Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
Michael Chare wrote:
The mobile phone company might well have done a credit search. very likely, I get notified by equifax of events such as new mobile contracts, or bank accounts etc (my credit record was part of the mass hacking, so I get free notification of such events) |
#42
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"harry" wrote in message ... On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 08:12:55 UTC, Jeff Layman wrote: On 12/02/20 07:13, 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 More wasted money on legalised snooping. Why don't they just pay Google for the info? Every ten years I have fun trying to (legally) make it as difficult as possible for the coders/OCR equipment to read my census return. For example, many years ago the requirement was for it to be completed in blue or black ink. That year I used the palest blue colour I could find - it was almost indistinguishable from the background, but it /was/ blue. The next time it was a requirement for the ink to be black, so I used a square font (like the one here https://www.dafont.com/squarefont.font) with the lines of the letters entered without spacing between them and the edges of the black boxes. But the ink /was/ black. I wonder what the requirement will be next year? Are you an illegal immigrant? And a moslem too. Best go around and molotov his place or sumfin. |
#43
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"Andy Burns" wrote in message ... Jeff Layman wrote: Why don't they just pay Google for the info? Last time they suggested the credit reference agencies knew it all ... They dont, most obviously with the detail of the little kids. |
#44
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"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 ? 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. |
#45
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
On 12/02/2020 13:41, Andy Burns wrote:
www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote: My speed-school offer was triggered by a local gantry camera. I'm extremely careful when the "smart" speed limits are up and always GPS and cruise control however 12:30 Christmas day no speed limit was shown and in my stupidity I simply forgot about the camera. The "new" and apparently ultra clever series 3.0 cams (2 x yellow boxes mounted on the gantry supporting pole) triggered at 81 mph. If the gantry was displaying 70 or national speed limit my attention would have been drawn to the possibility of a snapshot but no such clue was afforded. I've always treated the M1 cameras north of Leicester and south of Sheffield as "off", so long as they aren't displaying a number or NSL symbol, they might have a default limit, but it must be well into three digits. I have been flashed several times by those cameras in Sheffield and never got a ticket. Cruise control set to 86MPH. -- Adam |
#46
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"NY" wrote in message ... "www.GymRatZ.co.uk" wrote in message ... On 12/02/2020 08:12, Jeff Layman wrote: Every ten years I have fun trying to (legally) make it as difficult as possible for the coders/OCR equipment to read my census return. For example, many years ago the requirement was for it to be completed in blue or black ink. That year I used the palest blue colour I could find - it was almost indistinguishable from the background, but it /was/ blue. The next time it was a requirement for the ink to be black, so I used a square font (like the one here https://www.dafont.com/squarefont.font) with the lines of the letters entered without spacing between them and the edges of the black boxes. But the ink /was/ black. I wonder what the requirement will be next year? I don't remember the wording on the last census form but for at least the last 12 to 15 years I've declined the "invitation" to be part of the "electrol roll" or to name others at the address. The form of lies is always addressed to "the occupier" which is not a name I am familiar with at the address to which it's posted so it always gets returned ANR RTS. I think most people who had their brain switched on and not in bloody-minded mode would regard "The Occupier" as a "matches-anything" wildcard name. They can't address the form to the last known occupier by name, because he may have moved out and someone else moved in since the last time they got the info - and anyway, there may not *be* a name registered at that address if it was someone who refused to return the filled-in form. I think the offence is failing to provide *any* information as well as returning false information, so you should expect it to be chased-up (if they have the time, which is what you're banking on). Problem with that line is they cant prove that you were at that address that night etc. In theory they might try claiming that you dont show up on a census form anywhere, but I would then claim that I wasnt in any house that night and that no census monkey showed up where I happened to be that night and they wouldnt be able to prove that I was lying about that. I choose not to fill out the census form myself. None of their business imo. Likewise, even if I were to open it I still couldn't complete it as the box that requires a signature also requires the ALL CAPITALS NAME to be entered and a signature bonding the signatory to the fact that they then become liable to a £1000 fine should something not be correct. That's not a contract that benefits me and I can't sign it under a false NAME, that's fraud. You mean, because you think you have to sign your name as "The Occupier" (since that's who it was addressed to) rather than the name that you fill in at the top of the form? Use a *little* bit of common sense. Bloody council canvasser scum just get a "no thankyou" and the door shut on them, to which they say "so I'll take that as a refusal then" No joinder no problem. No vote, though, for you or anyone who lives there. Maybe that doesn't bother