RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Guy Etchells on Wednesday 30 June 10 07:21 BST (UK)
-
Access to the 1921 census
In times of economic stress such as these the government might be open to any idea that could generate useful revenue and the 1921 census is one such project.
A way to generate income, provide jobs and boost the economy all at the same time without making cuts.
Such a policy must be popular with the electorate.
The National Audit Office report on the release of the 1901 census stated that the internet access to the 1901 generated revenues of £4.5 million by October 2003, less than one year.
In five years that amounts to a conservative sum of £22.5 million and useful figure for even a government to play with.
I would therefore like to suggest a campaign to encourage the government to release the 1921 now.
Now is the time to write to Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament we may be able to obtain a change in policy.
If you want access to the 1921 census now is possibly the only time to act.
Cheers
Guy
-
I'l love that, but would all the 89+ year olds like it? ;D
-
4.5 million wouldn't even cover the heating bill for the house of commons. Not worth inconveniencing those still alive for such a tiny return.
-
As much as I might love it, it would break the 100 year privacy they promised it would have so on that grounds I can't support it, unless all those (or vast majority) of 89+ year olds did not object.
Sarah
-
I think for many of us, 1921 is a matter of asking our parents. OK ok, I know a lot will be writing in and saying they only have one parent and they know nothing of the other sides family... But really, and while I really would like all census to be opened, I'm just glad that the 1911 has become available as that was such a vague period, the War a few years after became the main focal point and any memories before that became more like idle gossip.
Sorry Guy, although I see where you're coming from, I think a lot of us, while agreeing with the idea, aren't likely to support it. However, good luck.
Happy Hunting folks.
Garth
-
Yes I would support this and yes I understand what a lot are saying on here about the 89+ people but I help to run a local family history group and most of our members are in their 80's and quite a few of them have no one to ask about family and a lot of them would love to get later census to help them.
Garth you say for a lot of us it is only a matter of asking our parents but a lot of us our parents are no longer with us and we have no one else to ask.
Christine
-
Yes Christine,
My mum died in '95 and I so wish I'd asked her more. I never knew my dad as he left when I was 2 and had died when I was 11.
However, and maybe I'm a lucky one, my mother, brother and I used to have many 'family' discussions; tales passed down, shared experiences, possible futures and working out theories of how and why things are.
The benefits of a penniless childhood was that many evenings we'd talk and discuss all aspects of life. I'm beginning to realise now how fortunate I was when several of my friends don't even know how many aunts/uncles they have because they moved. Although I haven't met most of mine, I know who they are!
Wow, what a great site this is, not only am I learning from you all, I'm learning from myself as I post, it brings out stuff and memories I didn't know I had.
Garth
-
Guy, I understand that you were instrumental in getting the 1911 census released a wee bit early.
They got round the 100 year rule, by covering the last column (at least, that's what I understood). How would the 100 year rule be bent/broken in this case?
I must be a lot younger than many on here, as anyone over 80, would be my grand-parents, and sadly they have all passed. The 1921 is a good few years before my parents time.
-
i'm in the same situation as Daisy Loo, grand-parents have all passed on and parents all born way after the 1921 census.
while i understand that there will be some people still alive who feature on it and that will be a bigger number than the amount on the 1911 there must be a way around that particular issue.
also was there actually a 100 year rule applied to census returns?
-
access to the 1921 census early is a good idea and the Government are asking people to come up with ideas to create revenue but it would be breaking the 100 Year rule however this is only 70 years in the States they would need to see if it would cause problems by opening it up early, medical information should be withheld as it is with the 1911 census. Does it cause problems in the States to have a 70 year rule as opposed to the 100 year rule over here? Are there many people in America living to over the age of 100?
The DPA (Data Protection Act) is irrelevant once a person has died so it may be a question of you being able to access it upon proof the person is no longer living however there may be some people in the household who are still living so I don’t think that will work
I wonder if they would open it in a few years after all it does take time for the images to be uploaded into the relevant database perhaps its something they could get started on.
But I would personally prefer the registration papers for WW1 (can’t think of the actual name for them right at this minute) that was pre 1921 so this is something they could look at releasing before the 1921 census obviously this holds personal information such as height weight build hair colour eye colour next of kin but would be great for people like us and with the death of Bill Stone, Henry Allingham and Harry Patch last year I think the only other survivor is the chap who lives in Australia now. Perhaps they could release it to coincide with poppy day (Nov 11) because how else are they going to get the message across about WW1 now with no-one left to tell the tale it all becomes immaterial to the youngsters these days – they really need to make History lessons real (I have lots of ideas and I am thinking if I lose my job because of this recession I will train to become a History teacher!)
Slightly straying from the subject but did you hear the idea that the Government are thinking of giving people (unemployed) incentives to relocate to where there are jobs, I think the incentive would be a job itself and the prospect of earning money after all if our ancestors didn’t find a way of making money or move to where there were jobs then we’d be in a sorry state and they would probably have starved or gone into the workhouse
I shall get off my soap box.
-
I thought (although I don't know where I got it from so could have imagined it!) that the 1911 census was the last the English and Welsh Government didn't state that the census would defo stay closed for 100 years which was why they were allowed to open it early, but from the 1921 onwards they had agreed to keep private for the 100 years. Apparently Scotland had agreed for the 1911 to keep that closed for 100 years which is why I am as yet unable to access the Scottish 1911.
Like I previously said I would love to access the 1921 early, but the records are not about me, and hold no personal info about me where as they do about my Nain (welsh for grandmother) who is currently 90 and still going strong (touch wood ) and I know she would be deeply upset if it was opened in her life time as the 1921 census will clearly show her being a bastard child to an unmarried mother. This is something my Nain is and has been ashamed of and tried to hide from friends and relatives her whole life so she would be devastated if people started to find out or worse still remark on it to her. It's easy to trivialise the effect this has had on her in these times but to her it is a real scare she was carried with her throughout her life, and I am sure there must be loads of similar stories like this. Perhaps as suggested by Toni if they could withold records of those living people who object until the 100 year rule has past might be a good way of getting around it, and I agree that the transcription should happen before so that it is ready to go live as soon as the 100 years has passed.
I'd also rather individual be able to transcribe the records instead of FindMyPast or ancestry who will make us pay through our nose just for one household, or at least get the government to set up a site so that they can make the profit, I am sure lots of people would volunteer. I do think it's wrong that we have to pay to see these things, once the cost of the project is recovered the items should be free to view (or profit go to Government)
Don't get me started on the welfare state or I will be here all day ::)
Sarah
-
1921 - neither of my parents were alive and now both a dead - so no problem for me there.
The information contained in the census would not offend anyone - surely it is only names addresses & occupations and unless you have not already found any "skeletons" of this generation cannot think what would be contained therein to offend.
After all until next year we are at present unable to see the last column on the 1911 census.
Even my g/aunt who is 98 would not be bothered about anything that is on there, we in the family know that she, her sister & mother lived in one house where her mother was "housekeeper" to a gentleman and that their father lived a few doors away.
-
But I would personally prefer the registration papers for WW1 (can’t think of the actual name for them right at this minute) that was pre 1921 so this is something they could look at releasing before the 1921 census
But these are already available on Ancestry, and had been available to view on microfilm at TNA for years previously. It was also possible to order copies of the films through the LDS.
