Genealogy Chat

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

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...

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.

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 ...

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.

Janey I will happily participate in a discussion with anyone.
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.

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.

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 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.

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

Cheers
Guy

Do you have a reason for joining this website other than to promote yourself, Guy?

It obviously and certainly is not to participate in civil discussion with other members.

It is good to see that growing numbers of MPs are replying to letters asking for a change in the census legislation.
A good proportion of these replies are supporting the change.

The more MPs that support the change in legislation the more chance it will be changed to allow the release.

Thanks to all those who have already written to their MP and thanks to all those who have taken the time and effort to email me and write to me to inform me of the replies you have received.
Cheers
Guy

Guy, your question on page 4 re the European Council (Framework) Census Regulation:

"Perhaps someone could explain to me why this country has to supply a group of foreign countries the above details (which comes under legislation with a 30 year disclosure limit, recommended to be reduced to 15 years) when the 1921 census is withheld for ever."

Perhaps you can explain to me and the assembled readers why you have made a false statement. I mean, you wouldn't be asking for someone to explain something to you unless you were asserting that the thing that needs explaining is true, right?

Is this the one?

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0014:0020:EN:PDF

This is what it says.

Data transmission
2. Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with final, validated and aggregated data and with metadata, as required by this Regulation, within 27 months of the end of the reference year.


"Metadata" are not relevant for our purposes. Do you know what "aggregated data" are?

If you do, you know that the term refers to *non-personalized data* -- data in which individuals *cannot be identified*.

Unless I am very sadly mistaken, the data being disclosed to this "group of foreign countries" -- a group to which the UK belongs, so even your characterization of it is inaccurate and misleading -- are NOT individual census records.

The data being disclosed to the EU are the same data that UK statisticians use to produce reports from the most recent censuses, and make available to academics and the private sector, for instance, as soon as the compilation is complete. Those data DO NOT show that there is one unemployed person living on your block of the street, let alone that you are an unemployed person; they show the number of unemployed people in a particular census division, the divisions always being large enough that the aggregated data do *not* identify persons or disclose information about persons.

So perhaps YOU can explain why you have made such an entirely false statement.

I suggested on the other thread that perhaps your problems stem not from malice, but from you being out of your depth.

You apparent failure even to understand the concept of "the public interest" and to understand (although easily ascertained) what UK census data are in fact submitted to the EU is tending to support the latter thesis.

James, re your post dated yesterday at 12:22:

You have named your partner's son. Did you ask his consent before discussing him, by name, on the internet? I doubt it.

There have been 3 people with that name born in England/Wales since 1916, all in the 1970s. One will be the person posting in this thread, your stepson will be one of the two others. It's hardly like his name is John Smith, although even then, it would be absolutely inappropriate for you to state his name in a public forum without his knowledge or consent.

A bit of a case in point when it comes to the regard some have for other people's privacy and personal information, and/or how some just don't stop to think.

Would you perhaps remove that clause from your post?

So much for not spreading the same topic around different boards ...

I haven't read this entire thread but I see Guy's post above:

mayfly: Has the 1939 National Registration already been released?

Guy: Yes since November last year.


So I see my post of today in the thread on Chat is right on point here, and I shall reproduce it for the information of anyone who might otherwise be misled, *misleading* being exactly what Guy is being here.



Guy, will you do your readers the simple basic courtesy of making straightforward, true statements, even just every once in a while?


"The NHS IC have launched a search service that returns details for those registered who are now deceased.
The NHS IC also provide free of charge details to living people under the Data Protection Act.

That means that living people can obtain their details from the 1939 National Registration.
Details covering deceased people registered on the 1939 National Registration can be obtained from the NHS IC.

That only leaves the tiny proportion whose whereabouts cannot be ascertained.
That tiny proportion around 2% contains the only records from the 1939 National Registration that are at present still closed records."


When we read through that verbiage, what we get is:

1. Living individuals may access THEIR OWN personal information from the 1939 National Registration.

2. Third parties may access another person's personal information from the 1939 National Registration IF THAT PERSON IS PROVED TO BE DECEASED.

3. NO ONE may access the personal information of any other person from the 1939 National Registration if the person's whereabouts (i.e. status as living or dead) cannot be ascertained.



IS THAT what you are saying?

So why are you not saying what it really all means:

A huge number of records from the 1939 National Registration MAY NOT BE ACCESSED by any third party, because the individuals whose records they are are still living.


http://www.1911census.org.uk/1939.htm

(my emphasis - ">>>>")

"Guy Etchells who was responsible for the challenge to the Information Commissioner that resulted in the 1911 census for England and Wales being released "early" (well early as far as the government was concerned) has also challenged the refusal of the NHS Information Centre to release information taken during the 1939 Identity Card Registration and in late 2009 received a ruling by the Information Commissioner partially in his favour >>>> where that information relates to deceased persons.

In response to this and a large number of people following Guy's lead and also making requests, the National Health Service Information Centre announced at the end of January 2010 a formal service for people to request data held on the 1939 Register for England and Wales. There is a charge for this - £42 - and >>>> data will only be released for individuals who have died and are now recorded as deceased."