you. I wonder what happens if the head of the household refuses to fill in the form but someone else who lives there (wife, children) wants to vote. Is there a mechanism for someone who is not the head of the household to submit just their name, to secure their right to vote. There certainly is here, most obviously with shared houses. I choose not to vote too, even tho its compulsory here. I did discover a quirk just the other day. Withdrawal of substantial sums of money from investment and superannuation accounts here does require you to prove that you are who you say you are. That can be done with a certified copy of your drivers license or passport or birth certificate etc but thats a nuisance and is too primitive imo. One of the funds does do a comparison between the details on your license and the electoral roll but obviously that doesnt work in my case. I'm obviously just too much of a goody-goody. True. I'm much more into making an obscene gesture in the general direction of the bureaucrats. I've never felt the slightest inclination not to do what I regard as my moral (as well as legal) duty by adding myself to the electoral roll and the census. Like I said, I dont bother with either even tho its compulsory here with both. I want my details excluded from the publicly-viewable electoral roll, I choose not to vote because its a waste of my time. but only because spam merchants are legally allowed to use this information as a mailing list. Ours arent but in theory at least can use the printed form of the electoral roll that is in the public library. If I had my way, I'd bang up every single person who sends any unsolicited mail/phone-calls/email, irrespective of whether it was fraudulent or honest - the sin is the mere act of sending it. I wouldnt because it does make the economy work a bit better and it would be too expensive to only allow stuff to be sent to those who have agreed to receive it. |
#47
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"NY" wrote in message ... "newshound" wrote in message o.uk... On 12/02/2020 09:43, NY wrote: "Andy Burns" wrote in message ... How are people identified in a census - I've forgotten? Is it just by name or does each person in a household have to give a unique ID such as National Insurance number? If they gave NI number, it would make it much easier for genealogists to trace the correct John Smith as he moves from house to house between one census and the next. I've heard it said that most Americans (land of the free) know their social security number. I've always thought that the NI number had some merits as a potentially unique identifier. There are places that use it as your login ID on the computer system. I certainly know my NI number - it's used for filling in tax returns and various other things that are not *directly* related to state pension and NI contributions to build up credits for pension. But then I'm the sort of person who can remember all my car registrations and the postcodes and phone numbers of all the houses I've lived at. ;-) Fark, that must be why your eyes dont work properly, All that data is pressing on the back of your eyeballs and stopping your optic nerve from working properly. I can see a lot of benefit from using some form of ID number (and NI is as good as any) as the number on lots of databases, as an easy means of relating one database to another *once the legal confidentiality "just cause" conditions have been met*. We dont have any unique ID number and there are very strict controls on the use of the tax file number and plenty of people like kids dont have one. |
#48
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"whisky-dave" wrote in message ... On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 08:12:55 UTC, Jeff Layman wrote: On 12/02/20 07:13, 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 More wasted money on legalised snooping. Why don't they just pay Google for the info? Every ten years I have fun trying to (legally) make it as difficult as possible for the coders/OCR equipment to read my census return. For example, many years ago the requirement was for it to be completed in blue or black ink. That year I used the palest blue colour I could find - it was almost indistinguishable from the background, but it /was/ blue. The next time it was a requirement for the ink to be black, so I used a square font (like the one here https://www.dafont.com/squarefont.font) with the lines of the letters entered without spacing between them and the edges of the black boxes. But the ink /was/ black. I wonder what the requirement will be next year? if I were checking this forms or wrote software to do it's I'd mark these individuals down as mentally deficient. They do as he will discover when he needs a care home. |
#49
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
On 12/02/2020 16:27, Dave W wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:16:34 +0000, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk" wrote: ... The first time I refused to file the electoral roll was when the form had very ambiguous wording with regards to the "open register" it used a combination of double negatives and contradicted it's self there was no way of knowing whether you were opting in to being off the list or on the list. One section implied one thing and the other implied the opposite. ... For heaven's sake, "contradicted it's self", which expands to "contradicted it is self", should be "contradicted itself". Thankyou for wisdom and advise! cast..... |
#50
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 05:15:38 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: And a moslem too. Best go around and molotov his place or sumfin. What a driveling senile asshole you are! tsk -- Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile cretin from Oz: https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/ |
#51
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More Heavy Trolling by Senile Nym-Shifting Rodent Speed!