(That is, those records that still exist - unfortunately the majority were destroyed during an air raid in 1940.)
Ancestry has in the past offered free access to all its military records throughout the month of November.
-
The British ones, not just the medal cards etc. :)
however i was actually referring to this (yes i know its WW2)
1939 (29 Sept) WW2 National Registration" (for ID cards)
-
The British ones, not just the medal cards etc. :)
however i was actually referring to this (yes i know its WW2)
1939 (29 Sept) WW2 National Registration" (for ID cards)
(http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif)
Perhaps you should re-read what you posted.
But I would personally prefer the registration papers for WW1 (can’t think of the actual name for them right at this minute) that was pre 1921 so this is something they could look at releasing before the 1921 census obviously this holds personal information such as height weight build hair colour eye colour next of kin but would be great for people like us and with the death of Bill Stone, Henry Allingham and Harry Patch last year I think the only other survivor is the chap who lives in Australia now. Perhaps they could release it to coincide with poppy day (Nov 11) because how else are they going to get the message across about WW1 now with no-one left to tell the tale it all becomes immaterial to the youngsters these days – they really need to make History lessons real
And to clarify, yes, I did mean that surviving British service records and attestation forms are already available, not just the medal cards. :)
-
Thanks to all who have taken the time to reply.
First let me correct a few misconceptions about the census and confidentiality.
The 1921 census (and all later census) was carried out under the regulations imposed by the Census Act, 1920.
Nowhere in the Census Act, 1920 is there mention of closure for 100 years.
In 1991 the Census Act, 1920 was amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991.
Nowhere in the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 is there mention of closure for 100 years.
The hundred year rule that people love to keep mentioning has no basis in law. It is (as the Office of National Statistics (ONS) describes it) a non statutory rule. I.E. It does not have the backing of statute (law).
However the ONS on one hand states there is a statutory prohibition but then claims they are going to release the census in 100 years.
The prohibition actually lasts forever there is no time limit on it.
This means that if it is possible to release it in 100 years it is possible to release it today.
If you do not believe me take a look at the legislation.
There is a transcript of the Census Act, 1920 on my website at
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1920%20Census%20Act.htm
There is also a link to the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 on that page.
The Lord Chancellor's Instrument No. 12 of 1966 established the 100-year embargo rule. Prior to that, the delay in making census records public had been much shorter. For example, the 1841 and 1851 census records for England and Wales were both released in 1912. Scottish records were also held for less than 100 years. The 1891 Scottish returns, for instance, were made public after a delay of only 64 years. Given that the release of returns after 50 to 80 years was the practice in the first half of the last century, and that the Lord Chancellor's Instrument No. 12 of 1966 was 55 years away at that point, I would be very surprised if anyone who participated in that census really believed that their return would be held for exactly 100 years and not a day less. What is more, section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958 provides for the general release of records after 50 years, and that was reduced to 30 years in 1967.
Only six out of the 15 pre-1910 United Kingdom censuses have been closed for 100 years.
The details of nine out of 15 have been released after less than 90 years. (source Hansard 29 March 2004).
I should also point out that it was not until 1981 that census schedules carried the assurance that the census would be closed for 100 years.
This means only the 1981, 1991 and 2001 census carried that assurance.
It should also be noted that in this day and age any sensitive information such as medical conditions etc can easily be redacted as has been shown by the release of the 1911 census.
Cheers
Guy
-
Like I previously said I would love to access the 1921 early, but the records are not about me, and hold no personal info about me where as they do about my Nain (welsh for grandmother) who is currently 90 and still going strong (touch wood ) and I know she would be deeply upset if it was opened in her life time as the 1921 census will clearly show her being a bastard child to an unmarried mother. This is something my Nain is and has been ashamed of and tried to hide from friends and relatives her whole life so she would be devastated if people started to find out or worse still remark on it to her. It's easy to trivialise the effect this has had on her in these times but to her it is a real scare she was carried with her throughout her life, and I am sure there must be loads of similar stories like this.
Sarah
Surely the only way you can tell if a child is illigitimate is by the birth cert, with the absence of the name of the father? Unless the head of house has clearly put on relationship that the child is illigitimate...which would be few and far between surely?
Guy thanks for clarifying things. I am living in Ireland, and would be grateful if you could give direction as to where I could campaign etc for the early release?
-
Thanks, Guy. Sorry we wandered off-topic with the mention of WWI military records. But for those who have reservations about the disclosure of sensitive information, it might be relevant to point out that some of those records contain such detail, relating to the parents of people still living. Yet they have been in the public domain for some time.
Daisy - one might well learn from these records that the 'father' of a child was a long way from home at the time of conception! ;)
-
Guy, I think it is a great idea, and I for one would sign the petition. :D
-
It won't work Guy.
Given the change in economic policy, none of us will be able to afford credits of any kind in 6 months time. :P
(Please take as a joke, and not a political point against David Clegg and Nick Cameron) ;)
-
I think there are a number of pros and cons for early release on the 1921 census. The biggest pro being that raising revenue to help the country's deficit could be good in as much as it may help reduce some of the reductions of essential public services.
Whilst I realise that some dark secrets may get thrown up, I think that so long as the person discovering such a secret didn't go telling everyone then where is the harm.
One can actually find out these secrets by accident if they have sent off for certificates thinking they are a missing relative.
I would also sign a petition as like oldtimer I too think it's a great idea. :)
-
Yes Christine,
However, and maybe I'm a lucky one, my mother, brother and I used to have many 'family' discussions; tales passed down, shared experiences, possible futures and working out theories of how and why things are.
Me and my mum have those discussions too Garth. The problem is, so much of what she's told me has been disproved in some way when I've checked it out ;D She wasn't born until 1931, so I'm still operating on hearsay for the 20's and I'd like to confirm a few things.
When people bring up the question of people who are on the census not wanting it's release (in spite of Guy constantly pointing out that the 100 year closure doesn't exist), I always want to know what's going to happen if the census is kept closed for 100 years on privacy grounds, because of the misconception that confidentiality was promised. An increasing number of people live longer than 100 years now, so even if the census isn't made public until 2021, it's still going to contain information about living people. Effectively people are saying that it's wrong to release the 2021 census on a day when a person entered on it is 99 years and 364 days old, but if it's released the day after their one hundredth birthday, that's fine ???
Personally, I'll sign in favour of early release. I paid for a household entry from the 1911 before it came online, hoping to solve a family mystery, and all it did was throw up two more. The 2021 can't be released early enough for me.
-
In case I've been mis-understood, I'm definately for an early release. I just don't think we can get throgh the 'red tape' aspect. If a petition is started then I'll sign up.
Cheers
Garth
-
Hi Sloe Gin i don't need to reread what i posted i muddle myself up over which war sorry for the confusion
-
Hi Guy - nice idea, gets my support!
Do you know anything about the deal on the 1911 census revenue wise for Govt coffers?
Given that it went to Brightsolid for filming and indexing, I guess they take a lions share to recoup their costs?
The National Audit Office report on the release of the 1901 census stated that the internet access to the 1901 generated revenues of £4.5 million by October 2003, less than one year.
In five years that amounts to a conservative sum of £22.5 million and useful figure for even a government to play with.
