On Monday, 17 February 2020 13:39:10 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 14 February 2020 18:31:07 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 13 February 2020 19:09:25 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 13 February 2020 14:33:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 18:43:09 UTC, jon lopgel wrote:
"Martyn Barclay" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 07:13:00 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
The next census might be the last?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51468919
Just like the previous one was supposed to be the last?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10584385
The census is quite a valuable source of information for those
doing
family genealogy.
But is that worth the very high cost ?
That depends on what yuo mean by high costs.
But the census is also used as a prediction tool for the way the
country
and inhabitants are moving both politicvally and socailly
although
things
change
much faster in the 21st century than they previously did.
What annoys a genealogists, historians & family
members doing research is the UK's insistence on sticking
rigidly
to
the
"100 year rule" whereby the 1921 census will be released in
2022.
The
US &
Australian census (for example) are released under a "72 year
rule"
&
can
be researched up until 1940, & the US 1950 Federal census will
be
released
in 2022.
In Australia, after the statistical data is collected, the
original
census
data is destroyed, so there is no 72 year rule in the sense of
access
to all the original data on the census form.
How much does it cost to destroy
Very little.
and what is the point.
So the privacy of the individuals is preserved.
But the individual is most likely dead.
But plenty dont want everyone knowing
what their parents or grandparents got up to.
and plenty more do.
Thats why different jurisdictions do the census differently.
Do you have a programme on TV called who do you think you are.
Yep,. and I said that in this thread. With
some of our own featuring in it too.
But what sort of things are that private ?
All sorts of things like whether your mum ran a brothel etc,
particularly if she had never been caught and convicted in court.
And those records are available.
Not if she hadn't got caught and convicted they arent.
Well if your mum admitted to running a brothel then it's hardly private..
She wouldnt have done that on the census form but the number
of women in the house with no males is a bit of a giveaway.
Really my uncle had 5 daughters .
if she didn;t put it down on the cenus then that
infromation wouldn't exist on the census.
See above.
I can see a ceiling, how does that help.
Just like anything else.
Nothing like anything else.
Plenty of ours never were, because they paid off the cops.
That info isnl;t normally recorded on census's
But the number of women living at that address obviously is.
So.
We even had one of the state premiers, the equivalent
of a state PM who was an SP bookie during the war.
Is this what he put down on the census ?
Irrelevant to what he paid the cops to ensure that there
never were any record by the cops or the courts that
would expose that activity for his brats to have to explain.
That makes as much sense as you usualy do, so not a lot.
Are you saying we can't find out how many people lived in say
sydney 100 years ago because the records have been destroyed ?
No, that is the statistical information that is the whole point of
the census and that data is available quite quickly after the
census
is done and is always available after that. What is destroyed is
the
filled out individual census forms that contain the information
that
compromises the privacy of those who filled out the forms,
yuo mean like what jobs they do ?
All the information in the forms.
yuo can add fake information.
Sure, but we prefer to destroy the forms
after the statistical info has been gathered.
Why ?
So no one can find out that privacy stuff later.
Then you wouldn't put it down in the census.
It's never been difficult to lie about what yuo put down on the census,
they chance of someone coming to check was really small.
IIRC in 2001 2% of those in Brighton we're Jedi's even
in australia there were Jedi's not as many obviously.
Yeah, we got the same result, forget the percentage.
So not difficult to lie then is it.
I though jedi's wanted to keep such things secret
The world moved on, just like with poofters.
As I'm not sure what would get delete and what wouldn't.
All the forms are destroyed. What is kept is how many
who claimed to be butchers in that area etc, but not
what house they lived in etc.
Most people can find out what their grand parents
But not always, as has been shown in that magnificent TV series.
Yes so destroying the census doesn't make much sense.
It does when the stuff like being a brothel madam can be
worked out from the census data, as it was with one of you
poms in that soggy little frigid island, in that series.
So you don't put down you are running a brothel.
but down on their employment details when they got married.
So deleting the cenus records would be pointless.
Not with those whose grandparents want to keep some info secret
and plenty do, particularly with illegitimate brats and multiple wives..
So don't put them on the census.
But then you have to explain why they arent included.
you can make up a job they do likke cleaning or whatever.
Do you think those that murder put down killer as an ocupation ?
One in that magnificent series discovered that their dad had
lots of other wives that no one knew about, forget the total now.
So how was that found out ?
From the marriage and birth records.
So the census is usaless for that sort of thing isn;t it.
For some odd reason he didnt actually get listed
on the census forms of all his various wives that night,.
So it makes little differnce then destroying info from the census.