|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
|
 |
|
 Poll
|
| Question: |
Do you think (as I do) that more recent census details should be made available
| Reduce the time to 50 years |
|
   33 (66%) |
| reduce the time to 20 years |
|
5 (10%) |
| make all census available now |
|
12 (24%) |
|
|
| Total Votes: 50 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Census and the 100 years rule (Read 2166 times)
|
Erato
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1184
J and J
|
Nick, the US 1920 and 1930 censuses are out and the world did not come to an end. I can see details of a few relatives who are still living and others who are only recently deceased. So what?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Wiltshire: Banks, Taylor
Somerset: Duddridge, Richards, Barnard, Pillinger
Gloucestershire: Barnard, Marsh, Crossman
Bristol: Banks, Duddridge, Barnard
Down: Ennis, McGee
Wicklow: Chapman, Pepper
Wigtownshire: Logan, Conning
Wisconsin: Ennis, Chapman, Logan, Ware
Maine: Ware, Mitchell, Tarr
|
|
|
les_looking
RootsChat Senior
Posts: 306
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
There is nothing at all to stop you gaining access to family information. Under the Freedom of Information Act, you can ask organisations and institutions (and the government) to supply certain things that they know about you and your family. They are, however, entitled to charge you a fee to cover the costs of supplying this information, which could be up to £250.
I have no objections to this. What I do object to is for any Tom, Dick or Harry looking at details about my mother and father, and the 1921 census will inevitably also include thousands of people who will still be alive, if it were to be released now. It's also a gift to those who seek to profit by stealing the identities of ordinary people. You've already answered why they don't steal ID's by buying certificates - because it costs too much money.
sorry Nick but information you have posted since you became a member, within 5 minutes i know who your grandparents are,
i must add i didn't get it all from on here, but i did find it pretty quickly
and i could go on and get your parents and you etc (i havn't as i don't you want to think i am a stalker lol)
so as i posted when this first came up, i don't think the id theft is relevant for OLD cenus,
i am sure anyone could do the same for me or most people on here.
I think it would be a great shame if people became that paranoid about id theft that genealogy suffered, ie people stopped putting trees to make contact with others, or places like this forum stopped being as user friendly, luckily i have 3 phone lines at home and one is used soley for banking and secure stuff, i dont even use it for emails, my son has his own for gaming and luckily at 16 he has never picked up any security issues but could happen so easily,
as i said earlier in this thread an 70-80 year census would be the last place scammers would look for id,
some have other issues with the info' being released which maybe relevant, but MY opinion is there are far more easier ways of finding information on living people without us being caught up in REALLY old paperwork
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RCB
RootsChat Member
Posts: 235
|
Hi Nick - I was lucky enough to have someone send me a 1820 census for Shropshire, Wellington, and my family were included. The guy who sent it did say several counties/towns began taking census before 1840 but very few survive.
More than happy to agree to disagree with you, no doubt this will be discussed for years.
I'm glad you know all you need to know, but for me if people didn't marry all I will find is a death certificate, their life in between will be lost, and there is only the 1921 census that can help. My surviving uncle remembers the names but no idea where they went. cheers again Fred
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Guy Etchells
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1100
|
I think you're getting a little carried away now, Fred - the census doesn't contain that much data - and I'm not sure that either of us is empowered to speak on behalf of 2.7 million people. Your relatives do not have a right to know what is in the 1921 census, because those who filled it in did so believing that the contents would be kept private for 100 years, and that's what it said on the forms.
I wish people would stop repeating that totally inaccurate statement, it is nothing more than government propaganda.
The 100 year rule was not introduced until 1966.
The people in 1921 had never heard of a 100 year rule and earlier census were released to the general public well before 100 years.
The government had to collaborate with a third party to present the 1911 census, but I'm really not sure that they would have the same success with the 1921 census. For a start, there will be fewer people interested. I for one would not be subscribing, because I already know everything that the 1921 census would reveal, and I did it by other means. You say you want to see the census to get in touch with people that your family has lost touch with, and although it's a valid reason, it really isn't real genealogy in my book. I really think the government would have a hard time finding partners for the 1921 census, because it would be much less marketable than the 1911 census. Now, if someone could show me the 1801 census (I know there wasn't one!), I would be there, cheque book in hand ! 