-
Guy; Just point me, when and where to sign ;)
-
According to a BBC report the there was talk by MPs that the 1911 would bring in about £40 million pounds.
I have not tried to confirm that figure so avoided using it.
I would say however that the Registrar General exceeded his authority when he stated on the 1981 and 1991 census schedules that the information would be retained for 100 years before being released.
Hansard 14 March 2005 : column 77W reports his (Registrar General, Len Cook) admission he did not have the authority to make such a pledge.
With that in mind the only census to legally carry the pledge the census would not be released for 100 years was the 2001 census.
Cheers
Guy
-
Guy; Just point me, when and where to sign ;)
It is far better to write to an MP or Cabinet Minister via the House of Commons.
E.G. if a Cabinet Minister the letter should be addressed -
Rt. Hon. Ian Duncan Smith MP.
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
If an MP simply - Mr. Bloggs MP
An example letter could be-
Dear Mr. Smith,
In view of the current financial position of the UK and in view of the fact that there was no commitment to the public in 1921 that the census would be withheld for 100 years I wish to ask that the 1921 census be released now.
The result of this would bring economic benefits to the UK at a time when it is most needed. It could also provide much needed employment.
The economic benefit may be shown by a Hansard reply of Mr Carmichael where he states
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040329/debtext/40329-44.htm
“According to the National Audit Office report on the release of the 1901 census, "Unlocking the Past: the 1901 Census Online", the internet site allowing access to the England and Wales records generated revenues of £4.5 million by 31 October 2003.”
The 1901 census was released online in November 2002 (released initially January 2002 but withdrawn until November after the site crashed due to high demand) therefore that sum must be for approximately one year or less.
The figure may seem modest in national terms but in times of financial stress every form of income is a valuable asset.
The facts about withholding the census are also discussed in the above Hansard reply and I feel that in these times of open government and honesty in parliament the closure period should be urgently re-examined as the legislation that forbids the release of the 1921 census was not enacted until 1966 (Lord Chancellor’s Instrument number 12) and later under the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991.
As these two pieces of legislation are retrospective they did not influence the electorate when they filled out the census schedules therefore they could be amended without breaching the trust of the electorate.
Yours faithfully
If MPs and cabinet Ministers get hundreds or even better thousands of letters coming in day after day they sit up and take notice.
Do not forget every MP is looking for ways to avoid making cuts in their department.
The 1921 census provides the means to avoid cuts, create income and provide jobs.
That is exactly what this government claim they are endeavouring to do, it therefore ticks every box.
Cheers
Guy
-
I think this is a stupid and mischievous idea, and personally I am disappointed that Guy has been allowed to bring it up yet again. In my opinion it is nothing short of trolling ::)
The simple fact is you won't get access to the 1921 census early. If you don't believe me look up the evidence given to Parliament by the ONS on their preparations for the 2011 census and the need not to jeopardise the creditability of censuses by breaking previously given undertakings
-
One mans " Trolling " may be seen as another mans Lobbying. I aim to buy a stamp 8)
-
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'd love to see it early, but I do take the point of some of the posters that many of those listed are still alive.
I just wish someone could direct as much energy at getting the 1911 opened for us where our families are north of the border. It's incredibly frustrating being able to see a few relatives down south, but be champing at the bit to see the majority, knowing they are still locked up until next year.
In an odd sort of way, would it open a floodgate? If I read Guy correctly around the 100 year rule, we could legally request sight of the 1921, 1931 and so on. Sounds great for us, but many people who entered information in those years might feel differently. Thinking back to my scribbling something on the 1971 whilst trying to keep the baby quiet, I don't want to be around when my children and grandchildren get the chance to see my appalling handwriting.
p.s what is trolling anyway?
-
................ the need not to jeopardise the creditability of censuses by breaking previously given undertakings
As Guy has correctly pointed out (reply #15) there were no undertakings given for the 1921 census.
There was limited release of personal census data for genealogical purposes up to 1971 (ie up to and including information contained in the 1961 Census). In The Times of 13 July 1971 Sir Keith Joseph, Secretary of State for Social Services, was reported as stating:
"In view, however, of the public concern at the time of the recent census about the complete confidentiality of the information they provided, the Registrar General has decided to discontinue the practice of releasing anything at all within the 100-year period for the purpose of genealogy".
The reply of the Garter King of Arms in The Times of 14 July 1972 is also of interest in that even at that time a 70 year rule (not 100 year rule) was being suggested (albeit with restrictions):
"For genealogical research the old census records are of value, less for the information derived from them directly than as a means of entry into other record series. More often than not the genealogist wants from the census no more than date and place of birth and I venture to suggest that, with the consent of the person concerned or one of his direct descendants, these items alone could be released from censuses up to, say, that of 1901 without doing any damage to the public's confidence in the Government's assurances.
The benefits to research and to the thousands of people interested in tracing their own family history would be great".
For those who are concerned about confidentiality, the instructions for completion of the 1921 census form and the information that was disclosed in that census, as shown in the following link, may be helpful:
http://www.jaydax.co.uk/genlinks/images/1921CensusForm.pdf
The changes from the 1911 Census were:
Extra questions: -
1. whether a marriage has been dissolved by divorce
2. where each person works
3. the industry within which someone works
Deleted questions: -
1. the number of children
2. disabilities, namely, blindness, deafness or dumbness (on the grounds that the answers given in the 1911 census were unreliable and parents had objected to giving this information about their children).
Nigel
-
p.s what is trolling anyway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
-
As Guy opened this post on the subject of census, and it is primararliy a genealogical site, then that discounts it from trolling as defined by that link.
"'trolling' being used to describe many intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context."
The operative word being 'Outside'...... anyone got a spare stamp?
Garth
-
Guy; Just point me, when and where to sign ;)
It is far better to write to an MP or Cabinet Minister via the House of Commons.
Still grateful for your part in getting the 1911 released early, so interested in this thread. I'll use this 'template' to write a letter. Any advice on MPs who might be favourably disposed to the idea? As with planning applications, forget the petition approach as all names therein count as one item-separate letters count as individual lobbyists
ignore the twaddle about trolling Guy, nasty personal attacks are not the usual stuff of rootschatters. Your postings are well informed and well measured, unlike some
-
Thank you David, I appreciate the link, and I'm certainly better informed as I now know it to mean "... troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"
Interesting because the only Trolls I've come across before were in Harry Potter and I didn't get the impression they were that erudite.
I'm afraid I don't see the connection though. This is an online forum used by those interested in genealogy and researching family history. It would seem perfectly relevant to ask others whether they would wish to support any move to open census early. Whether they support the proposal or not is up to individuals, but this board does seem to be a perfectly reasonable place to pose the question?
-
................ the need not to jeopardise the creditability of censuses by breaking previously given undertakings
As Guy has correctly pointed out (reply #15) there were no undertakings given for the 1921 census.
There was limited release of personal census data for genealogical purposes up to 1971 (ie up to and including information contained in the 1961 Census). In The Times of 13 July 1971 Sir Keith Joseph, Secretary of State for Social Services, was reported as stating:
"In view, however, of the public concern at the time of the recent census about the complete confidentiality of the information they provided, the Registrar General has decided to discontinue the practice of releasing anything at all within the 100-year period for the purpose of genealogy".
