DORSET-L Archives

Archiver > DORSET > 2002-11 > 1036628335


From: R&S leetooze <>
Subject: Re: [DOR] White Paper - civil registration
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 19:18:55 -0500
References: <5.0.2.1.0.20021105224921.00a7bec0@mail.durham.net>
In-Reply-To: <3DC910A6.E6D925CB@virgin.net>


Hello Guy and others on the list with an interest:
I am wondering, sitting here so far away in Canada, if you Brits ever talk
to your MPs? We here just saunter into their offices whenever we feel like
it and sit down for a good old chat - either with the MP or with his/her
office manager. We say things like, " Can you get me a translation of this
proposal? I mean, just what does this section here really mean?"
And by golly, the MP gets it in writing and sends it along!!
Then, when things take a turn for the worse later on, you have proof to
fall back on!! Just don't tell the MP that's what you want it for!!
I think if people had more dialogue with their MPs, rather than complaining
sessions, things would get ironed out.
I know that it has been found that medical records of the past are proving
invaluable to today's families. Now that we know that, can we today not
make our own arrangements for written confirmation for this sort of
thing? Why must we always put the onus on government? We can do our own
business better than they ever could!! I wouldn't trust a civil servant to
my work!
So maybe family historians ought to be looking to their own doctors, own
family members to start looking after their own documentation from now on
so that we do not have to rely on governments! It's that simple.
Sher Leetooze, Ontario, Canada


At 12:52 PM 11/6/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>Unfortunately past experience does not agree with your views.
>
>The main problem I have with the White Paper is the loose wording of the
>proposals for example - where the individual is under 100 years of age - if a
>person dies before they reach 100 years of age would the records be released?
>There is also the word Family, what does that mean, you may think you know
>but it
>is open to different interpretations, these need to be explained in writing so
>that there can be no change of interpretation later.
>
>Note this change of interpretation has occurred in the past when the Registrar
>General took it upon himself to block access to the registers of Births,
>Marriages and Deaths which before his decision around 60 years after the
>Act of
>1837 the public had access to, again up until 1972 we had access to the
>registers
>in the care of the local registrars until these were blocked on a similar
>pretext
>by the Registrar General.
>
>Access to the 1911 (and the 1901 until recently) census has been block
>unlawfully
>until 101 years after their compilation by an imaginary 100 year ruling even
>though the Act of Parliament allows for its release.
>
>By blocking access to cause of death people may die through not being able to
>find out if they may have inherited certain conditions, the present White
>Paper
>needs corrections and detailed explanations before it should be accepted
>on the
>statute book.
>Cheers
>Guy
>
>R&S leetooze wrote:
>
> > Hello Listers :
> > How many have gone to see the "changes" that Brianand others have been
> > discussing?
> > Well, don't get your nickers in a twist - it's not that bad!!
> > Granted, hungry family researchers today are eager for any tidbits of
> > information that can be found for their ancestors, and therefore, when
> > something is being proposed to keep something from future researchers,
> > sometimes we get a little jittery - or a whole lot jittery!!
> > I have read the proposed "changes" and they are something we can live with.
> > You must remember, that all the information that will be kept "secret" will
> > have been put out to the public at the time of the event in other ways,
> > most especially the local newspapers - birth announcements, marriage
> > announcements (with photos usually - hey, bonus!) and obits.
> > There will also be the old telephone directories, trades lists for a town/
> > village/ city in the municipal directories, which we will all make sure are
> > archived for the future! Right?
> > I wouldn't worry about knowing the exact house (addresses must be kept
> > secret, yet the tax rolls and assessments, which are usually on microfilm
> > will be available) because with the cost of housing these days, our
> > descendants who will be searched out by their descendants will probably be
> > renters anyway, moving from place to place to get the best jobs and
> > cheapest rents!!
> > I really think that some family researchers are seeing boogymen where there
> > is just a lot of hot air (government offices) and that future researchers
> > will not be hampered by this legislation.
> > One way to foil these plans, if you are that upset by them, is to make sure
> > that one person in the family is always groomed to take over your job, or
> > that everyone knows there will be a general election for the post, and make
> > sure that family records are kept in a manner which is approved by
> > yourself. Lay out a plan - ask everyone to abide by it. Once it is being
> > done for a few years, (granted, it may be done with a little coaching/aka
> > nagging from you!) I think it will become tradition in your family. No
> > records will ever have to be lost or searched again!
> > Well, that's the way I see it, anyway.
> > Sher in Ontario, Canada
> >
> > ==== DORSET Mailing List ====
> > The Dorset GENUKI pages may be found at
> http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DOR/
>
>--
>Wakefield England
>Rejuvenated resources at http://www.archivecdbooks.org
>http://gye.future.easyspace.com Worldwide Cemetery Links, Monumental
>Inscriptions, War Graves, etc.
>http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells Transcripts, Parish Records,
>Calendar,
>Abbreviations, Returns of Owners of Lands etc. etc.
>
>
>
>
>==== DORSET Mailing List ====
>Follow the Dorset list threaded archives at:
>http://archiver.rootsweb.com/DORSET-L

This thread: