Genealogy Chat

"As to living people and sensitive information, didn't that apply to 1911 as well?" -
sensitive information in the 1911 census has been blocked out and will not be visible until 2012.

I think you'll find I simply said I was stuck until 1921 was released. I didn't say when that should be.

As to living people and sensitive information, didn't that apply to 1911 as well? It's even possible there were people still around when the 1901 was released who showed up in the workhouse or with a parent in prison or an asylum.

I won't claim the moral high ground because if it were released I'd be there like a shot, just as I was for the 1911. It would be hypocritical to access data on the one hand while harping on about confidentiality.

Poolie Girl I understand your dilemma however I agree with Janie personal gain is not an argument for early release of the 1921 census.

Living people are on that census, some in favour and some against its open access release as with the 1911. These peoples wishes should be paramount as it holds information relating to them. Also even though sensitive information will be redacted who is to define this type of information. Women where put in lunatic asylums for being unmarried mothers, this would have a knock on effect for their offspring.

To access this census will take a change in the census law which could effect the release of more recent census. This is a bigger issue than just the release of the 1921 census.

Janey

My FIL's mother was the 'housekeeper'. There were already three children in the house whose mother was in hospital with a chronic illness - she didn't die until 1928 so there could be no further marriage without a divorce, which there wasn't. The elder daughter of the household (now dead) related to her own daughter the BIG argument that preceded the departure and it was after the 1921 census. I have checked electoral registers and know the address but how else can I find out how old FIL's mother was or where she came from to find her birth record. She may have been a young girl or an older woman, perhaps widowed, which would involve yet another (unknown) name.

So, head of house - deceased, his hospitalised wife - deceased. All the children, including my FIL, are all long departed. What now?

What you said was that she had the child in 1920 and was thrown out of the household, so I didn't see how 1921 would help. Perhaps it would.

The household she was in, in 1921 -- not her parents? If so, and you know who they were, she's not with them in 1911? The houeshold must have been some other people, I suppose, not knowing how you know who they were.

Nonetheless, it doesn't strike me as a good argument for allowing access to personal info about everyone else in the country a few years or a decade earlier than a 97-year or 100-year rule would allow.

Janey, I know the address she was living in 1921. I have the details of the other members of the household; it is only she who remains a shadowy figure.

Poolie Girl ... "Without an age and place of birth as a starting point how could I identify which was 'my' lady or totally unrelated?" ... doesn't this apply equally to census searches?

Joy, searching quarter by quarter, year by year will produce only a huge list of possibilities. There were at least half a dozen possibles in County Durham on the 1911. ie women with the correct name who would have been of child bearing age in 1920. What if she came from Yorkshire (the head of the household was a Yorkshireman originally), some other county or perhaps Scotland. Did she revert to her birth name or continue using her 'new' name? If she went to another town and married what are the chances she ever told her new family of the existence of the son she left behind?

Without an age and place of birth as a starting point how could I identify which was 'my' lady or totally unrelated?

Yes both the Office of National Statistics and the Information Commissioner have affirmed that no census taken under the 1920 Census Act as amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 can ever be released without a change in the law.
Cheers
Guy

"Poolie Girl, unfortunately as the law stands the 1921 census will never be released."

Hi Guy,

please just forget the law and your interpretation of it for the moment (that's not meant to be rude by the way :) ) did someone actually come out & say that the 1921 census won't be released under the present law - before anyone mentioned it or quoted law at them?

I just worry that people who keep quoting the law & saying that this won't happen because of this law and that law will actually cause this to happen whilst the census may have otherwise been merrily released in 2021 without incident.

"Did she marry? When and where did she die? Everybody else in the household is deceased, and I would be amazed if she has survived but until the 1921 is released, we can go no further." -

Poolie Girl - one can go further, as I posted: one can try searching the BMD registration index, quarter by quarter, year by year, either on a paying site or at a records office or in a main library that stocks the fiches or films. It is possible that she married, had children or died before the 1921 census was undertaken.
Happy hunting :-)

Poolie Girl, unfortunately as the law stands the 1921 census will never be released.
That is why we need a change in the law.

The more people who write to the Members of Parliament and who add a rating and comment to the HMG Your Freedom website
http://tinyurl.com/2vju6b9 the more chance of getting the law changed.

Cheers
Guy

Poolie Girl - one can try searching the BMD registration index, quarter by quarter, year by year, either on a paying site or at a records office or in a main library that stocks the fiches or films. It is possible that she married, had children or died before the 1921 census was undertaken.