The reply of the Garter King of Arms in The Times of 14 July 1972 is also of interest in that even at that time a 70 year rule (not 100 year rule) was being suggested (albeit with restrictions):
"For genealogical research the old census records are of value, less for the information derived from them directly than as a means of entry into other record series. More often than not the genealogist wants from the census no more than date and place of birth and I venture to suggest that, with the consent of the person concerned or one of his direct descendants, these items alone could be released from censuses up to, say, that of 1901 without doing any damage to the public's confidence in the Government's assurances.
The benefits to research and to the thousands of people interested in tracing their own family history would be great".
For those who are concerned about confidentiality, the instructions for completion of the 1921 census form and the information that was disclosed in that census, as shown in the following link, may be helpful:
http://www.jaydax.co.uk/genlinks/images/1921CensusForm.pdf
The changes from the 1911 Census were:
Extra questions: -
1. whether a marriage has been dissolved by divorce
2. where each person works
3. the industry within which someone works
Deleted questions: -
1. the number of children
2. disabilities, namely, blindness, deafness or dumbness (on the grounds that the answers given in the 1911 census were unreliable and parents had objected to giving this information about their children).
Nigel
In addition the Registrar General did not have the authority to add the assurance to the census schedule in 1981 and 1991 that the census would be witheld for 100 years.
On the 14 March 2005 : Column 77W Hansard reports a question by Mr. John Taylor
"To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action was taken by Ministers in his Department to establish that the Registrar General had statutory authority to state that personal information from the 1981 and 1991 decennial population censuses for England and Wales would be retained in his Department for 100 years before being released. [221179]"
In his letter of reply Mr Len Cook the then Registrar General admitted-
"This pledge asserts authority that the Registrar General does not have."
In other words the pledge was not worth the paper it was written on.
It should also be pointed out that that pledge swayed some MPs who would have voted against the 1991 Census Confidentiality Act.
Surely it is wrong when legislation can be enacted due to false information being fed to the House of Commons.
Cheers
Guy
-
According to a BBC report the there was talk by MPs that the 1911 would bring in about £40 million pounds.
I have not tried to confirm that figure so avoided using it.
I suspect that any 'staff work' done by a relevant Minister's dept will look to the 1911 as being the most recent example.
If that mooted figure you show of £40M is gross revenues reported by FindMyPast / Brightsolid, the researchers would need to know the nett figure flowing into the public purse.
-
In an odd sort of way, would it open a floodgate? If I read Guy correctly around the 100 year rule, we could legally request sight of the 1921, 1931 and so on.
After the 1921 census, there is nothing to see until 1951 (although there was a rudimentary 'census' in 1939), because the 1931 census was completely destroyed by fire, and there was no census in 1941, because of the war.
-
Surely the only way you can tell if a child is illigitimate is by the birth cert, with the absence of the name of the father? Unless the head of house has clearly put on relationship that the child is illigitimate...which would be few and far between surely?
I have certainly seen one 1911 schedule relating to a cousin of my gt grandmother where her 3 children have been clearly marked as illegitimate by the head of household (their grandfather). It still strikes me as odd that he would have included this info. unasked, but it's right there in his own handwriting. The children were aged between 2 weeks & 4 years old so any or all of them could still have been alive 90 years later.
-
the 1921 census will clearly show her being a bastard child to an unmarried mother.
Can you be sure of this though? Plenty of unmarried ladies with children gave their status as 'widow' in previous censuses.
-
I have seen it stated by a registrar in Scotland that although the woman had been married and the child she was carrying was her husband's that because her husband had died, the child was noted on the birth certificate as illegitimate, which seems strange and I do not understand how this could happen.
If a child is born mid/late dec and not registered until mid Jan the following year, would the child not appear on the 1911 census and you would have to wait until the 1921 census to see their name clearly marked. Thats on the understanding that in Scotland the census information is only made available either every ten years or 100 yrs.?
marcie
-
I think this is a stupid and mischievous idea, and personally I am disappointed that Guy has been allowed to bring it up yet again. In my opinion it is nothing short of trolling ::)
The simple fact is you won't get access to the 1921 census early. If you don't believe me look up the evidence given to Parliament by the ONS on their preparations for the 2011 census and the need not to jeopardise the creditability of censuses by breaking previously given undertakings
With regard to the evidence given by the ONS, it shows that people are -
"97. Concerns over confidentiality of data and data-sharing within Government are at the forefront of the public consciousness in a manner perhaps not envisaged a decade ago. Londoners are far more aware of the capacity of Government bodies to share the data they hold on citizens between them. No matter how robust the procedural and legislative safeguards in place to prevent inappropriate and unauthorised data sharing, issues of trust and data security are bound to be raised during the run-up to the Census and on Census night. "
That shows the population is concerned not with the data being made public as many would have us believe but that the population is concerned about government departments sharing the information.
"98. We well understand the purpose of the Census, the independence from Government of the UK Statistics Authority and the Office for National Statistics and the scrupulous safeguards which are in place to prevent data sharing and the disclosure of personal data. Others, for any number of reasons, may not: some, for example, may fear that accurate completion of a Census return will result in data being passed on to other central and local government departments and agencies, prompting reviews of benefit status or eligibility for council tax discounts. "
It is totally wrong to claim that the population is concerned about the public knowing their information. They are frightened of the government knowing their information.
"99. The purpose of the Census, and the use to which the information will be put, may need careful explanation to those resident in London who have fled repressive regimes or who are in communities with no tradition of engagement with the authorities to provide information of this nature. Colin Barrow, Leader of Westminster City Council, suggested that certain migrant groups may, because of their countries of origin, have an understandable inherent suspicion of providing information about themselves and their families to authorities:
"Then there is fear of authority—a lot of people come here because they don't like where they've been, and it's authority that is the reason why they don't like where they've been; lack of cultural understanding—some countries have no tradition of Census, engaging with authorities and getting involved in all that, and I am briefed that Somalia is one such."[84]"
Again this displays the fact the population has a fear of governments not other individuals knowing the facts
It is such distortions of the truth that leads to data such as that supplied on census to be withheld from the public.
When the actual facts are disclosed the fears are entirely different from those some would like us to believe.
The census is put in jeopardy by people like Len Cook one time Registrar General making claim he was not authorised to make.
People see they have been mislead and then refuse to believe what authorities say in the future.
Cheers
Guy
-
In an odd sort of way, would it open a floodgate? If I read Guy correctly around the 100 year rule, we could legally request sight of the 1921, 1931 and so on.
After the 1921 census, there is nothing to see until 1951 (although there was a rudimentary 'census' in 1939), because the 1931 census was completely destroyed by fire, and there was no census in 1941, because of the war.
This is a bit off topic, but you will have to forgive me if I'm trolling...
The source of undisputed knowledge (wikipedia) states that the 1931 Census for England and Wales was destroyed by fire. Did the 1931 Scottish Census survive?
Given the high level of knowledge displayed on this thread about census rules, laws, misconceptions etc it seems like the best place to ask. :)
Windsor87
-
It did indeed survive - it has never left Scotland. 100 years closure does however apply to the 1901 -> Scottish Census.
-
It did indeed survive - it has never left Scotland. 100 years closure does however apply to the 1901 -> Scottish Census.
