1939 National Register??

[Mean_genie]

I'm sure you are right, but 'each request for 1911 census information must be treated separately on its merits.' sounds like a bit of a tall order. If they had gone through every schedule with a disability on it and weighed up each one individually first I think we'd have been stuck with the expensive one-off searches for even longer before the online release (not that I ever indulged, I was happy to wait a bit longer and save my money!). As compromises go, I'm fairly happy with that one. Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good

[ScouseBoy]

My mum and dad got married in June 1940,   were single  women  more likely to be posted anywhere than married women?

And secondly, before computers were invented, what system of sorting and tabulating the data would be used?

[Mean_genie]

I don't know very much about conscription, but I can help you with the way the National Register was maintained. The master registers were held nationally, and updated manually. These were the original 1939 Register, and separate registers for people who arrived after the 1939 Register, or were born later, registered late for any reason, or were demobilised from the forces. Each local National Registration Office (NRO) had a card index, compiled initially from the household schedules of the 1939 Register, with new cards created for new births, new arrivals etc. They recorded changes of address within the district, and if someone moved between districts, the new district created a new card for them, and notified the old district who removed their card to a 'Dead File'. The National Register was only notified of the move between districts, not the actual address. Changes of name were recorded in both national and local registers, and when a death was notified the card was also removed to the Dead File and the National Register was notified. Lots of cards, forms and record sheets, lots of people. That's the short version, but I think it covers the gist of it!

[stanmapstone]

And secondly, before computers were invented, what system of sorting and tabulating the data would be used?

From  1911 censuses were processed by punched cards on the Hollerith tabulating machine.
A computer was used for the first time to process the census results in 1961.
Stan

[Guy Etchells]

I'm sure you are right, but 'each request for 1911 census information must be treated separately on its merits.' sounds like a bit of a tall order. If they had gone through every schedule with a disability on it and weighed up each one individually first I think we'd have been stuck with the expensive one-off searches for even longer before the online release (not that I ever indulged, I was happy to wait a bit longer and save my money!). As compromises go, I'm fairly happy with that one. Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good

All the FoI requests for information from the 1911 after the ICs decision were processed at a cost of £45 until it became available online it would not have cost anymore for them to make a decision on whether certain information was sensitive or not rather than institute what amounted to an unlawful redaction of the entire column.

In doing that the GRO opened themselves to the risk of someone making a claim against them.
The people who did pay their £45 just accepted the situation as did the family historian who chose not to make a stand and fight for their rights.

When the data was digitised it would have been a simple task to analyse that column digitally and allow or redact sensitive data if the will was there.
The point is they took the path of least resistance rather than the best option.

Cheers
Guy

[Mean_genie]

I agree it it would have been easy enough to make a decision on each one in the case of the £45 manual searches, it was the scale of the task of identifying and making a decision on every single one in the whole census that I believe would have slowed up the whole digitisation process; even if they were all identified by digital means surely it would still need a human to make a decision on each one. And if only the 'sensitive' details were redacted, it would be all the more obvious that there was something potentially embarrassing under the white panel. All a bit silly, I know, because it wasn't going to stop being sensitive overnight in January 2012, and it would have been much better to have the whole thing open at once, but an early release with some restrictions looked pretty good to anyone waiting for the Scottish 1911 census - but at least it meant there was still something to look forward to in 2011!

BTW I don't understand what you mean by the GRO opening themselves to someone making a claim against them - can you explain? Thanks

[Guy Etchells]

I agree it it would have been easy enough to make a decision on each one in the case of the £45 manual searches, it was the scale of the task of identifying and making a decision on every single one in the whole census that I believe would have slowed up the whole digitisation process; even if they were all identified by digital means surely it would still need a human to make a decision on each one. And if only the 'sensitive' details were redacted, it would be all the more obvious that there was something potentially embarrassing under the white panel. All a bit silly, I know, because it wasn't going to stop being sensitive overnight in January 2012, and it would have been much better to have the whole thing open at once, but an early release with some restrictions looked pretty good to anyone waiting for the Scottish 1911 census - but at least it meant there was still something to look forward to in 2011!

BTW I don't understand what you mean by the GRO opening themselves to someone making a claim against them - can you explain? Thanks

It is quite simple the IC's ruling is classed as a legal ruling and if the GRO does not comply they leave themselves open to a charge of contempt of court.
The IC ruled that they must look at each case individually but instead they flouted the law as they had done originally when they refused access to the census.

Legally the duty of confidence does not end after 100years has passed that is a purely arbitrary figure that has no standing in law. It has already been accepted that the personal representatives of the deceased can bring an action for breach of confidence.

The IC’s ruling gave the GRO some protection against being sued; when they go against the ruling they open themselves to litigation.

Cheers
Guy

[ShaunJ]

BBC Magazine feature on this just out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34570120

"Now individual returns in England and Wales from the register are being digitised and are expected to be released next month."

[ReadyDale]

Not saying anything new, but this from the BBC News website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34570120