RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Guy Etchells on Thursday 15 July 10 18:39 BST (UK)
-
I have today received a letter from 10 Downing Street asking me to add a posting to the Spending Challenge website. I was happy to oblige.
So in addition to voting on the previously mentioned Your Freedom site please visit http://tinyurl.com/398s44a and vote by rating the thread.
Please also add your comment.
If enough people vote and comment on this we could get access to the 1921 census.
One thing is certain if people do not vote we will not get access.
Cheers
Guy
-
;D
10 out of 10 for persistance - but it won't happen.
........ and as you have previously castigated petitions on the Number 10 website it is somewhat ironic that you are now pushing them
(Note to moderators what I have said above is true and you can verify by using the search option therefore please do not remove my post this time)
-
and as you have previously castigated petitions on the Number 10 website it is somewhat ironic that you are now pushing them
This is a slightly different website to what the previous Government had set up for their petitions, and if this Government were serious about both saving money and making more for the economy they would look seriously at this suggestion. I did read somewhere that they have been impressed with some of the suggestions made on this website and that some might be put into place so why not this as already stated it keeps everybody happy.
-
....... so why not this as already stated it keeps everybody happy.
Ah but there is the rub Alan. It doesn't keep everybody happy. Some people are very unhappy about people fiddling around with the old censuses before 100 years has elapsed.
-
It would be very difficult - well nigh impossible - to poll the percentages for and against releasing the 1921 census, however, I would hazard a guess that the aye votes would win hands down.
Ceeoh
-
Thank you for taking the trouble Guy.
I have signed it ;)
-
Thanks to all who have left a rating and comment on the site they all count.
Yes Alan, it seems notice is being taken.
Whether it will lead anywhere or not I cannot tell at this stage but the tone of the letter I got from the PM certainly conveys the impression it will be looked at favourably.
The impression I formed was it somewhat depends on the number of ratings and comments.
Cheers
Guy
-
....... so why not this as already stated it keeps everybody happy.
Ah but there is the rub Alan. It doesn't keep everybody happy. Some people are very unhappy about people fiddling around with the old censuses before 100 years has elapsed.
I am not. I want the 1921 census released early.
-
Hope you have signed then, Coombs ;D
-
Guy
Thanks for your efforts to gett he 1921 census released early- I signed up last night,but checking progress tonight finds the whole flippin' site has been removed!!!
Carol
-
Hope you have signed then, Coombs ;D
Yes I have.
-
I went to sign and got the Spending Challenge headline but beneath 'page not found' :(
-
Yes it seems they have been under attack. But the other site is still up and running
http://tinyurl.com/2vju6b9
There is a message on the Spending Challenge site
"Thank you for the ideas so far…
As you may have noticed, the site has been the subject to a small number of malicious attacks so we have unfortunately had to pause on the interactive features for now, but we’re still keen to hear any further ideas you have, which we may publish at a later date.
We are really grateful to have already received thousands of good ideas and we’re committed to giving as many of you as possible the chance to get involved and feed into the tough decisions that must be made in the Spending Review."
Cheers
Guy
-
Thanks Guy.
There are some sad folk on the planet!
Is that a typo Guy? "A group of MPs suggested the 1911 census could develop revenue of 40 million pounds per annum" should it be 1921?
-
darn it, now I can't register! :(
-
Thanks Guy.
There are some sad folk on the planet!
Is that a typo Guy? "A group of MPs suggested the 1911 census could develop revenue of 40 million pounds per annum" should it be 1921?
I suspect the £40 million per year is the product of someones whisky glass - but in the event its not I'd love to see the costings! ;)
-
Thanks Guy.
There are some sad folk on the planet!
Is that a typo Guy? "A group of MPs suggested the 1911 census could develop revenue of 40 million pounds per annum" should it be 1921?
No it was a suggestion before the 1911 went online.
I have since received figures for paid downloads from the 1901 and the 1911 census.
I don't have anything to extrapolate the 1911 figure but the 1901 suggests
If the figure of 1,055,424 returned a sum of 4.5 million in 2003
Then the figure of 17,012,560 in 2009 equates to over £72 million for the one year..
The 40 million suggested by the group of MPs seems to be an underestimate.
Cheers
Guy
PS paid downloads for the 1901 census.
1901 Census
2002 – 227,212 (November and December only)
2003 – 1,066,424
2004 - 1,258,602
2005 – 3,874,299
2006 - 11,680,528
2007 – 11,957,805
2008 – 16,661,328
2009 - 17,012,560
-
oh okay, its my feeble brain - lol!
Thanks for all the information. As soon as I can register I'll support the move.
I think my dad (still alive) would just about make it onto the 1921 census, born May that year.