Ah. In that case, roll on 2032.
I think they should digitise it now - just in case there are any more fires. Just to be on the safe side.
Then they may accidentally lose the data...in the post...to my address. :P
-
Nice try Windsor! :D
-
I would love to see the 1921 census ...I don't see anything mischievous about it.
I would certainly sign a petition or email the relevant department.
deb
-
If anyone is worried about the question asked on the 1921 census they should take a look at
http://tinyurl.com/2ucqcvr
There were no sensitive questions on the schedule-
Name & Surname, Relationship to Head, Age, Sex, Married or Orphaned, Birthplace, Nationality, School, Occupation, Employment, Place of work, Total Children Under 15, Ages of Children
Cheers
Guy
-
If anyone is worried about the question asked on the 1921 census they should take a look at
http://tinyurl.com/2ucqcvr
There were no sensitive questions on the schedule-
Name & Surname, Relationship to Head, Age, Sex, Married or Orphaned, Birthplace, Nationality, School, Occupation, Employment, Place of work, Total Children Under 15, Ages of Children
Cheers
Guy
The words in black bold capital letters in the top left hand corner of the document isn't doing much for your cause...
-
I just want to know if my nan was referred to as Violet Venie or Vice versa ;D
She always called herself Venie Violet, my grandad called her Vi, but she was registered as Violet Venie ... I want to see her on a census ...she was born 1914.. It's silly but ... oh well!
thanks Guy
deb :)
-
If anyone is worried about the question asked on the 1921 census they should take a look at
http://tinyurl.com/2ucqcvr
There were no sensitive questions on the schedule-
Name & Surname, Relationship to Head, Age, Sex, Married or Orphaned, Birthplace, Nationality, School, Occupation, Employment, Place of work, Total Children Under 15, Ages of Children
Cheers
Guy
The words in black bold capital letters in the top left hand corner of the document isn't doing much for your cause...
Similar words have been on every census since 1801 that did not stop them being released during the lifetime of the population.
Some examples of census statements please take particular note of the 1911 statements
Census statements -
1911
"The contents of the Schedule will be treated as strictly confidential".
The following also appeared on the reverse of the Schedule:
"The contents of the Schedule will be treated as confidential. Strict
care will be taken that no information is disclosed with regard to
individual persons. The returns are not to be used for proof of age, as
in connection with Old Age Pensions, or for any other purpose than the
preparation of Statistical Tables".
1921
"STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL"
1931
No returns survive.
1941
No census taken.
1951
"The contents of the schedule are strictly confidential".
The following also appeared on the reverse of the schedule:
"STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL"
1961
"The contents of the schedule are strictly confidential".
The following also appeared on a separate sheet headed NOTES and EXAMPLES:
"CONFIDENTIALITY--No information about any individual person, family or
dwelling, will be given to anyone not employed on the Census".
1971
"The information you give on the form will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL
and used only for compiling statistics. No information about named
individuals will be passed to any other Government Department or any
other authority or person. If anyone in the census organisation
improperly discloses information you provide, he will be liable to
prosecution. Similarly you must not disclose information which anyone
(for example, a visitor or boarder) gives you to enable you to complete
the form".
1981
"Your replies will be treated in STRICT CONFIDENCE. They will be used to
produce statistics but your name and address will not be fed into the
census computer. After the census, the forms will be locked away for 100 years
before they are passed to the Public Record Office".
1991
"Your answers will be treated in strict confidence and used only to
produce statistics. Names and addresses will not be put into the
computer; only the postcode will be entered. The forms will be kept
securely within my office and treated as confidential for 100 years.
Anyone using or disclosing Census information improperly will be liable
to prosecution. For example, it would be improper for you to pass on to
someone else information which you has been given in confidence by a
visitor to enable you to complete the Census form".
Cheers
Guy
-
I have added a posting to the new hmg Your Freedom site
http://tinyurl.com/2vju6b9
If you want access to the 1921 census please visit and add your vote there
Your vote is important please use it
Cheers
Guy
-
I have added a posting to the new hmg Your Freedom site
http://tinyurl.com/2vju6b9
If you want access to the 1921 census please visit and add your vote there
Your vote is important please use it
Cheers
Guy
;D ;D ;D would you be the same Guy Etchells who rubbished petitions on the Number 10 website as doing more harm than good ? A tad hypocritical of you to now start a petition on a similar website
-
Done that. And got hooked into some others... what a site.
And Davidft, not seeing the posting you're refering to I can only guess you're doing a press angle, deliberatly using a phrasing to make something not what it seems. I suggest you take a journalist job and leave genealogy to others more open minded.
Garth
-
;D ;D ;D would you be the same Guy Etchells who rubbished petitions on the Number 10 website as doing more harm than good ? A tad hypocritical of you to now start a petition on a similar website
That was completely different. This time the Government is asking for ideas to raise revenue. If it helps the family historian along the way, so much the better!
I can't see why you are so bitterly opposed to it.
-
;D ;D ;D would you be the same Guy Etchells who rubbished petitions on the Number 10 website as doing more harm than good ? A tad hypocritical of you to now start a petition on a similar website
Why is it hypocritical? The value of a petition or suggestion depends on the recipient and their willingness to look at it. There was a change of government in May and the new government has asked for suggestions for reducing expenditure and increasing revenue.
Nigel
-
Gartag, - The post was on this site so all you have to do is search Guys previous posts. Then you will not have to make erroneous guesses.
Oldtimer , - I beg to differ. Still it doesn’t really matter as i have looked at the site in question and some o the other posts on there and its quite clear, IMO, that it is fast becoming a joke
Nigelp, - it is hypocritical for the reasons originally given. As for suggestions for reducing expenditure and increasing revenue i think they are looking for something more credible that the dodgy manipulation of figures Guy used in his petition
-
Sorry David, I agree with Oldtimer, the government has asked for suggestions. Doesn't mean that it will act on it but at least it sounds like they are open to offers unlike the online petitions which were just binned with the last lot.
At least the costs involved in getting a census up and online would be freshly available (ref 1911) to them reducing the cost of a mamoth project to see the viability and cost involved. Even then, the initial costs may be too great for the release to be considered at the present time. You never know, perhps Ancestry will outbid Bright Soldi this time round ;D
Personally, I have nothing to gain from seeing it, unlike 1911 which filled a huge gap, but I'm sure there are many others out there whom it could be useful.
Now releasing military records 1920-1930!!! is another story :D
-
......................... it is hypocritical for the reasons originally given. As for suggestions for reducing expenditure and increasing revenue i think they are looking for something more credible that the dodgy manipulation of figures Guy used in his petition
The figure used by Guy comes from page 2 (paragraph 3) of Unlocking the Past: The 1901 Census Online published by the National Audit Office in November 2003 (see link below). What is dodgy about this income figure?
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0203/the_1901_census_online.aspx
Can you provide the link to the reasons originally given?
Nigel
-
lol!
well at least this request is more serious than the other suggestions the government has received.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/092s/
;D ;D ;D
-
would you be the same Guy Etchells who rubbished petitions on the Number 10 website as doing more harm than good ? A tad hypocritical of you to now start a petition on a similar website
It isn't a petition, and Guy has already recommended writing directly to MPs (post 27).
