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 what sort of things are that private ?



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 ?

As I'm not sure what would get delete and what wouldn't.

NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

Yeah, it is always controversial here whether we should
keep doing that, because it does mean that historical
research is much harder with well known people etc.

But after watching a couple of episodes of 'who do you think you
are' I can understand the logic of the approach we take. A couple
of the ancestors of some of those whose ancestors were traced
turned out to have been brothel madams and stuff like that,

On another similar series, someone turned out to to be
one of the descendants of one of the worst of the one
of the Nazi concentration camp guards who was notorious
to shooting any of the prisoners who took his fancy from
the balcony of his house for a bit of light sport.

That one didnt come out of census records but it wouldnt
be surprising if some other ones have done. Not all of the
kids of the worst of the Nazi hierarchy were killed by their
parents in the last days of the 3rd Reich and it wouldnt be
too surprising if their descendants arent too keen that it
would be possible to work out who their ancestors were
72 years later etc.

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,

No, that data is never available.

but additional info (eg religion, sexual preference, income) is discarded
after analysis?

No, it isnt done selectively. Its all destroyed and only
the unidenfiable statistical information is ever available
to the general public.

The same thing is done with medical records in
some countrys but the problem is that with the
more obscure and unusual medical problems it
is often possible to work out who the individual
is even when in theory its been anonymised.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 06:04:13 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Yeah, it is always controversial

What is NOT "controversial" for you, you cantankerous trolling senile
asshole?

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 06:09:14 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more of the usual absolutely idiotic blather by the two prize idiots

....and much better air in here!

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On 12 Feb 2020 at 09:25:31 GMT, "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/Population_and_housing_censuses_by_country#Methods _of_conducting_population_census).

If those countries can do it, why can't we?

Because we don't have decent administrative registers. Denmark, for example,
appears to keep comprehensive local registers:

https://www.statbank.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=2133

What are you odds, do you think, of the average local authority doing the
same? ;-)

Of course, if you think a census is nothing much more or less than a snooping
exercise always used to oppress you and others . . .

Cheers, Rob

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.

Do you have a programme on TV called who do you think you are.



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 availible.


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.
IIRC in 2001 2% of those in Brighton we're Jedi's
even in australia there were Jedi's not as many obviously.

I though jedi's wanted to keep such things secret




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 down
on their employment details when they got married.
So deleting the cenus records would be pointless.

On 13/02/2020 00:19, wrote:


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.


Almost all that information is available from other sources.
The NHS records all birth and vaccination records. Local
authorities know where all the kids live, who their parents
and or guardians are.

HMRC have employment, company and VAT data. Lots of it.
The police have their PNC at Hendon.
The Security sources in NI used to have details of every house
including even things like, colour of sofa and curtains. All useful
stuff for interrogating suspects.

Everything that government statisticians and planners need to
know can be now be collated simply by doing a huge data trawl
on the existing government and 'private' databases. 100 years
ago this rich source of data didn't exist.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 13/02/2020 00:19, wrote:


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.


Almost all that information is available from other sources.
The NHS records all birth and vaccination records. Local
authorities know where all the kids live, who their parents
and or guardians are.

HMRC have employment, company and VAT data. Lots of it.
The police have their PNC at Hendon.
The Security sources in NI used to have details of every house
including even things like, colour of sofa and curtains. All useful
stuff for interrogating suspects.

Everything that government statisticians and planners need to
know can be now be collated simply by doing a huge data trawl
on the existing government and 'private' databases. 100 years
ago this rich source of data didn't exist.

One big problem with using lots of different databases like this is matching
the entries that relate to the same person. That's why it would be so much
better if everything required one common ID (NI number) which would show
that John Smith on the utility company database was the same as John Smith
in the DVLA database and the same as John Smith who was born on date at
location with mother's maiden name of name and the same as John Smith
who works for company and earns salary.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
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.

Yeah, it is always controversial here whether we should
keep doing that, because it does mean that historical
research is much harder with well known people etc.

Interesting how different countries have very different policies on privacy
and confidentiality. Has it always been the case that Australia has
forbidden access to censuses, right from the first census which I imagine
was some time in the 1800s? Or did they initially have a
free-access-after-an-embargo-period policy, and only later tighten up the
security for subsequent censuses?