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 05:16:49 +1100, jon lopgel, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: Last time they suggested the credit reference agencies knew it all ... They don¢t, most obviously with the detail of the little kids. Do you get some sort of tiny senile climax, any time find an opportunity to auto-contradict, senile asshole? -- Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot: "Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)" MID: |
#52
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"John Rumm" wrote in message o.uk... On 12/02/2020 09:25, Jeff Layman wrote: Nearly all the information available from a census is obtainable form other sources (the birth, marriage, and death register is a good start). Some countries have realised this and don't require a general census That is one of those "yes in theory" kind of things, that tends to collapse into chaos the moment you look at the implementation details. The reality is that the information that exists is spread across multiple databases - not necessarily all accessible centrally. All these databases are "not connected" - not only physically - different incompatible systems, different networks / repositories, but also logically not connected - They are all using different key fields and with no way of accurately joining records from one with another, with any assurance that you have linked the correct records together. Even when correctly joined there is no way of resolving conflicts between them. You also have the difficulty that the data were collected for a myriad of different purposes, so there is a high likelihood that the answers are give in completely different contexts, and hence could be considered "wrong" for census purposes. And when I was a teenager, I deliberately misspelled my name with some of the free trial subs to mags like Time and Life and that would **** the system. And my writing is so atrocious that plenty even manage to **** up my last name, even ending up with weird variations like Spego once. If those countries can do it, why can't we? Can they do it as well as we do it? Do they do it for the same purpose? |
#53
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:06:58 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: I wouldn¢t Wouldn't you, you piece of **** troll? BG -- Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot: "Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)" MID: |
#54
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More Heavy Trolling by Senile Nym-Shifting Rodent Speed!
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 05:35:48 +1100, jon lopgel, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: In Australia, Nobody gives a ****, sociopath. This is a UK ng! -- "Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed: "You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad little ignorant ****." MID: |
#55
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
... Problem with that line is they cant prove that you were at that address that night etc. In theory they might try claiming that you dont show up on a census form anywhere, but I would then claim that I wasnt in any house that night and that no census monkey showed up where I happened to be that night and they wouldnt be able to prove that I was lying about that. Are the rules still that they want to know where people were on that particular night (*), or did they change it some time ago to require a person's normal home address, even if they happened to have been elsewhere on that specific night. (*) Which is how one of the Suffragettes was able to get herself recorded as being in (a broom cupboard of) the Houses of Parliament in the 1910s. |
#56
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"Andrew" wrote in message ... Brian, The older census results (when they were possibly more complete and accurate) are a treasure trove for genealogists and researchers. Some people will not be happy to lose future editions. But is it worth the very high cost to keep them happy ? If the government wants to know where all the people are, they can always demand all the records from the phone companies and supermarkets. Doesnt work with those with no phone and who always use cash at supermarkets. On 12/02/2020 09:30, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote: I'd have thought Google will be able to do it any time you like unless you are a non person, ie never been on line or banked with any services which uses google systems or do not live in a council area using google services. Brian |
#57
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] The last census?
"Pamela" wrote in message ... On 09:25 12 Feb 2020, Jeff Layman wrote: On 12/02/20 08:28, Richard Conway wrote: On 12/02/2020 08:12, Jeff Layman wrote: On 12/02/20 07:13, 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 More wasted money on legalised snooping. Why don't they just pay Google for the info? Every ten years I have fun trying to (legally) make it as difficult as possible for the coders/OCR equipment to read my census return. Well assuming a team of people are being paid to manually enter any tricky forms, that's even more money wasted then. Well done. I do my best. But it is a drop in the ocean compared to the overall cost of a census. The Census Act 1920 was a short, but very well written piece of legislation which makes it impossible to refuse to complete a census request. Well, you /can/ refuse, but it leads to a conviction, fine, and another request to complete the census form. Refuse that, and another fine, etc (maybe eventually leading to even a "contempt of court" conviction). It's obviously a really heinous crime in the eyes of the UK Government. Nearly all the information available from a census is obtainable form other sources (the birth, marriage, and death register is a good start). Some countries have realised this and don't require a general census (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...g_censuses_by_ country#Methods_of_conducting_population_census). If those countries can do it, why can't we? After every census, there is talk of abolishing it, but it gets nowhere. Even talk of making the 2021 census fillable online misses the point; it's just not necessary as the information is already out there. If anything sensible is required which /isn't/ out there, well, great, ask for it - but specifically. Resistance may be futile, but if upsets the "governmental Borgs" in any way, it is worthwhile IMHO. Much as I find the census intrusive, I think it's worth the hassle if it helps locate illegal immigrants. It doesn’t. They arent stupid enough to fill it out, stupid. Those elctronic methods have their gaps. Some years ago in 2007, the DWP had 77 million NI numbers on its database but the adult population was only 49 million. |
#58
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:25:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: And when I was a teenager FLUSH troll**** unread NOBODY gives a ****, senile pest! -- dennis@home to know-it-all Rot Speed: "You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about." Message-ID: |
#59
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
On 12/02/2020 18:35, jon lopgel wrote:
But is that worth the very high cost ? Dont know if it would be cheaper in house but..... .............Lockheed Martin UK, the UK arm of US-based aerospace, defence, security, and technology company Lockheed Martin was awarded the contract to provide services for the census comprising questionnaire printing, a customer contact centre and data capture and processing. The contract is valued at £150 million, approximately one third of the total £482 million census budget...... I do wonder how much of that info ended up in USA hands. |
#60
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:49:39 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: Much as I find the census intrusive, I think it's worth the hassle if it helps locate illegal immigrants. It doesn¢t. They arent stupid enough to fill it out, stupid. It does, if everyone is forced to fill it out, senile Ozzietard! -- about senile Rot Speed: "This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage." MID: |
#61
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:16:07 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: if I were checking this forms or wrote software to do it's I'd mark these individuals down as mentally deficient. They do as he will discover when he needs a care home. Ironic, coming from the two mentally most deficient prize idiots on this group. BG -- Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak": "That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******." Message-ID: |
#62
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:47:30 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: Some people will not be happy to lose future editions. But is it worth the very high cost to keep them happy ? But is it ANY of yours, you senile trolling Arsetralian? -- The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot: "Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole." Message-ID: |
#63
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:12:53 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH senile troll**** ....nothing's left! BG -- about senile Rot Speed: "This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage." MID: |
#64
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
... And when I was a teenager, I deliberately misspelled my name with some of the free trial subs to mags like Time and Life and that would **** the system. And my writing is so atrocious that plenty even manage to **** up my last name, even ending up with weird variations like Spego once. Doing that, or even just inventing a variety of different fictitious middle initials, can be a very good way of identifying where spammers have got your name from. If you only ever used a middle initial of B with Time, and with no-one else, any spammers or junk mailers that use it must have got your details from Time's mailing list. |
#65
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"Pamela" wrote in message
... Oh, I see. That reminds me of the mixup with phrases like: "I would like to thank my parents, Susan and God". That's where the Oxford Comma (*) comes in useful ;-) (*) A normally-redundant comma before "and". |
#66
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote Problem with that line is they cant prove that you were at that address that night etc. In theory they might try claiming that you dont show up on a census form anywhere, but I would then claim that I wasnt in any house that night and that no census monkey showed up where I happened to be that night and they wouldnt be able to prove that I was lying about that. Are the rules still that they want to know where people were on that particular night (*), Ours certainly are. or did they change it some time ago to require a person's normal home address, even if they happened to have been elsewhere on that specific night. Can't see that being very viable. Plenty dont have a normal home address. (*) Which is how one of the Suffragettes was able to get herself recorded as being in (a broom cupboard of) the Houses of Parliament in the 1910s. Ours dont record the location that specifically. Not sure what happens with hotels etc. |
#67
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote And when I was a teenager, I deliberately misspelled my name with some of the free trial subs to mags like Time and Life and that would **** the system. And my writing is so atrocious that plenty even manage to **** up my last name, even ending up with weird variations like Spego once. Doing that, or even just inventing a variety of different fictitious middle initials, can be a very good way of identifying where spammers have got your name from. Yeah, thats why I did that with the free trial mag subs. If you only ever used a middle initial of B with Time, and with no-one else, any spammers or junk mailers that use it must have got your details from Time's mailing list. |
#68
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 08:30:51 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: Doing that, or even just inventing a variety of different fictitious middle initials, can be a very good way of identifying where spammers have got your name from. Yeah, that¢s why I did that with the free trial mag subs. No, YOU did it because you ARE a sick sociopath, senile Rodent! -- Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile cretin from Oz: https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/ |
#69
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 08:26:12 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: Are the rules still that they want to know where people were on that particular night (*), Ours certainly are. That senile asshole just doesn't catch on what's the matter with you, eh, senile Rodent? You're lucky! LOL -- about senile Rot Speed: "This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage." MID: |
#70
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:16:10 +0000, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk"
wrote: On 12/02/2020 16:27, Dave W wrote: On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:16:34 +0000, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk" wrote: ... The first time I refused to file the electoral roll was when the form had very ambiguous wording with regards to the "open register" it used a combination of double negatives and contradicted it's self there was no way of knowing whether you were opting in to being off the list or on the list. One section implied one thing and the other implied the opposite. ... For heaven's sake, "contradicted it's self", which expands to "contradicted it is self", should be "contradicted itself". Thankyou for wisdom and advise! cast..... ADVICE! -- Dave W |
#71
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
Jeff Layman wrote:
More wasted money on legalised snooping. Why don't they just pay Google for the info? 'cos Google doesn't have the info. Google may have *some* of the info, but they don't have (all of) The info. Jeff Layman wrote: The Census Act 1920 was a short, but very well written piece of legislation which makes it impossible to refuse to complete a census The best thing they could do with the census is return to the single A4 per househouse, one line per person form they had before WW2. The current War'N'Peace effort is a nonsense. NY wrote: I wonder how the accuracy and completeness of the "other sources" of information will be checked. For census purposes, almost none. How does a birth certificate issued in 1965 in Hemel Hempstead tell you who lives in 23 Acadia Avenue in Hartlepool in 2031? Almost no alternative documents have the matchup of address, named person, person's age, person's occupation, person's relationship to other household members, person's place of birth. suspect. Using electoral rolls as the primary source of the census is dodgy because some people choose not to go on the electoral roll (thus forfeiting And children aren't on the electoral roll. And neither are ages, occupations, ages, birth places. The census is a list of all people, the electoral roll is a list of (almost) all adults. How are people identified in a census - I've forgotten? Is it just by name or does each person in a household have to give a unique ID such as National Insurance number? Just name. It can't be NI number, as they don't exist for children, and - as I mentioned above - the very definition of a census is a list of all people, not just a list of adults. NY wrote: It is also scary how many errors creep into transcriptions of census and birth/marriage/death records. My mum discovered this when she happened to check her birth record in the index at Kew and noticed that her mother's maiden name was recorded incorrectly: an O had been mis-read as a C (the perils of flowery joined-up handwriting instead of capitals!). I've been transcribing census records, and some of the handwriting is atrocious. There's still a few entries on one that I cannot manage to translate into anything comprehensible. Were there any cases when the wife was listed as head of the household even though her husband was still alive and living at the same address - ie where "Relation to head" was listed as "husband". Quite a few in the Whitby censuses which I've transcribed, usually due to the husband being at sea. Interestingly, her entry lists her married name as well as her maiden name, so someone must have gone through and retrospectively annotated the 1939 entry with much more recent information from her 1960s marriage. The 1939 survey was used as the basis of NHS records, so it was annotated through the years up until the mid-1970s with people's changing details. Andrew wrote: If the government wants to know where all the people are, they can always demand all the records from the phone companies and supermarkets. Phone directories do not include children, ages, occupations, or people other than the primary subscriber in the household. |
#72
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
On 12/02/2020 20:40, NY wrote:
"Pamela" wrote in message ... Oh, I see.Â* That reminds me of the mixup with phrases like: "I would like to thank my parents, Susan and God". That's where the Oxford Comma (*) comes in useful ;-) (*) A normally-redundant comma before "and". That is because at oxford they donmt know any more punctuation marks. It should read either "I would like to thank my parents: Susan and God". Or "I would like to thank my parents, Susan and God". which is pretty unambiguous. That is if you want to group things together rather than a homogenous list, use ways to to that that do not involve a comma. -- "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift. |
#73
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
On 12/02/2020 23:39, Dave W wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:16:10 +0000, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk" wrote: On 12/02/2020 16:27, Dave W wrote: On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:16:34 +0000, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk" wrote: ... The first time I refused to file the electoral roll was when the form had very ambiguous wording with regards to the "open register" it used a combination of double negatives and contradicted it's self there was no way of knowing whether you were opting in to being off the list or on the list. One section implied one thing and the other implied the opposite. ... For heaven's sake, "contradicted it's self", which expands to "contradicted it is self", should be "contradicted itself". Thankyou for wisdom and advise! cast..... ADVICE! ROFLMFAO -- "If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the news paper, you are mis-informed." Mark Twain |
#74
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] The last census?