-
Then the figure of 17,012,560 in 2009 equates to over £72 million for the one year..
The 40 million suggested by the group of MPs seems to be an underestimate.
;D The 17,012,560 only equated to £72 million if everyone of the downloads was at a paid rate of £4.25 each !!!!!!!!!!
So on that basis and the unreliability of the extrapolations the £40 million is widely optimistic
-
I can't understand this nonsense about privacy and the 100 year rule. If that were the case, how is that I can find my grandparents' marriages from the 1930's, my parents' births from the 1940's and even my own birth from the 1970's on several BMD sites. It's not too difficult to extrapolate details on siblings as well.
Admittedly it doesn't give actual dates but the mothers' maiden name is on the births on these websites.
-
I wont tell if you don't jubee!!!! lol
It does seem a bit over board. Phone books give current names and adresses. Umpteen salesmen ring everyday already knowing your name, address, where your from and what you do and ask you to 'confirm' in order to have a 'free' holiday.
Secrecy? They know more about me then I do.... must get my memory fixed!
-
Perhaps it's a big government conspiracy :o and our ancestors never existed....lol. So as to keep us all on a wild goose chase and spending lots of money ;D
But seriously, I agree Gartag there is so much info about us out there in the public domain anyway I'm sure releasing the 1921 census wouldn't compromise things. The 1911 census had the sensitive info in the "Infirmity" column removed!!!!
-
;D The 17,012,560 only equated to £72 million if everyone of the downloads was at a paid rate of £4.25 each !!!!!!!!!!
So on that basis and the unreliability of the extrapolations the £40 million is widely optimistic
David I agree those figures do seem high but they are worked out from the official figures and seem to be the most accurate currently available.
If you have any more accurate figures I would be extremely interested in seeing them.
The figure of £40 million was not a extrapolated figure as I mentioned in the earlier postings, but a figure independently suggested by a group of MPs for the 1911 census not historic figures for the 1901 census.
There does however seem to be an interest from MPs and the more people who write to MPs and Cabinet Ministers about allowing the release of the census the more likely it is there will be a successful outcome.
As mentioned before the 100 year rule was not brought in until 1966, 45 years after the 1921 census.
The 1841 and 1851 census were released in 1912 only 9 years before the 1921 census.
People if they thought about the census release would assume it would be released after about 60 or 70 years.
I.E. Within their lifetime.
Cheers
Guy
-
;D The 17,012,560 only equated to £72 million if everyone of the downloads was at a paid rate of £4.25 each !!!!!!!!!!
So on that basis and the unreliability of the extrapolations the £40 million is widely optimistic
David I agree those figures do seem high but they are worked out from the official figures and seem to be the most accurate currently available.
If you have any more accurate figures I would be extremely interested in seeing them.
The figure of £40 million was not a extrapolated figure as I mentioned in the earlier postings, but a figure independently suggested by a group of MPs for the 1911 census not historic figures for the 1901 census.
Guy,
Not wishing to get into a long debate on this but you can not say the £40 million is not extrapolated just because some MPs have dreamt it up. OK yes the MPs could have got it right but I highly suspect they haven't but as I have signed the official secrests act (not a joke) and don't fancy laying myself open to prosecution I won't say why
-
I can't understand this nonsense about privacy and the 100 year rule. If that were the case, how is that I can find my grandparents' marriages from the 1930's, my parents' births from the 1940's and even my own birth from the 1970's on several BMD sites. It's not too difficult to extrapolate details on siblings as well.
Admittedly it doesn't give actual dates but the mothers' maiden name is on the births on these websites.
and our marriage in 1982 and our son's birth in 1983 and our grandson's birth in 2005 !!
N
-
The website in my opinion is nothing but a distraction exercise to divert our attention from cuts.
-
The website in my opinion is nothing but a distraction exercise to divert our attention from cuts.
that's too political RR! naughty !
(but I'm dying to respond ;D)
-
Political? Me?? :o
-
I dont know why this "privacy" thing has to get in the way of the early release as you can access BMD records up to 2006 online. I have looked up the BMDs of close friends and have found their mothers maiden name, when they married and such. Not like I would ever, ever send off for the BMDs but anyone can access the indexes of anyone born, married or died up to 2006.
-
A legally binding committment to 100 years closure was given, and authority must obey its own laws unless they have been amended.
-
Which is why I suggest the law is changed.
Let us face it there was no promise of 100 years secrecy given to the population when the 1921 census was taken.
So there would be no breach of promise.
The first suggestion of 100 years secrecy came 45 years after the census was taken and was introduced to save the GRO the onerous expense of microfilming thousands of census schedules.