It's like different countries' rules on the use of dashcams - and indeed
photography of any sort in a public place. Some countries ban photography in
or of transport (no photos of trains and railway stations, or of planes and
airports). Some countries totally ban the use (or even possession) of
dashcams; some say that the footage must be deleted immediately afterwards
unless it's kept for a specific insurance claim (ie you can't use it to
document a route that you are driving); some (like the UK) are very relaxed
about what you can use dashcam footage for, and can even post it on Youtube
etc (*). Some countries totally ban Google Streetview; others just require
than faces and car numbers are blurred-out. My feeling is that you shouldn't
do anything "in public" (ie outside the boundary of your house and garden)
that you'd be embarrassed about seeing on Youtube or Streetview: you expect
to be able to bonk or walk around naked anywhere within your house (maybe
with the curtains closed!) and perhaps in a very secluded not-overlooked
part of your garden - but nowhere else. (**)

The blurring-out of car numbers on Streetview is a real pain because it also
blurs out house numbers. I have to visit a lot of people at home, and once I
have their address I usually look for their house on Streetview so I know
what I will be looking for when I'm driving there later on. But the
algorithms that blur out car numbers often blur out signs with house numbers
and names, so sometimes it's necessary to "walk" up and down the street for
a house that *does* have a decipherable number, and then count backwards
from there. If Streetview went on the day that people put their dustbins
out, that is a bonus because many people have large figures on their bins to
make sure they are returned to the correct house.

Then there's the issue of reporting suspects' identities when they've been
arrested and/or are being tried. Some countries have total anonymity. The
general policy in the UK is that identities are kept secret when someone has
only been arrested, and then reported if they are charged and it goes to
trial. But there's the thorny issue of revealing the identities of rape
suspects, because human nature is such that even if someone is found not
guilty, people assume that they may have been guilty all along but it
couldn't be proved. It's particularly a problem where the accusation of rape
was malicious - perhaps even provably so - but the suspect's identity is
already known and can never become un-known if it was proved to be
malicious. I'd say that if it is proved to be malicious, the victim's right
to anonymity (which is normally needed) should be removed.


(*) Though it does work both ways. Apparently if the police see that you
have a dashcam when you are involved in an accident, they can demand the
footage, on pain of a "with-holding information" charge if you refuse, to
see how *you* were driving beforehand, as well as seeing how the other
driver was driving.

(**) The only time I've gone naked in public was on a very private beach on
the Isle of Wight which is known to be an unofficial nudist beach. And my
wife and I did feel a bit weird initially getting our kit off to sunbathe,
with other people all around. Seeing people playing volleyball etc with all
their relevant bits flopping around, decidedly unnerving. I gather that
there is an unwritten "no staring or ogling" rule ;-) And definitely no long
camera lenses...

On 14/02/2020 13:46, NY wrote:
"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 13/02/2020 00:19, wrote:


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.


Almost all that information is available from other sources.
The NHS records all birth and vaccination records. Local
authorities know where all the kids live, who their parents
and or guardians are.

HMRC have employment, company and VAT data. Lots of it.
The police have their PNC at Hendon.
The Security sources in NI used to have details of every house
including even things like, colour of sofa and curtains. All useful
stuff for interrogating suspects.

Everything that government statisticians and planners need to
know can be now be collated simply by doing a huge data trawl
on the existing government and 'private' databases. 100 years
ago this rich source of data didn't exist.

One big problem with using lots of different databases like this is
matching the entries that relate to the same person. That's why it would
be so much better if everything required one common ID (NI number) which
would show that John Smith on the utility company database was the same
as John Smith in the DVLA database and the same as John Smith who was
born on date at location with mother's maiden name of name and the
same as John Smith who works for company and earns salary.

I am pretty sure that was (maybe still is) the US system. One number for
everything - which of course means identity theft is a lot easier to
commit and a lot harder to put right afterwards.

SteveW

"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.

Plenty of ours never were, because they paid off the cops.

We even had one of the state premiers, the equivalent
of a state PM who was an SP bookie during the war.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One in that magnificent series discovered that their dad had
lots of other wives that no one knew about, forget the total now.