The digitisation of the 1911 census was put out to tender as is the normal situation with such contracts. There were a number of bidders willing to undertake the digitisation and Brightsolid won the contract.
If the 1921 census was put out to tender today I am sure there would be a similar response with companies queuing up to tender.
As for an 1801 census, yes it was taken, as was the 1811, 1821 and 1831 census. However in most cases they did not contain information useful to the family historian.
Census go back a long way in Britain with the Domesday Survey 1086 being the first we have tangible evidence of.
Throughout history there were other surveys for various purposes under a multitude of names such as the Leicester Survey circa 1124-29
Cheers
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
maidmarion
RootsChat Senior
Posts: 415
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Hi
Although I am all for digging up my past, privacy is paramount, so I vote for sticking with 100 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Siamese Girl
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 651
|
Hundred year rule or not - no one in 1921 would have dreamed that one day any Tom, Dick or Harriet would have been able to see the details they were giving to the census enumerator so easily as it has become. Also I think we have to question why some of us think we should be able to view 1921 and more recent censuses right now. To be honest, unless you have some inherited genetic problem and want to pass information on to other relatives or are a solicitor trying to trace people for legal reasons, I don't really think anyone needs to know the type of information on recent censuses - OK you might like to know where your grandfather was living in 1951, but you don't need to know.
For most people genealogy is a hobby and I think that's how it should be viewed, and I think it's better to stick to dead relatives rather than chase living ones, who may not want to be contacted.
Carole
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
CHILD Glos/London, BONUS London, DIMSDALE London, HODD and TUTT Sussex, BONNER and PATTEN Essex, BOWLER and HOLLIER Oxfordshire, HUGH Lincolnshire, LEEDOM all.
|
|
|
mother25
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 27
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
The digitisation of the 1911 census was put out to tender as is the normal situation with such contracts. There were a number of bidders willing to undertake the digitisation and Brightsolid won the contract. If the 1921 census was put out to tender today I am sure there would be a similar response with companies queuing up to tender. As for an 1801 census, yes it was taken, as was the 1811, 1821 and 1831 census. However in most cases they did not contain information useful to the family historian. Census go back a long way in Britain with the Domesday Survey 1086 being the first we have tangible evidence of. Throughout history there were other surveys for various purposes under a multitude of names such as the Leicester Survey circa 1124-29 Cheers Guy i hope Guy and people like him, keep banging away to help us all and those that are interested should support them in whichever way we can 
I agree we should all support Guy and indeed thank him for all his hard work in getting the 1911 census released early for us. I know from another source that he really did work extremely hard for this and deserves much praise and thanks from us all
As for early release of 1921 census etc., well I don't see why we shouldn't see it a lot sooner than 100 years after the event. Many people know relatives or friends (or even strangers spoken about on TV) who are more than 100 years old. Take Henry Allingham and Harry Patch for instance....both are well over 100 years of age, Henry is in fact the oldest man in the world at 113 years Both of these men must have many memories of friends and family and their own younger relatives would be able to glean loads of info from them, and possibly have done so over the years. So why not give us access to information on the 1921 census? I will appear on a census for the first time in 1951, and by the time that is released I'll be long gone, but I'd love to see which of my family appears on the 1921. I have gleaned a fair bit of info from the 1911 which I probably would never have known otherwise. More thanks due to Guy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick29
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2864
|
I think you're getting a little carried away now, Fred - the census doesn't contain that much data - and I'm not sure that either of us is empowered to speak on behalf of 2.7 million people. Your relatives do not have a right to know what is in the 1921 census, because those who filled it in did so believing that the contents would be kept private for 100 years, and that's what it said on the forms.
I wish people would stop repeating that totally inaccurate statement, it is nothing more than government propaganda. The 100 year rule was not introduced until 1966. The people in 1921 had never heard of a 100 year rule and earlier census were released to the general public well before 100 years.