-
still supportive; but concerned that the revenues quoted are gross of any partner's share and thus implementation costs need to be highlighted such that a true nett figure of government income is understood as part of the proposal.
Otherwise, it may well be read as more political than the intentions stated?
-
Could you not ask for a partial release of the census?
I'm not very sure how things work in England, but in Scotland we can get extracts from the 1939 national register. Its something I personally haven't opted for. The only thing is that you have to prove that the person you want information on is dead. This can be done by providing a date of death which they then check.
The only downside is that you don't get the details of every member of the household - just the individual you ask about - and it cost £13 per individual you want checked out.
-
Could you not ask for a partial release of the census?
I'm not very sure how things work in England, but in Scotland we can get extracts from the 1939 national register. Its something I personally haven't opted for. The only thing is that you have to prove that the person you want information on is dead. This can be done by providing a date of death which they then check.
The only downside is that you don't get the details of every member of the household - just the individual you ask about - and it cost £13 per individual you want checked out.
Re 1939 - You can get them in England and Wales too from the NHS Information Centre, at a cost
-
I think the questions on the 1921 census are fairly impersonal and I don't think there would be many people still alive who would object to this information being made available.
I must say that I'm more disturbed that Births, Marriages and Deaths to 2005 are available on Ancestry. My name is there, my children's names are there ... I've checked out ex partners and their new partners, their children, their parents, friend's parents and other family members and I managed to pencil out a couple of rough trees back several generations for a couple of friends .... (I'm not a stalker - honest ;))
-
This is a very interesting debate. I support Guy's well-reasoned proposal for the release of the 1921 census. Hopefully if enough people get involved then the better the chance it will happen.
Regards,
Angela
-
I think it's a great idea, and will support it fully.
In the hope for reasoned debate, I'm interested to see why you are so against it Davidft. Rather than accusations of trolling and being stupid and mischievous, I would be interested on your views as to why it isn't a good idea? And remember, it is just an idea, it's unlikely to be successful, but if you don't try...............!
-
I think it's a great idea, and will support it fully.
In the hope for reasoned debate, I'm interested to see why you are so against it Davidft. Rather than accusations of trolling and being stupid and mischievous, I would be interested on your views as to why it isn't a good idea? And remember, it is just an idea, it's unlikely to be successful, but if you don't try...............!
Mark.
The reason I am against it is this discussion has been had on this board before and it descended into farce. The reason I said Guy was trolling is because of what he has said on previous occasions and his selective editing of the facts relating to the subject. In launching this petition he is going against what he has previously said. You don't have to believe me you can read all his previous posts on this messageboard.
The question of the 100 year rule is central to the issue. Some believe there is such a rule, others not. And both sides are guilty of producing misleading quotes to back up their claims. I do believe in the maintenance of a 100 year cut off point, whilst others don't and we aren't ever likely to agree so I am not going to argue about it. Whilst i respect others having a different viewpoint on principal, i do not have any time for people distorting matters for their own agenda
In reality there is nothing on the 1921 census that can not be found from other sources. The problem is other sources may be time consuming and require some expense and effort. Unfortunately a lot of people are not prepared to do this and simply want to click a few buttons on their computer and get instant results
-
I am sure when the fire service, police and the like will love such an hair brained idea. The public want a policeman, ambulance and a fire appliance to arrive quickly, and have good health care. I wonder what they would think when they don't get it and hear that the government has used public money to set it all up
-
That is one of the good points of private enterprise the government (taxpayer) would not have to shell out a penny.
I know of a number of companies who would jump at the chance to digitise the census and make it available.
The terms of the contract could easily ensure the work was carried out in the UK (well Europe as it would be illegal to specify UK).
It is a win win situation hampered only by government will.
If we can believe our MPs they are ready to listen and what's more to act.
We have to give them something to listen too.
Cheers
Guy
-
For purely selfish reasons I would love to see the 1921 available - it's unlikely I'll still be around if I have to wait until the official release date!!
Mentioned in previous posts there is so much information readily available of more modern era. If the 1921 was released with similar restrictions as the 1901 surely this would be acceptable. Was there a terrible "fall out" from the early rlease of the 1901 - can't remember.
Ceeoh
-
I have a question?
If a child is born mid/late dec and not registered until mid Jan the following year, would you have to wait until the 1921 census to see their name clearly marked. Thats on the understanding that in Scotland the census information is only made available either every ten years or 100 yrs.?
marcie
-
For purely selfish reasons I would love to see the 1921 available - it's unlikely I'll still be around if I have to wait until the official release date!!
So how old were you on the 1921 Census then? ;)
-
If a child is born mid/late dec and not registered until mid Jan the following year, would you have to wait until the 1921 census to see their name clearly marked. Thats on the understanding that in Scotland the census information is only made available either every ten years or 100 yrs.?
I don't quite follow your question, but the simple answer is that it would depend on what the parents put on the form. If they had chosen a name for the baby, they would doubtless put it on the form. If not, they would presumably leave the forename blank, or put "unnamed" or something similar.
The date of registration isn't relevant - unless of course they changed their minds about the name between filling in the census form and registering the child.
-
For purely selfish reasons I would love to see the 1921 available - it's unlikely I'll still be around if I have to wait until the official release date!!
So how old were you on the 1921 Census then? ;)
Very vague twinkle in dad's eye ::)
-
What is the point in having a Freedom Of Information Act if we cannot be allowed to access the 1921 census and have to pay through the nose to access 1 entry of the 1939 registration?
I think 1921 should be released early. 1931 and 1941 dont survive so the authorities wouldn't feel pressure to release another census.
-
I would support Guy in the early release of the 1921 census. I mean very few people will be at the same address they were at in June 1921.
3 of my grandparents were already born by 1921 and they are all dead now. I know the exact address where my maternal grandmother was in 1921 so if they dont release it maybe if you know the address and can prove the people are dead now then you can access all of the info including a copy of the original.
-
What is the point in having a Freedom Of Information Act if we cannot be allowed to access the 1921 census and have to pay through the nose to access 1 entry of the 1939 registration?
I should Imagine you will still have to pay through your nose to see the 1921 census
-
What is the point in having a Freedom Of Information Act if we cannot be allowed to access the 1921 census and have to pay through the nose to access 1 entry of the 1939 registration?
I should Imagine you will still have to pay through your nose to see the 1921 census
I could pay a fee if that is what it took to see the 1921 entry for my gran in Durham.
-
Sorry but what is this talk about an official release date?
Please take a look at the legislation there is no release date.
It is not possible to ever release any more census without a change in the law.
Not now, not in 100 years, not in 1000 years, never.
The only way another census will ever be released is by a change of law.
Now is the time to put pressure on to have the law changed, now, while the government are willing to act.
Miss this chance and there might never be another chance.
Read what the Census Act 1920 says, read how it has been amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991. The please tell me where it says a census may be released at any date specified or unspecified in the future.
http://tinyurl.com/6pnmbf
The truth, despite what some will claim , is that the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 prevents any further release of census material.
If you want your children or your grandchildren to be able to access any census after 1921 then the choice is clear. Write to Members of Parliament now and support the campaign.
Cheers
Guy
-
I was mistaken into believing that the 1921 census would be released in January 2022. But you say their will be no release date anyway until we have a change in the law?