On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 05:30:56 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile troll****

....and much better air in here!

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On 12/02/2020 23:39, Dave W wrote:

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!

bite
HL&S
:¬)

On 2/14/2020 11:30 AM, Steve Walker wrote:

I am pretty sure that was (maybe still is) the US system. One number for
everything - which of course means identity theft is a lot easier to
commit and a lot harder to put right afterwards.

There's been a recent change in the US - Medicare insurance numbers are
no longer the same as the SSN.

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
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.

Yeah, it is always controversial here whether we should
keep doing that, because it does mean that historical
research is much harder with well known people etc.

Interesting how different countries have very different policies on
privacy and confidentiality.

Yeah, most obviously with the european approach
of having to notify the cops when you move etc.

Has it always been the case that Australia has forbidden access to
censuses, right from the first census which I imagine was some time in the
1800s?

No, our system is complicated by the fact that we
were separate colonys until federation in 1901.

It was only the national census that took that approach.

Its been claimed that it was due to some not wanting
it to be possible to check who had convict ancestors
but thats quite a stretch and most are happy to claim
their convict ancestors now.

Or did they initially have a free-access-after-an-
embargo-period policy, and only later tighten up the security for
subsequent censuses?

Yes.

It's like different countries' rules on the use of dashcams - and indeed
photography of any sort in a public place.

Yep, and the stupidity you lot let your media get up to
with it being legal to have ****ing great ladders chained
to someone's front wall so those arseholes can perve
over the wall at whats going on behind the wall etc.

Some countries ban photography in or of transport (no photos of trains and
railway stations, or of planes and airports). Some countries totally ban
the use (or even possession) of dashcams; some say that the footage must
be deleted immediately afterwards unless it's kept for a specific
insurance claim (ie you can't use it to document a route that you are
driving); some (like the UK) are very relaxed about what you can use
dashcam footage for, and can even post it on Youtube etc (*).

And very different rules on what your
home surveillance cameras can look at.

And you lot allow your authoritys to have ANPR cameras
at a very high density so the authoritys can keep track of
where you have been most of the time.

Some countries totally ban Google Streetview; others just require than
faces and car numbers are blurred-out. My feeling is that you shouldn't do
anything "in public" (ie outside the boundary of your house and garden)
that you'd be embarrassed about seeing on Youtube or Streetview: you
expect to be able to bonk or walk around naked anywhere within your house
(maybe with the curtains closed!) and perhaps in a very secluded
not-overlooked part of your garden - but nowhere else. (**)

The blurring-out of car numbers on Streetview is a real pain because it
also blurs out house numbers.

Many of ours dont bother with readable house numbers.
I dont myself.

I have to visit a lot of people at home, and once I have their address I
usually look for their house on Streetview so I know what I will be
looking for when I'm driving there later on.

We do it mostly with the garage sales, trying to work out in
advance which houses we have been to previously, but the local
newspaper advices most advertisers to not include the street
number so buggers like us cant show up the day before etc.

But the algorithms that blur out car numbers often blur out signs with
house numbers and names, so sometimes it's necessary to "walk" up and down
the street for a house that *does* have a decipherable number, and then
count backwards from there.

Our house numbers are mostly on the external letterboxes
that are just behind the footpath if there is a footpath so
you can mostly see it from the car when driving past.

And google maps is pretty accurate with getting you
right to the door if you do have a street number.

If Streetview went on the day that people put their dustbins out, that is
a bonus because many people have large figures on their bins to make sure
they are returned to the correct house.

Yeah ours are the same but I dont recall they caught any
on our street view and they only did one complete one
now 10 years ago. With a very superficial quick zoom
thru of the main roads a year or so ago and didnt even
bother with the new streets added since last time.

Then there's the issue of reporting suspects' identities when they've been
arrested and/or are being tried. Some countries have total anonymity. The
general policy in the UK is that identities are kept secret when someone
has only been arrested,

That didnt happen with Barrymore and the others.

and then reported if they are charged and it goes to trial.

And the krauts dont even allow it with convictions.

We dont with a few unusual cases, mostly with
crimes against kids where the kids could be
identified if the criminal is named after conviction.

