1921 census

[davidft]

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

[Parmesan]

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Laws can be repealed, re-written, challenged, what's the problem?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.

[carol8353]

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

[Silvilocks]

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 

Time for me to stop following this thread as well - the atmosphere's rubbing off on me 

Silvilocks

[davidft]

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" 

[Redroger]

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?

[andycand]

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

[Redroger]

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.

[Nick29]

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.