-
I have added a posting to the new hmg Your Freedom site
http://tinyurl.com/2vju6b9
If you want access to the 1921 census please visit and add your vote there
Your vote is important please use it
Cheers
Guy
;D ;D ;D would you be the same Guy Etchells who rubbished petitions on the Number 10 website as doing more harm than good ? A tad hypocritical of you to now start a petition on a similar website
Yet you accuse him of trolling??? Cop out.
-
Not now, not in 100 years, not in 1000 years, never.
Is that true or are you just using scare tactics to get us to act? :P
In Scotland they have announced that the 1911 Census will be released on the first working day of 2012. They seem to have made it clear up here that there is this 100 year rule.
So what law is preventing them from announcing in say 2017 that the 1921 Census will be released on the first working day of 2022 (and the same for the 1931 Scottish census in 2032)? Are the rules different for Scotland?
Windsor87
-
Not now, not in 100 years, not in 1000 years, never.
Is that true or are you just using scare tactics to get us to act? :P
In Scotland they have announced that the 1911 Census will be released on the first working day of 2012. They seem to have made it clear up here that there is this 100 year rule.
So what law is preventing them from announcing in say 2017 that the 1921 Census will be released on the first working day of 2022 (and the same for the 1931 Scottish census in 2032)? Are the rules different for Scotland?
Windsor87
To take the point about Scotland first, since devolution the Scottish system and the England & Wales system come under separate laws.
I don't use scare tactics.
I have given a link to transcripts of the legislation, anyone who does not believe what I have written can read it for themselves.
http://tinyurl.com/6pnmbf
The relevant section in the Census Act 1920 being-
“8-(2) If any person-
(a) being a person employed in taking a census, without lawful authority publishes or communicates to any person otherwise than in the ordinary course of such employment any information acquired by him in the course of his employment ; or
(b) having possession of any information which to his knowledge has been disclosed in contravention of this Act, publishes or communicates that information to any other person ;
he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both such imprisonment and fine.”
That section has been amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991, a short Act which needs to be read in full but includes the section –
1 “(2) If the Registrar-General for England and Wales or the Registrar-General for Scotland (“the Registrars”) or any person who is—
(a) under the control of either of the Registrars; or
(b) a supplier of any services to either of them,
discloses any personal census information to another person, without lawful authority, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) If any person discloses to another person any personal census information which he knows has been disclosed in contravention of this Act, he shall be guilty of an offence.”
As you can see there is no time limit on the closure of the data.
There has to be a change in law to allow for the census to be released.
Even the ONS agree the 100 year rule is non-statutory.
Non-statutory means it is not backed by the authority of law.
Cheers
Guy
-
The 100 year rule is in place because of promises made at the time of the census, we do not have to right to dishonour this promise for our own selfish curiosity
If we continually tamper with this ruling to get information out into the public domain earlier, we are damaging our integrity. It is a slippery slope.
I am more than happy to wait for the release at the right time.
-
The 100 year rule is in place because of promises made at the time of the census, we do not have to right to dishonour this promise for our own selfish curiosity
Welcome to Rootschat.
Have you read the earlier posts in this thread and the relevant legislation?
There was no 100 year rule when the 1921 Census was undertaken. Additionally, as the legislation now stands (as a result of the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991) it is not possible for the 1921 and subsequent censuses to be released at any date in the future. It has only been stated that censuses will be released in 100 years.
Nigel
-
Thank you for your welcome. However I base my post on the following which I should have explained in the original:-
Accessing the 1921 Census .... when will the 1921 Census be released?
The ruling by the Information Commissioner that resulted in the 1911 census being opened early does not apply to the 1921 census because, unlike the 1911 census, the 1921 census was conducted under the 1920 Census Act, which is still in force and which contains a statutory prohibition on disclosure.
The stated government position from the ONS is "its intention to release the entirety of the 1921 census returns in 2022, in accordance with the non-statutory '100 year rule' which was adopted to reflect this undertaking of confidentiality".
http://www.ffhs.org.uk/news/news061213.php
Please note that Government policy is that the 1921 and subsequent censuses should remain closed for 100 years. Unlike the 1911 census, the 1921 census was conducted under the 1920 Census Act, which is still in force and which contains a statutory prohibition on disclosure. This means that if any Freedom Of Information Act (FOI) requests are received for the 1921 census, the exemption found in S44 of the FOI Act will be invoked to maintain census confidentiality. (The 1921 census is not held by TNA and remains, like all subsequent censuses, in the custody of the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
-
It is agreed that is the stated (or at least the last) government policy to release censuses in 100 years. This is a statement of intent and without legislative basis.
The point is that there was no 100 year rule when the 1921 census was undertaken and the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 (which retrospectively amended the 1920 Census Act) does not currently allow for the 1921 or subsequent censuses to be released in 100 years, 150 years, 200 years or at any other date in the future.
Since there was no promise of confidentiality for 100 years in 1921 and a 100 year rule has no legislative basis the question arises as to why the census should be kept confidential for 100 years? The 1930 US federal census has, for example, been released. BMD records and electoral registers for England and Wales aren't confidential for 100 years.
Nigel
-
I feel that the census records should not be released prior to 2022. My Aunt is still living in the house she was born and will appear for the first time on the 1921 census record.
Up to date BMD are available online today which to be perfectly honest about I personally wish they were not unless permission had been sort from the individual as this in itself controvenes privacy.
Just because we can,does not necessary mean that we should. Who is to say that the selfish curiosity of the few should outway the privacy of the majority?
-
Privacy, Secrecy, Confidentiality.... It all a bit much for me.
Why would anyone want to keep their previous address a secret now if it was known ay the time? or did they not allow post or any visitors?
Maybe I'm an exception in being an open book! Or maybe I don't understand because I've never had anything I needed to keep secret or anything anyone would want from me.
But it seems to me that all these 'Rights' that are created impose on other 'Rights'
I have the 'Right to know my family, but if someone else says they have the right not to be known... then they are infringing my 'Rights'... but... if I insist on my 'Rights' I'm infringing theirs!!! And that goes for every 'Right' there is.
Hmmm wonder what right William Wheatley Gregory had to disapear at age 9 in 1881? Ooops! (Should I have kept that a secret?)
Happy Hunting everyone
Garth (or am I?)
-
Privacy, Secrecy, Confidentiality.... It all a bit much for me.
Why would anyone want to keep their previous address a secret now if it was known ay the time? or did they not allow post or any visitors?
Maybe I'm an exception in being an open book! Or maybe I don't understand because I've never had anything I needed to keep secret or anything anyone would want from me.......
I suppose your willingness to expose everything about yourself doesn't extend to your bank account ?
Unfortunately, there are people in this world who make a living by stealing from others, and the amount of data that you can collect about an individual using just a computer and the internet is unbelievable. Most of us are so honest that we don't even give it a second thought. Now, Guy tells us that when you are asked for personal details, you should not tell the truth, but thousands do.
Do you use the same passwords for every site you visit ? Even the ones where you may have logged credit card numbers ?
Do you use the name of your spouse, or a family pet as a password ?