But there's the thorny issue of revealing the identities of rape suspects,
because human nature is such that even if someone is found not guilty,
people assume that they may have been guilty all along but it couldn't be
proved. It's particularly a problem where the accusation of rape was
malicious - perhaps even provably so - but the suspect's identity is
already known and can never become un-known if it was proved to be
malicious. I'd say that if it is proved to be malicious, the victim's
right to anonymity (which is normally needed) should be removed.

Yeah, I agree.

(*) Though it does work both ways. Apparently if the police see that you
have a dashcam when you are involved in an accident, they can demand the
footage, on pain of a "with-holding information" charge if you refuse, to
see how *you* were driving beforehand, as well as seeing how the other
driver was driving.

Yeah, thats why I prefer to have an invisible dashcam.

Not sure what our law is on demanding access to the footage.

Not sure how yours fits with not having to say anything
and its up to the cops to prove you are guilty.

(**) The only time I've gone naked in public was on a very private beach
on the Isle of Wight which is known to be an unofficial nudist beach. And
my wife and I did feel a bit weird initially getting our kit off to
sunbathe, with other people all around.

Never been into that sort of thing myself.

Seeing people playing volleyball etc with all their relevant bits flopping
around, decidedly unnerving. I gather that there is an unwritten "no
staring or ogling" rule ;-) And definitely no long camera lenses...

Gets a bit tricky with modern mobile phones. Spose they frown
on using the phones at all and the lack of pockets could be tricky
but then some of the sports nuts keep them on arm bands.

On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:13:47 -0000, NY, the notorious, mentally challenged,
troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered again:


Interesting how

Interesting how you keep feeding the dumbest and sickest trolls around, you
senile troll-feeding cretin! BG

On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 08:34:54 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two babbling senile idiots' usual senile babble

....and nothing's left! LOL

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 13/02/2020 00:19, wrote:


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.


Almost all that information is available from other sources.
The NHS records all birth and vaccination records. Local
authorities know where all the kids live, who their parents
and or guardians are.

HMRC have employment, company and VAT data. Lots of it.
The police have their PNC at Hendon.
The Security sources in NI used to have details of every house
including even things like, colour of sofa and curtains. All useful
stuff for interrogating suspects.

Everything that government statisticians and planners need to
know can be now be collated simply by doing a huge data trawl
on the existing government and 'private' databases. 100 years
ago this rich source of data didn't exist.

One big problem with using lots of different databases like this is
matching the entries that relate to the same person.

Our tax dept seems to so a reasonable job of
matching to catch out some of the tax cheats.
Corse its never clear how many they never catch.

That's why it would be so much better if everything required one common ID
(NI number) which would show that John Smith on the utility company
database was the same as John Smith in the DVLA database and the same as
John Smith who was born on date at location with mother's maiden name
of name and the same as John Smith who works for company and earns
salary.

The USA tried that with their social security number
but it turns out that the illegals dont have any real
difficulty getting one to use when they need one.

Bit harder with passports, but still possible.

On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 12:17:06 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

You STILL hope you might eventually win this game, my senile punching bag?
LOL Rest assured, you WON'T!

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On 13/02/2020 10:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.)

Lettings agents are legally required to do right of residency checks,
must as estate agents are required to do anti money laundering ones.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 14/02/2020 12:22, Andrew wrote:
On 13/02/2020 00:19, wrote:


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.


Almost all that information is available from other sources.
The NHS records all birth and vaccination records. Local
authorities know where all the kids live, who their parents
and or guardians are.

HMRC have employment, company and VAT data. Lots of it.
The police have their PNC at Hendon.
The Security sources in NI used to have details of every house
including even things like, colour of sofa and curtains. All useful
stuff for interrogating suspects.

Everything that government statisticians and planners need to
know can be now be collated simply by doing a huge data trawl
on the existing government and 'private' databases. 100 years
ago this rich source of data didn't exist.

I admire your faith in complex government IT systems to pull all this
data together.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/02/2020 10:11, newshound wrote:
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.

While NIs are supposed to be unique they have generally been avoided as
key fields for databases since its known that some folks have none, some
more than one, and many have one the same as someone else.

