Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Nick_Ips

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 71
1
The Common Room / Re: HS2 and Cemeteries
« on: Monday 15 April 24 21:01 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Redroger on Sunday 14 April 24 21:28 BST (UK)
Quote from: Lensmeister on Sunday 14 April 24 21:16 BST (UK)
Beeching was the scapegoat.

It was Ernest Marples behind the axing of the railways.
Ernest Marples ... road builder ... hmm makes you think
Could be argued that Marples was the scapegoat since ultimately it was a cabinet decision. It got Beeching a peerage £380 a day now approx, and cost Marples his seat also same price + minister's salary.
Some things haven't altered in 100 years.

Both Beeching and Marples were scapegoats.  Beeching was appointed to BTC in March 1961.  The length of route miles closed in 1961, 62, 63 and 1964 were 150, 780, 324 and 1058 miles respectively (total = 2312 miles)

Wilson's government promised to halt the closures when they came to power in October 1964.  The route miles closed in 1965, 66, 67 and 1968 were 600, 750, 300 and 400 respectively (total = 2050 miles).  Barbara Castle wasn't a road builder in the way Marples was, but Wilson's government were almost as good at closing railways.

For completeness, Marples took office as Transport Minister in 1959. Between 1950 and 1958 there were 1650 route miles closed: Marples wasn't the first Transport Minister to oversee extensive closures.

The truth is somewhere around the fact the UK had a post-war clapped-out* railway network which was far more extensive than needed.  The network had developed as a result of capitalist speculation, rather than a proper plan.  (*overused and under maintained through the war years)

Someone needed to cut the network down to size and orientate it towards what was needed.  Beeching and Marples were the lucky ones who got the job and forevermore will have the role of panto villian.

On the positive side, the closures meant we gained an extensive system of heritage railways so people today can enjoy historic trains in the way they were designed to be used.  And Beeching's support for freight containerisation (something he is rarely credited for) has led to us having a rail network where freight container movements have grown to the level where we need to look at projects like HS2 to create additional capacity.

2
The Common Room / Re: Early release of 1951 census - petition
« on: Thursday 11 April 24 13:12 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Jon_ni on Tuesday 09 April 24 15:32 BST (UK)
Guy himself though indicated it was NOT as clear-cut as above https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=804050.0 he favoured an 80 year but thought GDPR (2018) would be an issue with a reduction. So perhaps got not one but two Acts of Parliament that need debated and changed.

One Parliament cannot bind another, so Parliament today could amend the legislation to disapply it to the 1951 census.  One Bill/Act can amend or repeal many Acts (or sections of Acts) so the legislative process is not all that complicated, provided time can be found for it.

Given the state of public finances, opening up more records could create an opportunity for new income streams.

In terms of whether the 1951 census should be made public earlier, the approach adopted for the 1939 Register made sense and didn't cause widespread outrage at people's information being made public before their death or the elapse of 100 years.  The US have published their 1950 census in full.  I don't believe the majority of the population would be opposed to (say) an 80-year threshold for the publication of redacted 1951 census records.

In fact the only strong argument I can see for keeping the 100 year 'promise' is that people may be reluctant to give information in the 2031 census if they fear it will be published within their lifetime.  But since the more recent censuses have been questionable in their accuracy/relevance, and there are mutterings about whether the 2031 census should actually go ahead, it has to be asked 'Does that really matter?'

3
The Common Room / Re: 1885 map field names
« on: Thursday 14 December 23 19:41 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: mezentia on Thursday 14 December 23 14:12 GMT (UK)
I'm looking at an 1885 25" OS map on the NLS site, and each field on the map is numbered. On an 1875 will I have a reference to a "patch of land at Homer in the parish of Much Wenlock which I call Derricutts patch." Any ideas as to how I can match Derricutts Patch with a specific field or fields?

Not just the fields but all 'parcels' of land were numbered - the parcel sometimes covering multiple plots of land (e.g. in a village multiple houses and gardens could make up one parcel).

The numbers cross reference with published parcel lists for each sheet - known as "Parish Area Books" or "Books of Reference".

Some Books of Reference might include a field name or description, but this varied over time and isn't consistent.

And tracking down the Book of Reference for a particular sheet is a challenge in itself (they were obviously less useful than the maps themselves).

4
The Common Room / Re: FindMyPast free!
« on: Thursday 09 November 23 16:56 GMT (UK)  »

The 1921 census and some other records are excluded though....

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=877927.msg7499715#msg7499715

5
The Common Room / Re: Free Access to Ancestry UK Wartime Records, ends Monday 13th
« on: Thursday 09 November 23 16:25 GMT (UK)  »

FindMyPast have joined in the free weekend bonanza - access is free until 10:00 GMT on Monday 13 November.

The 1921 census and some other records are excluded.

6
The Common Room / Re: Find A Grave biographies
« on: Thursday 12 October 23 12:57 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Blue70 on Thursday 12 October 23 10:43 BST (UK)
I've just had a look and it looks like some things have been changed since I last looked but there's a very obvious mistake of a relative who emigrated to Australia being on Find A Grave as buried in England. I'm not going to look further it's not worth the work now. I see that the contributor has now died perhaps their lack of manners was down to their age or health issues or maybe they just got too big for their boots with their access to information.

Does the entry state the person was buried in this grave, or is it just recording that person's name on a memorial?

It goes back to the point I made on the first page of the thread -  the MI is not necessarily even proof the person in question is buried in that location.  The MI just memorialises them - it doesn't act as proof the remains of the person are actually there.

I've come across at least two cases of an MI suggesting a person was buried in England when in fact they died and were buried overseas.  On rechecking my 'facts' I discovered I'd assumed the person was buried in the grave solely because their name and dates were on a stone.  Having done this (twice) I learned to be more careful in future - and now regard MI's as pointers for further research, not providers of factual information.

7
The Common Room / Re: Find A Grave biographies
« on: Tuesday 19 September 23 16:59 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: smithkei on Tuesday 19 September 23 12:27 BST (UK)
Quote from: martin hooper on Tuesday 19 September 23 12:21 BST (UK)
I don't use FAG any more. I was doing some research at one point and there was a lot of what I thought was new information for a person I was interested in. Well, it was new information but as far as I could see it was made up. No sources or references and I couldn't verify any of it.

Martin

That’s exactly my point. Ancestry own FAG now. I think they should stick to the primary source ie the grave and what is written on it.

Where do we stop though?  The information in the MI itself is not necessarily accurate (I've seen many errors over the years), and not necessarily even proof the person in question is buried in that location.

I find the FAG biographies fascinating and would miss them if they were removed.  On the other hand I treat the information as I do with anything similar on the internet... i.e. a starting point for my own research, not proof of anything.

8
The Common Room / Re: FreeBMD down?
« on: Saturday 05 August 23 13:27 BST (UK)  »

Thanks to both of you.  It looks like that is the issue, but I've whitelisted FreeBMD and pop-ups are allowed.

Trying using Chrome there's a suggestion on the pop-up that cookies might need clearing to view the further information - which I've already done in Firefox - but that doesn't seem to help either.

I think I'll use Chrome and give it a few days to sort itself out.

9
The Common Room / FreeBMD down?
« on: Saturday 05 August 23 12:04 BST (UK)  »

Anyone else having problems with FreeBMD today?  The search screen is loading, but has a 'grey' overlay and none of the controls do anything.

It looks as though they are doing maintenance, or there's a pop-up that needs to be clicked, but nothing is displaying to that effect.

(Using Firefox, adblocker etc disabled)

Thanks

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 71