Why are you trying to obfuscate here?

You say:

"All they achieved was restricting less than 2% of the 1939 National Registration the other 98% is now open.
The only closed records now are those for the few whose whereabouts cannot be traced today.
All the others are open by one of two alternative ways of access."

Those two ways are:

1. Prove the person in question IS DECEASED.
2. Prove that ONE IS the person in question.

There is NO PUBLIC ACCESS to those records in any other case.

So your statement -- "All they achieved was restricting less than 2% of the 1939 National Registration the other 98% is now open." -- is FLAT OUT FALSE. Access to that 2% is DENIED. Access to the records of people not proved to be deceased is SEVERELY RESTRICTED -- it is restricted to THE PERSON THEMSELF. Access to those records IS NOT "OPEN". And yet you say it is.


Now, will YOU distinguish between those records and census records?

What reason do YOU advance for releasing personal information about living individuals in census records vs. not releasing personal information about living individuals in the 1939 National Registration records?

You are campaigning for full public access to 1921 census records.

Full public access to 1939 National Registration records has already been denied.

You described the 1939 info here:

http://www.familyhistoryforum.co.uk/lofiversion/index.php?t2323.html

"There no sensitive facts on the 1939 National Registration as the particulars asked were-
1. Names.
2. Sex.
3. Age.
4. Occupation, profession, trade or employment.
5. Residence.
6. Condition as to marriage.
7. Membership of Naval, Military or Air Force Reserves or Auxiliary Forces or of Civil Defence Services or Reserves."

just as you do here, re census information that is essentially the same as that. You refuse to acknowledge that your opinion that such information is not "sensitive" is no more than your opinion. That is what it is. And no more. And quite obviously, it is far from authoritative.

Chris, the 100 year closure rule was not invented until 1966 by the Lord Chancellor’s Instrument number 12.

That was 45 years after the census was taken

In 1912 the 1841 and the 1851 census were released.
That means those census were closed for 70 years and 60 years respectively.

At the time of the 1921 census that average closure period for census was 80 years.

The first census to carry an assurance of 100 years closure was the 1981 census.
The only other two census to carry that assurance were the 1991 and the 2001 census.
Cheers
Guy

I really want the release of the 1921 census early.....Selfishly 'cause I may not make it until 2021 and the info may further my research before I go!.

But then again....

My Ancestors believed they gave the info subject to a 100 year closure rule and who am I to deny them their right?!

Conundrum!!!!!!!!

Chris

Hello Guy
Thank you for your reply
I had seen a while ago you were trying to get It released, thats brilliant,
Mayfly

Yes since November last year.
For England and Wales see
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/services/1939-register-service

For Scotland see
http://tinyurl.com/39mbvhd

Cheers
Guy

Has the 1939 National Registration already been released?
Thank you
Mayfly

As this is a duplicate posting of sorts albeit this is the original, I thought you may wish to see further discussion on chat:

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

I honestly think this could be a good idea. There was a world war during this period of census when so many families lost relatives, not only those who were serving soldiers. I have many relatives on the European continent, innocent civilians who were killed. I know they are not included in the 1921 British Census but relaxing our rules helps other countries to be freer with theirs.I would prefer it to be a free release and to reduce the census releases to 90 years and not the 100 it stands at at present. One census released earlier should not cause any problems even with the freedom of information act. The USA seem to have no problems with their 70 year old census releases. I would support Guy in his quest, and not because my partner has a son also called Guy Etchells.

Guy thankyou for being so frank...I started out as a 'floating voter' on this one...but you've certainly convinced me of exactly where I stand on it.

How do you expect the 'sensitive information' that someone is in prison to be 'redacted' or that 'grandad is living with her down the road and not his wife and kids'? THAT is sensitive in my view...not whether someone was blind deaf or dumb...

The first point about the person in prison I would not expect to be redacted.
Why should it, if a person commits a crime then I believe they should pay the consequences. If that is a census entry that shows then to be in prison then so be it.

The census would not show that granddad was living down the road with a woman rather than with his wife and kids.
It would show that the man and the woman shared the same house not their sleeping arrangements.
There could be 101 reasons for the couple to be living apart the majority not judgemental.
Perhaps that reveals more about the person reading the census than the person living apart from his wife and children.

”WHO decides what constitutes "sensitive"? Will you be the judge of whether the conditions of my family in 1961 ( the first census I appear on) are "sensitive" to those living now? or is that to be done by 'democratically elected MPs'...the ones I didn't vote for at this last election!”

Possibly the same people as decide whether to deprive a person of information under the European Convention of Human Rights or not.
You see article 10 provides for Freedom of Expression which includes –“This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

It would however be foolish to think that everyone has the right to be given every piece of information about everyone else. A compromise has to be reached.
One person’s freedom may impinge on another’s freedom therefore a balance has to be reached.

In a democracy we choose to let our democratically elected representative make such decisions for us.
Cheers
Guy