The first promise of 100 years secrecy was unlawfully made on the 1981 & 1991 schedules. The Registrar General who made those assertions later admitted he had no authority to make the claim.
Due to those claims being made the Members of Parliament were fed false information before voting on an amendment to the 1920 Census Act.
It is that amendment that stops the 1921 census being released today.
I would therefore suggest that it is morally wrong to support a law that was passed on the back of false information.
In view of the fact that no assurance of 100 years secrecy was given in 1921 and in view of the fact that MPs were mislead about the fact that no assurances of 100 years secrecy was given in 1921 before the census was completed. There is are strong moral grounds to release the 1921 census today.
Cheers
Guy
-
I agree with Guy and from what he has said before there was no, I say no assurance at the time that the 1921 census would be closed for 100 years. No promises were made to the nation that the census would remain closed for 100 years.
-
well that's the idea surely? to amend that law?
-
Well the national archives are still of the opinion that you won't be getting any other censuses until 100 years have lapsed
"The decennial census records for the years 1921 onwards (apart from 1931 - destroyed by fire - and 1941 - no census) are in the care of the Registrar General. However RG 48/591 shows that some census schedules for 1921 were collected in the north of England by an unauthorised person and may be missing from the records held by the Registrar General. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) applies to census records as to other government documents. However section 44[1] of the 2000 Act has an exception for records which are prohibited from disclosure by statute and section 8(2)[1] of the Census Act 1920 (the 1920 Act) contains such a prohibition. The statutory prohibition means that the census records from 1921 onwards are confidential and not open to inspection in any circumstances until 100 years after their creation, undertakings having been given at the time of each census that the information would be used only for the preparation and publication of statistical data. "
-
there's only one thing certain in life ....
-
David apart from the fact that the National Archives frequently get their facts wrong and have a very poor conception of the laws of England, as has been proven by the number of FoI applications upheld against them. The whole essence of this thread is a move to have the law changed to allow access to the census.
The 1920 Census Act as amended by the 1991 Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 prohibits access to any census taken under the 1920 Act forever.
Not for 100 years as the National Archives claim but forever.
There has to be a change of law before access is allowed and that change of law may as well be now whilst the government is in the mood to amend such legislation.
The 1911 census which was released early contained the following words-
"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".
The 1921 schedule only contains the words -
"STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL" it does not carry the rest of the wording the 1911 census carries as transcribed above.
This shows that the National Archives are actually bending the facts to suit themselves rather than give the true picture.
I have already given (in the thread now closed) the url to a site that contains an image of a blank schedule. If you view that, you will see for yourself the National Archives are making false claims.
Cheers
Guy
-
David apart from the fact that the National Archives frequently get their facts wrong and have a very poor conception of the laws of England, as has been proven by the number of FoI applications upheld against them. The whole essence of this thread is a move to have the law changed to allow access to the census.
Guy,
The NA do not get the interpretation of the law wrong - their legal advisers may but they don't. That's what we have courts for. As for losing FOI requests sometimes you test the law to see how far you have to go in complying with the law, the result sometimes you win sometimes you lose - nothing wrong in that.
I am surprised if you are as sure as you imply that your legal interreptation is correct that you haven't had the "erroneous" message taken down from the NA site - could it perhaps be that things are not as clear cut as you suggest.
Amusing to see that you say the whole essence of the thread is to get the law changed to get access to the census as that implies the law as is doesn't allow access which is a point several of us have long made
-
I don't get all the negativity, I really don't.
Laws can be repealed, re-written, challenged, what's the problem? I'm a glass half full person myself.
I find some of the comments on this thread somewhat smug.
-
Well said Parmesan. I have now switched off the notifications as this has turned into a mud slinging thread again.
I fully support Guy's plan to get the 1921 census released early.
I really can't understand any genealogist who is not fully behind him.
After all it was due to his hard work that got the 1911 census to us 3 years earlier than planned.
Carol
-
Also agreeing with Parmesan.
I know there doesn't seem to be much support for the idea that the censuses from 1921 onwards shouldn't be released, but if even a few people are so opposed to the idea, maybe they should be doing something more constructive than nit-picking on a forum. I've yet to hear of a counter-proposal giving grounds why the censuses shouldn't be released, and asking that the existing laws remain as they are. A few people should stand a chance if they present a well-worded, carefully thought out and above all accurate summary of the current laws, together with reasons why there should be no change.
After all, Guy's only one person, and look what he's achieved so far ;D
Time for me to stop following this thread as well - the atmosphere's rubbing off on me :-\
Silvilocks
-
Isn't it amazing when people can't get their own way they resort to abusing other forum members ::)
Personally I would have thought the whole idea of the forum is for people to express differing views. I must have overlooked the condition on joining that said "forum members shall not express contrary views to other forum members" ::)
-
Assuming the accuracy of Guy's statement that Parliament was mislead by its legal officers in 1991, is it not time for a request to be made for a judical review as to the validity of the ensuing act of Parliament?
-
I know there doesn't seem to be much support for the idea that the censuses from 1921 onwards shouldn't be released, but if even a few people are so opposed to the idea, maybe they should be doing something more constructive than nit-picking on a forum
I'm against the early general release of the 1921 census and am happy to join the few people so opposed to the idea, in fact I would even support it being delayed for more than 100 years. My reason is quite simple, other peoples privacy, something many people seem to be happy to overlook.
Unfortunately many people only become concerned with privacy when it affects them. As Guy has said in the past, there is no privacy legislation, but that doesn't mean we should ignore privacy.
I don't believe that data on living people should be released to the general public without there express permission.
I also believe that there should be restrictions on access to non-historical certificates and indexes as is the case in Australia, New Zealand, much of the United States and possibly elsewhere. I find it absolutely ridiculous that anyone can get a copy of my birth certificate and put a complete transcription on the internet, maybe even a copy, and I can't legally stop it.
Andy
-
Surely the argument is not about the early release, but the release, as it seems to be permanently closed, according to earlier replies.
If disclosure of the facts about living people is to be absolutely observed, then the closure must be for not less than 125 years, as a very few people have lived that length of time.
-
We're talking about public release, though, aren't we ?
I think Guy already demonstrated that individuals could get information from the 1911 census before it was released, on the payment of a fee. Surely that also applies to the 1921 census. If someone is deserate enough to see part of the 1921 census early, then apply under the Freedom of Information Act, and pay the fee.
-
My understanding is that it is always possible to get information from the next cednsus to be released providing that it is for a family member, and that the exact address is known.
-
No the situation changed in 2000.
Prior to that it was possible to apply for information from an unreleased census for a specific address on payment of a fee
That facility was abolished when the Freedom of Information Act was drafted, a point that was noted at the time.
Until the 1911 census was released it was possible to attempt to gain access to the 1911 census by using the Freedom of Information Act. Most such attempts failed but I managed to produce an argument that caused the Information Commissioner to rule in my favour. Shortly afterwards the GRO introduced an expensive search service as a stop gap until the census schedules were scanned and released online.
The reason I have not requested the National Archives change their statement is life is too short to bother with all the inaccuracies found there and elsewhere.
In addition they have already been forced to change similar statements and when all is said and done they are only a view not legal advice.
The present government are in the mood to amend legislation.
The present government are in the mood to accept suggestions that will create jobs and provide revenue.
The suggestion to release the 1921 census will create jobs in the UK (or Europe) if the contract is worded to ensure the jobs stay domestic.
The suggestion will create revenue.
Now is the time to attempt to get the law changed as the conditions are favourable.
Cheers
Guy
-
If this is taken on board, it is to be hoped that the civil service work is not done by those who gave the wrong advise in 1991.
Worse, if 40% plus of the civil servants have been sacked and the ministers have to prepare their own legislation then there is no chance.
Sorry! I would like to think it will happen, and it does have the merit of being a useful diversion from their economic crisis, but remember these ministers expect to be exporting to China in a few years, this will probably be one of the things exported.
I stopped believing in Santa when I was 9!
-
Personally I would have thought the whole idea of the forum is for people to express differing views.
Yes it is.
BUT ... any discussion that includes politics and government tends bring out the worst in many of us, with the result that such topics often degenerate quickly.
As has been noticed, the law is interpreted differently by different people and by different organisations and many thousands of lawyers earn a lot of money by arguing at length that a particular law means THIS and not THAT, while more thousands of lawyers earn a lot of money by arguing at length that the (same) law means THAT and not THIS.
Perhaps we should demand that on future topics, contributors preface their remarks with "In my opinion ...", "my interpretation of ... is ...", etc, etc. And above all, we should all remember that it is possible to voice differeing opinions without getting personal.
This topic is now locked.
The arguments are tending to repeat themselves and to repeat similar arguments on other, similar topics.
Bob
-
I am pleased to announce that not only have I had a favourable reply from the Prime Minister I have now received a favourable reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The more Cabinet Ministers and M.Ps. get letters requesting a change in the legislation to allow access to the 1921 census the more they will discuss it between themselves and promote the relevant change in legislation.
If you have not written to a Cabinet Minister and/or a M.Ps. please do so the more letters they get the more importance they place on the change.
Please also visit the “Your Freedom website
http://tinyurl.com/2vju6b9 and rate the topic and add a comment.
As I believe in democracy I would encourage all, those for and those against to visit and comment.
Cheers
Guy
Moderator Comment: topics merged