anyone mentioned it or quoted law at them?

I just worry that people who keep quoting the law & saying that this won't happen because of this law and that law will actually cause this to happen whilst the census may have otherwise been merrily released in 2021 without incident.

Yes both the Office of National Statistics and the Information Commissioner have affirmed that no census taken under the 1920 Census Act as amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 can ever be released without a change in the law.
Cheers
Guy

Joy, searching quarter by quarter, year by year will produce only a huge list of possibilities. There were at least half a dozen possibles in County Durham on the 1911. ie women with the correct name who would have been of child bearing age in 1920. What if she came from Yorkshire (the head of the household was a Yorkshireman originally), some other county or perhaps Scotland. Did she revert to her birth name or continue using her 'new' name? If she went to another town and married what are the chances she ever told her new family of the existence of the son she left behind?

Without an age and place of birth as a starting point how could I identify which was 'my' lady or totally unrelated?

Poolie Girl ... "Without an age and place of birth as a starting point how could I identify which was 'my' lady or totally unrelated?" ... doesn't this apply equally to census searches?

Janey, I know the address she was living in 1921. I have the details of the other members of the household; it is only she who remains a shadowy figure.