(I recall one (possibly apocryphal tale) that some early forms that
attempted to collect data from people asked for an NI number at a time
when many did not even know what one was. To be helpful they provided an
example of what an NI number looked like. The result was predictable in
that many just dutifully copied the example into their form submission,
result in one data record with loads of duplicates)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 9:30:18 AM UTC, 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

I think you might find a lot of "non persons" For a start my OH is one. My mother is one and I have a low presence in my own name , I make sure of that. I dont like snoopers and to be honest you cant be too careful with your personal information these days.

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
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

On 16/02/2020 15:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/02/2020 12:22, Andrew wrote:
On 13/02/2020 00:19, wrote:


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.


Almost all that information is available from other sources.
The NHS records all birth and vaccination records. Local
authorities know where all the kids live, who their parents
and or guardians are.

HMRC have employment, company and VAT data. Lots of it.
The police have their PNC at Hendon.
The Security sources in NI used to have details of every house
including even things like, colour of sofa and curtains. All useful
stuff for interrogating suspects.

Everything that government statisticians and planners need to
know can be now be collated simply by doing a huge data trawl
on the existing government and 'private' databases. 100 years
ago this rich source of data didn't exist.

I admire your faith in complex government IT systems to pull all this
data together.


And it's not just a matter of pulling data together. The various
sources mentioned aren't all high quality: e.g. HMRC don't have
/up-to-date/ addresses for all employees. That's why the Citizen
Information Project planned in the noughties was going to be so pricey -
and still fall well short of a population register like the ones in EU
States (from memory all bar Ireland and Denmark).


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 16/02/2020 17:27, Robin wrote:
On 16/02/2020 15:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/02/2020 12:22, Andrew wrote:
On 13/02/2020 00:19, wrote:


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.


Almost all that information is available from other sources.
The NHS records all birth and vaccination records. Local
authorities know where all the kids live, who their parents
and or guardians are.

HMRC have employment, company and VAT data. Lots of it.
The police have their PNC at Hendon.
The Security sources in NI used to have details of every house
including even things like, colour of sofa and curtains. All useful
stuff for interrogating suspects.

Everything that government statisticians and planners need to
know can be now be collated simply by doing a huge data trawl
on the existing government and 'private' databases. 100 years
ago this rich source of data didn't exist.

I admire your faith in complex government IT systems to pull all this
data together.


And it's not just a matter of pulling data together.Â* The various
sources mentioned aren't all high quality: e.g. HMRC don't have
/up-to-date/ addresses for all employees.Â* That's why the Citizen
Information Project planned in the noughties was going to be so pricey -
and still fall well short of a population register like the ones in EU
States (from memory all bar Ireland and Denmark).

That reminds me of a mammoth thread here about 15 years ago on the
subject of ID cards, and the difficulty getting some to recognise the
implications and dangers of a centralised register that would make just
this kind of data pooling and matching possible.

This one I think...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...7akw%5B1-25%5D

(you need to get to probably about page 9 for the best bits IMHO - the
contributions from the late great Stefek Zabar in particular spring to
mind).

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/02/2020 03:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 16/02/2020 17:27, Robin wrote:
snip

And it's not just a matter of pulling data together.Â* The various
sources mentioned aren't all high quality: e.g. HMRC don't have
/up-to-date/ addresses for all employees.Â* That's why the Citizen
Information Project planned in the noughties was going to be so pricey
- and still fall well short of a population register like the ones in
EU States (from memory all bar Ireland and Denmark).

That reminds me of a mammoth thread here about 15 years ago on the
subject of ID cards, and the difficulty getting some to recognise the
implications and dangers of a centralised register that would make just
this kind of data pooling and matching possible.

This one I think...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...7akw%5B1-25%5D

(you need to get to probably about page 9 for the best bits IMHO - the
contributions from the late great Stefek Zabar in particular spring to
mind).


Interesting, thanks. And I can see some people here worrying when they
learn Dominic Cummings has sent a GDS team to Estonia )



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin wrote:

I can see some people here worrying when they
learn Dominic Cummings has sent a GDS team to Estonia

Didn't Estonia have to cancel and re-issue 750,000 digital ID cards?