Guy, are you asserting that the Census Act 1920 was never enacted ?
The one that clearly says.......
"8.
Penalties.— (1) If any person—
(a)refuses or neglects to comply with or acts in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any Order in Council or regulations made under this Act; or
(b)being a person required under this Act to make a statutory declaration with respect to the performance of his duties, makes a false declaration; or
(c)being a person required by any Order in Council or regulations made under this Act to make, sign, or deliver any document, makes, signs, or delivers, or causes to be made, signed, or delivered a false document; or
(d)being a person required in pursuance of any such Order in Council or regulations to answer any question, refuses to answer or gives a false answer to that question;
he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1 level 3 on the standard scale].
[F2 (1A) But no person shall be liable to a penalty under subsection (1) for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars in respect of religion.][ F3 (1A) But no person shall be liable to a penalty under subsection (1) for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars in respect of religion.][ F4 (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.
(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) or (3) to prove—
(a)that at the time of the alleged offence he believed—
(i) that he was acting with lawful authority; or
(ii) that the information in question was not personal census information; and
(b)that he had no reasonable cause to believe otherwise.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) or (3) shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.
Census Act 1920
Are you saying that this never became law ? 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Best Wishes, Nick. Research interests: Field - Luton & Islington Hole - Somerset, Suffolk & Surrey Farnish, Parker, Cattermole, Last, Wasp, Church - Suffolk Lewin/Lowin/Lowen - Hertfordhire Martin - Eltham & Greenwich, Kent (London) Stead - Greenwich, London (Kent) & Maidstone Wood - Hertfordshire Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
RCB
RootsChat Member
Posts: 235
|
I've not read newspapers or studied comments made at the time, it was a victorian age, or just after it ended, maybe some people were opposed to census, but most filled them in as some sort of duty, they were required to complete the forms. There might have been some gentry who owned houses where they kept a mistress and their illigitimate children, but in the main I imagine ordinary people, like me in later census, felt giving my name, age, occupation, and address meant nothing much at all, I can't remember anything on the forms about them being confidential, or I considered that information trivial, it's the sort of information you give all the time. We are obviously split on this issue, there don't seem to be many sitting in between.
I've found relatives in the UK and the USA who had no idea about their past, I've met quite a few, and introduced the US group to family in the same State they didn't know existed and I have not been met with a negative attitude, in fact they have thanked me. People not wanting to be contacted, a few had a so what attitude, and I respect that, but I feel most people want to know.
Slightly off topic, I do know a woman who was adopted, she spent years wanting to find and meet her mother, and when she did her mother didn't want to know her. She had to accept that sad as it was. The 1921 census will not bring about any such showdown, the most I can hope for is finding someone whos grandfather was my fathers uncle. Pointless? possibly, but I would like to know they exist.
fred
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick29
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2864
|
......... I can't remember anything on the forms about them being confidential, or I considered that information trivial, it's the sort of information you give all the time...........
You said you had looked at the 1911 census. You must have a poor memory.
|
Best Wishes, Nick. Research interests: Field - Luton & Islington Hole - Somerset, Suffolk & Surrey Farnish, Parker, Cattermole, Last, Wasp, Church - Suffolk Lewin/Lowin/Lowen - Hertfordhire Martin - Eltham & Greenwich, Kent (London) Stead - Greenwich, London (Kent) & Maidstone Wood - Hertfordshire Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
RCB
RootsChat Member
Posts: 235
|
Me again Nick - Does that mean that even under the freedom of information act I can legally get access to the census, but if I pass on the information I find I'll be breaking the law? So doesn't that mean the people who allow me to see the census, as is my right, will also be breaking the law?
It seems to be a regulation or law that's been by-passed, how can they enforce it? I can't see any court finding someone guilty of giving me information about my dads uncle Albert. 
My memory is pretty good, I've got a sense of humour too!
I can give you every detail about the 1911 census regarding my family, but the document printed details? Like I say I've filled in 3 census as head of family, and I can't remember considering it private and confidential, any family in the street could have filled it in for me, they would know all the details. fred.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
|
|
|
|
|
1911_Census_confidential.jpg