These questions are all rhetorical, by the way :)
A while ago, I decided to see whether I could track down a few friends from my teenage years (nearly 50 years ago !) using only what I knew about them at the time, and using simple tools that anyone on the internet could use. I started out with a girlfriend from 1964 - I knew the town where she lived (I didn't remember the address), but I didn't know her DOB, or her parents' names.
Within an hour, I found the following....
A reference to her birth certificate.
The date of her marriage.
The full name of her spouse.
The number of children she had, and their names, and references to their birth certificates.
The address that she was living at in 2006.
What her spouse did for a living.
The value of their house.
A picture of the house.
Their phone number.
A picture of their car parked in the drive, model and colour (no number plate visible).
All of that, using resources available to anyone on the internet. That was in an hour, without moving from my chair. (She was actually living about 80 miles from where she was when I knew her, so it wasn't a local search). I don't intend contacting them, incidentally.
-
I feel that the census records should not be released prior to 2022. My Aunt is still living in the house she was born and will appear for the first time on the 1921 census record ..... Just because we can,does not necessary mean that we should. Who is to say that the selfish curiosity of the few should outway the privacy of the majority?
I also have an aunt who will appear for the first time on the 1921 census, aged 4. She would be tickled pink to see the record. Does that make her one of the selfish curious few? ???
-
A quick query, does anyone know how many people in the UK are 89+.
If the Goverment did not want to open the 1921 census to all, could they not have a facility whereby if you know the address your ancestors lived at you could apply to see their entry for a minimal fee. Providing you can prove your relationship.
I know where most of my family lived in 1921, so would love to see the census returns for their addresses, if only to see if any other "missing" family members are iving with them. Or if they had any lodgers.
In 10 years I might no longer still be interested in my Family History. I cannot even guarantee that I will be around or of sound mind (at 57 I get confused now, I hate to imagine what I will be like in 10 years!!!) ;D
-
If the Goverment did not want to open the 1921 census to all, could they not have a facility whereby if you know the address your ancestors lived at you could apply to see their entry for a minimal fee. Providing you can prove your relationship.
My understanding is that was the Government policy in relation to censuses up until 1971 (see reply #31). Accordingly, it was possible to obtain extracts of information from the 1921 - 1961 censuses up until early 1971.
Nigel
-
Sure, I have two acounts; one has 14.75 in it and the other is 12.00 overdrawn. I use only one password for all sites, my name, so I don't forget. I don't use credit cards.
Now as you have proved, regarding all the info you obtained on your living friend, what's the point in holding back on the 1921 census?
-
Now, Guy tells us that when you are asked for personal details, you should not tell the truth, but thousands do.
Nick as you well know I made that comment in a thread that was discussing passwords and what to use as a password on a bank account.
The reason I mentioned it was because despite of the banks knowing the flaws in their security system they still use it.
Mainly because they think their customers are too weak minded to be able to remember something other than their DoB etc.
I was not advocating not telling the truth in other situations just in passwords.
Incidentally a good security system would change the password frequently so standard answers like DoB could not be answered truthfully.
Cheers
Guy
-
Now as you have proved, regarding all the info you obtained on your living friend, what's the point in holding back on the 1921 census?
Because it would make us Scottish folk jealous. :P
We still don't have access to 1911 yet, and from that we can guess we definately won't have 1921 until 2022.
I do support the early release (if you could call it that) of the English census, but I just think it is very unlikley to happen.
Being Scottish, its not really much of my business. In 1921 there was only one of my ancestors in England. My great grandmother was still in Newcastle either a widow or about to become a widow with a child aged a few months old. Both are now, incidently, dead.
-
A quick query, does anyone know how many people in the UK are 89+.
As a guide, according to the Office for National Statistics the number of people in the UK aged over 85 reached 1.4 million in mid-2009 (of these 436,700 were aged over 90). This comprised 439,000 men (118,800 being over 90) and 930,000 women (317,900 being over 90). The over 85 age group was 2.2% of the total UK population. Between 1981 and 2009 this age group increased by just under 0.8 million.
The statistics can be found at the following link:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=15106
Nigel
-
I think the best course of action (if the 100 yr rule does not count) is to transcribe the whole lot and if you were alive in 1921 and have an objection then you contact the census provider and ask it to be withdrawen until 2021. Then everybody is happy, it might be a bit inconvienient for the person to request their details be witheld but if they feel that stongly (as my gran would) then they would go to the effort.
I think far more importantly the census should not be palmed off to ancestry or bright solid to make money out of it, it should either be free or run by the government, I am sure either would find volunteers to help transcribe it.
-
It may be of interest to some that the Advisory Council on Public Records and Archives (ACPRA) October 1998 statement about the closure of census records stated-
"The Council considered the appropriateness of the closure period of 100 years which applied to the decennial census of population. It concluded that since undertakings of confidentiality had been given in the past by successive governments to people making returns, any reduction in the closure period for censuses up to that taken in 1991 would be a breach of confidence. It also felt, however, that a shorter period, of 80 years for instance, might be appropriate for future censuses."
Now considering that the undertakings of confidentiality for 100 years only appeared on census schedules in 1981, 1991 and 2001 and that the undertakings on the 1981 and 1991 census were as admitted in parliament unauthorised.
This is shown by the letter the then Registrar General wrote to parliament (dated 14 March 2005) in which he stated-
"In an attempt to simplify the confidentiality message on the front of the 1981 and the 1991 Census forms, the assurances, as worded, stated that the Registrar General had authority himself to retain the records for 100 years. This pledge asserts authority that the Registrar General does not have."
We therefore have the situation where the census is being withheld against the recommendations of the ACPRA in an effort to save the embarrassment of parliament who supported legislation based on false assurances from the Registrar General who later informed parliament he was not authorised to give the assurances.
Perhaps those who oppose the census being released should consider who was actually deceived.
Was it our ancestors or is it the present population who have been misguided?
Cheers
Guy
-
Hi,
You don't actually have a right to know your family. The only rights you hold are your own being.
you do not own your family, neither do they own you .
forget stats - within those stats are living breathing people, they are more than just gov stats . My husband's great uncle is 95 .
Perhaps you should ask the people who's lives it is if they don't mind it being released. G uncle is against it
I will not sign . There are far , far more important things in this world to fight for. Living breathing humans
Kind regards:)
P.s ask yourself why some people are hell bent on pushing for this. look at the $$$ they will be making from their own personal agenders/job ( don't be a sheep - look close)
-
Kind regards:)
P.s ask yourself why some people are hell bent on pushing for this. look at the $$$ they will be making from their own personal agenders/job ( don't be a sheep - look close)
I for one have paid out a lot of cash to gain access to the 1911 census, the 1939 census and now the 1921 census.
It costs money to take legal advice.
Some of us do things because we believe in upholding the rights and freedoms our ancestors laid down their lives to protect.
Please do not think everyone does things for money.
Cheers
Guy
-
" I for one have paid out a lot of cash to gain access to the 1911 census, the 1939 census and now the 1921 census.
It costs money to take legal advice". quote
so just because you have paid a lot of cash it's ok? Your above statement is putting monetry value over human rights
have you asked your ancestors if they would like you to access it?
Have you any living people today that were around in 1921 ?
If not, how many people who are in that census have you personally asked their views?
Kind regards
-
This post is becoming rather argumentative and is now locked. Those who wish to support the idea can see how to do so in the early postings.
Regards
Andrea