I vaguely thought there was a similar case in Germany last year with
people having to queue to get re-identified, but can't find any
reference to it online.

On 17/02/2020 09:20, Andy Burns wrote:
Robin wrote:

I can see some people here worrying when they learn Dominic Cummings
has sent a GDS team to Estonia

Didn't Estonia have to cancel and re-issue 750,000 digital ID cards?

yep - though IIRC no one was known to have been affected by the security
flaw in the chip they'd bought; and it was only the security certificate
on the cards that was blocked, so the cards continued to work OK as ID
and travel documents.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

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.
if she didn;t put it down on the cenus then that infromation
wouldn't exist on the census.
Just like anything else.


Plenty of ours never were, because they paid off the cops.

That info isnl;t normally recorded on census's


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 ?



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 ?


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.

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.



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.


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 ?

"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.

if she didn;t put it down on the cenus then that
infromation wouldn't exist on the census.

See above.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For some odd reason he didnt actually get listed
on the census forms of all his various wives that night,.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:38:56 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

00:38??? And you are UP and TROLLING, ALREADY, you sleepless CLINICALLY
INSANE CRETIN? LOL

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

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.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
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 .

Brothels have more than 5 prostitutes and the pros
change from census to census, the daughters dont.

if she didn;t put it down on the cenus then that
infromation wouldn't exist on the census.

See above.

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.

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.

Cant avoid that with a brothel.

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.

Much harder to get away with it with the list of the people there.

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.

She didnt, but it was obvious from the census data that thats what it was.

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.

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.

Corse it isnt.

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.

But doesnt with the brothel, ****wit.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 03:46:43 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

03:46??????? ROTFLOL And you've been up and trolling for OVER THREE HOURS
already. You must be the dumbest senile piece of **** that ever infested
entire Usenet! LOL

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Monday, 17 February 2020 16:53:22 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

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 .

Brothels have more than 5 prostitutes and the pros
change from census to census, the daughters dont.

I doubt many prostitues would stay and live in the same house for 10+ years..

The cenus is more big data that knowing what every room in a house was used for.

Those doing the cenus must have some expectation that people will lie
on what they do and how many live there.

I think you have the idea of a censu wrong.




Then you wouldn't put it down in the census.

Cant avoid that with a brothel.

Easy to avoid, who checks.



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.

Much harder to get away with it with the list of the people there.

So those taking the census believe that Jedis exist ?



So you don't put down you are running a brothel.

She didnt, but it was obvious from the census data that thats what it was.

Prostitition was far more widespeard than just brothels.
Even today most prostitition isn't done in brothels.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

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 .

Brothels have more than 5 prostitutes and the pros
change from census to census, the daughters dont.

I doubt many prostitues would stay and live in the same house for 10+
years.

Precisely, thats how its easy to work out that it was a brothel
and not just one family stuck with just daughters so ugly that
no one was silly enough to marry any of them.

And since this **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on your even sillier ****.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 04:34:46 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

04:34???? ROTFLOL You ARE one clinically insane senile piece of **** indeed,
senile Rodent!

--
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:

On Tuesday, 18 February 2020 17:34:56 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

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 .

Brothels have more than 5 prostitutes and the pros
change from census to census, the daughters dont.

I doubt many prostitues would stay and live in the same house for 10+
years.

Precisely, thats how its easy to work out that it was a brothel
and not just one family stuck with just daughters so ugly that
no one was silly enough to marry any of them.

But people do go out to work as cleaners, you can't just assume that
because there's 5 women at one residence that they are all prostitutes.


And since this **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on your even sillier ****.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 February 2020 17:34:56 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

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 .

Brothels have more than 5 prostitutes and the pros
change from census to census, the daughters dont.

I doubt many prostitues would stay and live in the same house for 10+
years.

Precisely, thats how its easy to work out that it was a brothel
and not just one family stuck with just daughters so ugly that
no one was silly enough to marry any of them.

But people do go out to work as cleaners, you can't just assume that
because there's 5 women at one residence that they are all prostitutes.

The difference is that the names of the women
change between censuses with a brothel and
not with a house full of daughters who all end
up as cleaners, stupid.

And since this **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on your even sillier ****.