Genealogy Chat

This has come up in Parliament before and failed. Those who filled the 1911 census in were made two promises. The first was that it would remain confidential - not for 100 years, but forever. The second was that the information would only be used for statistical purposes and not used to identify them. Parliament decided that, as all their personal data was going to be released despite assurances to the contrary, the least Parliament could do was make sure everyone concerned was dead. Secondly, Parliament was concerned with future accuracy. Today, people who complete censues think they will be confidential for 100 years, so are more likely to be truthful. If the promise of confidentiality can be broken and the release dates moved about, then people may be reluctant to be honest. At best, that means ladies may knock a few years off their age; at worst, people refuse to fill it in entirely (as happened in 2001 - a vicar was prosecuted!) I do not know where Data Protection comes into this. If census data on living people is made freely available, it must be with their consent, and there must be an opt-out. So the 100-year-rule avoids this probelm in 99.9% of cases.

>>>The 1841/51 censuses were released early<<< The 1841 census contains very little identifying information, for instance relationships are not given to the head of the household, thus providing cover for those 'living over the brush'. Places of birth are given as Yes or No (born in county) and the ages are rounded down for adults - pretty vague stuff, as anyone who has ever looked at the 1841 hoping for enlightenment. But the most important point about the early release of those two censuses is that, to all intents and purposes, they were only ever available to a handful of people, professional genealogists and the very few amateur genealogists who could drum up the enthusiasm to arrange an appointment to view, time off work, a trip to London etc. Joe Public didnt care about the censuses and probably didnt know how to get at them if he did. But this debate is ACADEMIC - the census is being transcribed or whatever, as we speak and it will take until 2012 whether we like it or not. There is no practical way it can be hurried up. Earlier in this thread, someone gives a set-aside figure of between ten and thrirty million for this project. That doesnt sound like very much at all to me. Taking a wild guess at ten million records to be transcribed/scanned, thats only a pound a record. It could not be done in this country for that money, which is why it has been shipped to a third world country. Olde Crone

Sorry Twinkle but it didn't say forever. If it did then the government would be defeating their own argument about breach of trust. What the 1911 said was 'The contents of the Schedule will be treated as confidential. Strict care will be taken that no information is disclosed with regard to individual persons'. Read in to that whatever but dead people are not 'persons'. Are you saying that the 1991 should never be released then? The Data Protection Act is the most misunderstood law in the land. It's prime purpose was access to records not secrecy. But it's that complicated no-one seems to understand it! In any event 'under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, extended closure instrument no. 12 of 1966 ceases to apply'. (Harriet Harmen house of commons) i.e. the 100 year rule IS NO MORE it has gone! So will people on these boards stop quoting it! Personally I don't think people fill census forms in thinking about the next 100 years. So are you saying that if the 1911/21 were released you wouldn't use them on principle? If its right in NI why is is wrong in England? doesn't make sense to me. Old Crone most arguments are 'academic' but as this one has a practical aim, and is also about the1921, it isn't. We are trying to achieve something, as did the SOG in 1912. Bob

But where will it all end? If you get the 1911 and 1921 released early, you will all then want the 1931 (totally destroyed by fire) the 1941 (no census taken in wartime) so, then you will want the 1951 - I and my parents, my grandparents and two of my great grandparents are on that and so are a great many other people, still living today. Why not go the whole hog and say release them all! That should ensure that any future censuses bear no relationship to the truth, at least from those who are hiding, or have something to hide. Let us remember AGAIN that censuses are not taken for the benefit of family history researchers and the fact that we have access to any of them is a bonus. Yes, of course, I would use the 1911 and the 1921 if they were released early - but it would certainly make me think about my answers on the NEXT census. I repeat my earlier argument - the SOG campaigned for the early release of the 1841 and 1851 from a very different standpoint - it was a professional resource, used almost entirely by professionals and a few weirdoes - they did not know then that in 2006 there would be millions of weirdoes wanting to see a census! I am not saying its right or wrong - just that it aint going to happen for the 1911 - it CAN'T, because of the timescale. And I cant see any government shelling out 16 years early for the transcribing of the 1921. Olde Crone

Olde Crone, How dare you call my first cousin three times removed, a ''wierdo''??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was a registrar, a census enumerator in 1889 and 1901 and an enumerators checker in 1911 and 1921. He was an amateur family historian for nearly 70 years, dying aged 92. Hmmmmmm OK, so he does look quite ''bookish'' or even a bit ''nerdy'' in his photos............................................. Merry !

Merry Well, I dare, cos I too was a weirdo! Still am. I first became interested in Family history in the, erm, 1960s, when I was but a babe in arms, of course. Cough cough. I worked in a County Library and one day had to cover in the Reference Department, where one or two very old people were looking at Parish Registers. I was bemused and asked the Librarian why on earth they would be doing that? He showed me an old Parish Register which covered the 1600s and I was hooked! It had never occurred to me that such a thing was possible. Over the following years, life got in the way and my research was limited to one or two carefully planned forays a year to far-flung, mostly dingy, records offices where I gleaned tiny scraps of info which I had to live off until the next visit. Seems to me, who served my time 'hard', that you young things have got it far too easy for your own good, what with the Internet and everything. I laugh hollowly when I see posts such as 'Help! I've been looking for this man for THREE HOURS'. Huh. I've been looking for mine for three DECADES! Olde Crone

The 1911 said: 'The contents of the Schedule will be treated as confidential. Strict care will be taken that no information is disclosed with regard to individual persons. The returns are not to be used for proof of age, as in connection with Old Age Pensions, or for any other purpose than the preparation of Statistical Tables.'' No, there was no explicit time mentioned - but it doesn't state that it will be made available to all and sundry, either. It just says that no information about individuals will be disclosed - none. How long is long enough for that assurance to become invalid? If we read 'individual persons' as excluding dead people, then logically, we have to wait long enough for everyone to die. Again, how long should that wait be? That's why the Government decided on 100 years. Requests to access the censuses under FOI probably won't succeed. There's a clause (I quoted it elsewhere) that states information is exempt if it is already scheduled for release (as the 1911 is in 2012). There's another that states that if it takes too much time and money (I think the figures are specified) to locate the answer to a query, then it's exempt too. Sorting through several million inindexed sheets of paper to locate one family will take too long for it to be practical. If all the censuses were released tomorrow, it would still take years to access the information. What people mean when they say 'released' is transcribed and online. I do have the exact address for some Irish rellies in 1912. If I wanted, I could order the1911 census film for that street from the LDS. To answer your query: no, I have not done so.

nudge

http://home.clara.net/denis.mccready/

This thread actually ceased in January. There is absolutely no point in resurecting it as the decision has already been made by Parliament and the debate is closed. Sorry - have to wait.