In article ,
Pamela wrote: On 14:21 12 Feb 2020, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Pamela wrote: Much as I find the census intrusive, I think it's worth the hassle if it helps locate illegal immigrants. Would illegal immigrants fill in a census form? Of course illegals would be evasive. But there are some situations where census info might be useful in catching illegals, such as when the landlord fills in the form. Aren't we told landlords have to make sure none of their tenants are illegal anyway? (Just another example of making a law with no way of enforcing it.) -- *A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#75
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
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 and what is the point. Are you saying we can't find out how many people lived in say sydney 100 years ago because the records have been destroyed ? |
#76
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
news:aaf44775-6940-4293-8cb4- 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 and what is the point. 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, I think what he was saying is that the names of the individuals are destroyed, and only the results of analysis (eg total number of people in various categories/locations) is kept. So fine for statistical analysis, but useless for family history research by forthcoming generations. But also useless if you ask a question that hadn't been thought of at the time (eg number of people in one particular suburb or number of people under age 40 or whatever). |
#77
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"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. 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, |
#78
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:05:55 GMT, Pamela
wrote: snip My Mrs just had to renew her driving licence (because she's nearly 70 I think). "I think"! Don't you know her age? Rewind ... 'I think it was because she's nearly 70 she had to renew her driving licence?' ;-) snip Oh, I see. That reminds me of the mixup with phrases like: "I would like to thank my parents, Susan and God". Quite. Of course such things can just be poorly phrased and (accidentally) allow ambiguity of interpretation (especially if not taken in context, an understanding of the bigger picture and / or reading between the lines etc) or very carefully honed and planned to imply things, like 'We send the EU £350m a week: let’s fund our NHS instead' that were never true or linked (formally). "In his spat with the UK Statistics Authority Johnson now says he is shocked, SHOCKED that his words should be understood in this crassly simplistic way. To suggest that he was claiming that £350m might be “available for extra public spending” is a “wilful distortion” etc. In other words, the foreign secretary’s defence amounts to an admission that the slogan on his famous Brexit campaign bus – “We send the EU £350m a week: let’s fund our NHS instead” – was bogus all along." https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...eign-secretary The real problem with examples like the one above is when very important decisions are then potentially swayed because of them (and that fact is swept under the carpet). Hardly democracy as she was intended. "Johnson now says he is shocked ..." ... He might be because he's a puppet, I bet his campaign\\\\\\\\lies team aren't. Cheers, T i m |
#79
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 01:33:37 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll**** 01:33??? Now what??? Did you just get out of bed again, or are you STILL up and trolling, you perverted sick senile swine from Oz? -- about senile Rot Speed: "This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage." MID: |
#80
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The last census?
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
... 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, Interesting that Australia chose to destroy that personal information permanently, rather than just embargo it for a period of time (eg 100 years, as in the UK) so as to prevent (to a good approximation) any information being released about people who are still living. Or are you saying that *some* of the personal information (eg name, age, relation to head of house, address) is transcribed from the forms and is available after a suitable embargo period for the benefit of genealogists, but additional info (eg religion, sexual preference, income) is discarded after analysis? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
2011 Census | Metalworking | |||
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin | UK diy | |||
Duplicate Census Forms | Home Repair | |||
The 2010 Census has begun | Home Repair | |||
First political census worker killing | Electronic Schematics |