My husband's father was born in 1920. I have his birth certificate which gives his mother's maiden name. The parents were never married and the mother either left or was thrown out while my FIL was an infant. We know a great deal about the paternal side and nothing other than a name for the maternal side; no age, no place of birth, no pictures, zilch. We therefore have no way of discovering what became of her afterwards. Did she have more children? Did she marry? When and where did she die? Everybody else in the household is deceased, and I would be amazed if she has survived but until the 1921 is released, we can go no further.

Any more views?

It is good to read a balance of views, many of which I think have been well formulated.

You can put anything down anywhere you want, RobG! Heck, you can even make presumptuous, offensive personal remarks to me. As you have demonstrated.

You might look up "civil discourse" somewhere on the net, and you will find that it has nothing at all to do with using nice words.

It has to do with being sincere and straightforward in one's exchanges with others. Someone who *sincerely* wants to exchange thoughts and ideas on a subject with others addresses what others say about it, in a straightforward manner.

Don't be taking your cues from Mr. Etchells in this regard, now. ;)

And no, there are things in a census taken 90 years ago, that people were required by law on pain of penalty to disclose, that aren't available by other means, actually.

If my new (as of last night) suspicion about a close ancestor of mine were to be correct, that census *would* almost certainly confirm it (or refute it, if my suspicion is wrong, of course), whereas other accessible records are unlikely to do so. This could be a matter of concern to a relation I have just met here at GR (and others, including my own more immediate family members) as it would touch directly on his parent's status and my close ancestor's character, and would actually be quite scandalous, in the legal sense.

Should third parties have access to that info? I'm thinking there's no reason for them to.

Thank you for your considered response Janey. I will drop in to the thread on Chat. I will do this as I like to know all the available information, not because I wish to engage with you in "civil discourse", as it appears from your responses that you do not wish to be civil - but I will put that down to you having a bad day, rather than it being in your nature to be so condescending.
At the risk of making yet another point that has already been answered on another board (irony), my statement about the BMDs was indicitive. Many, many records exist in the public domain that more directly affect peoples privacy, than a snapshot of ninety years ago.

I see no reason to repeat any of the many responses that have been given to your points because *someone else* decided to duplicate this discussion on the Chat board and I and others were unaware of the thread on this board.

You now have notice of those responses, which exist whether you choose to read them or not (as many other facts and arguments in this world exist in many places and aren't all gathered together in one place for your convenience), and you are entirely free to ignore them if you wish. If you do, you will have failed to demonstrate your own intention of engaging in civil discourse -- that is, discussion in which participants acknowledge what has already been said and responded to, whenever and wherever that might be, rather than simply repeating what has already been responded to as if one were delivering irrefutable stone tablets.

(Would you assert that the earth is flat in a thread here at GR, and claim not to have to read or respond to evidence that it is not, that is found somewhere else?)

I myself have gone out of my way already to find and respond to things said. You don't have to look for anything; the url for the other thread is here.


"Maybe I'm being naive, but for me it is less of an invasion of privacy finding out where someone was on one specific night 90 years ago, than for someone to obtain my birth and marriage certs with very little trouble, which enables them to go a large part of the way to stealing my identity."

Do two wrongs make a right? Many peple object to the disclosure of vital records (BMDs) about living people to third parties. There is apparently nothing can be done about that in the UK. (In Canada, and other comparable sister countries of the UK, such access is prohibited. In Canada, it is also a criminal offence to disclose peronal information from lists of electors.)

If you stir yourself and demonstrate your sincere interest in discussion of the issues, you will find that it has been said *many times* that the public access to these records now allowed *does not* necessarily mean that anyone will actallly be able to find info about someone else, since they may not know what they are looking for (e.g. the surname in which a birth to unmarried parents was registered). Identity theft has never been the main concern expressed in this regard.

This isn't actually about you, you see.

Janey,

With all due respect, I am not "ignoring the responses to those various remarks" that you say are to found on Chat. I never going on to Chat these days, as when I last did it contained mainly threads that were nothing to do with why I pay my money to GR. Also, I did not go looking for what sounds like a duplicate thread, as those would be against GR's T&Cs ;-)
So, it's OK to be able to get a (for example) birth cert for even a recent event because "not everyone told the truth on those records" !!! I must be unlucky then, because I have many examples where they didn't tell the truth on the censues too!! Maybe I'm being naive, but for me it is less of an invasion of privacy finding out where someone was on one specific night 90 years ago, than for someone to obtain my birth and marriage certs with very little trouble, which enables them to go a large part of the way to stealing my identity.