A more interesting point to me is about the Horizon programme. If it funded research that led to four out of the six main vaccines, and the companies concerned do appear to credit the programme, that's a huge success and one we don't really hear about. I am not talking about EU good/bad/whatever. The programme itself really seems to have delivered !
Evidence for that assertion please.
I suspect (and it's just a suspicion) that almost every vaccine programme will have taken money at some point from the Wellcome Trust, Horizon, regional development agencies, the UK government, and various others. That's the nature of something that was - until recently - pretty unfashionable, and where researchers will have spent their time grubbing for grants.
But having taken (at some point, and for some portion of related research) money from Horizon is very far from Horizon having been the - or even a - major funder.
Agree that funding is a hand-to-mouth exercise for all research institutes. Having looked into this a bit, Horizon is given major credit for funding primary research at the relevant institutes in these links for Jenner Institute, Bio-N-Tech and Janssen Laboratories/J&J, although the latter also got a lot of funding from the US government. Curevac got its original funding from the EU, but most of its primary research in recent years seems to have been funded by Bill Gates. It did get development funding from Horizon however.
Every semi-competent scientist will have had some money off Horizon 2020. Along with many other funding bodies.
I have had plenty of money off Horizon 2020, as I expect have many other scientists on this board.
When we were in the EU, money that was originally dispersed by the UK funding Councils (say ten years earlier) was given to the EU to disperse.
The EU created a very bureaucratic and very expensive peer review system -- which certainly enriched me enormously -- to dispense the grant money.
You might as well give the credit to the original governments who provided Horizon 2020 with the money as the EU.
As always with the EU, the administration & peer review could have been handleed much more efficiently and with way less administrative costs.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
You seem a bit sensitive about this, and I wouldn't wish to censor your feelings. But there's no sense in us getting incensed in any sense by the census which they sent us despite the lack of cents for us...
Pfft not incensed, I just don't really see the point in filling in paperwork to tell them things they already know so won't bother
Well it's not things they already know. And even to the extent that information is available it's not held in one place. The whole point of a census, if filled in as intended, is it provides a complete and comprehensive picture of the population at a single point in time. It will capture people who move transiently about from place to place, who aren't easily captured by other data collection, who have little general contact with society, and will avoid duplication or omission that would otherwise inevitably occur through trying to piece together information from other information sources.
But clearly you're not going to be convinced, so no point in trying.
Rule 1 never give your government any information they will only misuse it
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Edit - and certainly that was my experience working on it. It was complaining, for example, that people were shown as non-resident at particular properties which just happened to be mobile phone masts.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Bloody hell, Starmer's got to you! Where's the flag emoji?
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Well the fact I have never appeared on a census means the number is down by at least 1
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
You seem a bit sensitive about this, and I wouldn't wish to censor your feelings. But there's no sense in us getting incensed in any sense by the census which they sent us despite the lack of cents for us...
Pfft not incensed, I just don't really see the point in filling in paperwork to tell them things they already know so won't bother
Well it's not things they already know. And even to the extent that information is available it's not held in one place. The whole point of a census, if filled in as intended, is it provides a complete and comprehensive picture of the population at a single point in time. It will capture people who move transiently about from place to place, who aren't easily captured by other data collection, who have little general contact with society, and will avoid duplication or omission that would otherwise inevitably occur through trying to piece together information from other information sources.
But clearly you're not going to be convinced, so no point in trying.
Rule 1 never give your government any information they will only misuse it
Well you can believe that if you want. And to some extent it is true. But that is of course why Census information has such restrictive legislation surrounding it, as typified by the fact that the full detailed information can't be released for 100 years etc.
On this rare occasion, I'm with Corbyn. It would cost Arsenal £10m to remedy the flats, the report says. Less than a week of its first team's pay bill. They should do the right thing.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
You seem a bit sensitive about this, and I wouldn't wish to censor your feelings. But there's no sense in us getting incensed in any sense by the census which they sent us despite the lack of cents for us...
Pfft not incensed, I just don't really see the point in filling in paperwork to tell them things they already know so won't bother
Well it's not things they already know. And even to the extent that information is available it's not held in one place. The whole point of a census, if filled in as intended, is it provides a complete and comprehensive picture of the population at a single point in time. It will capture people who move transiently about from place to place, who aren't easily captured by other data collection, who have little general contact with society, and will avoid duplication or omission that would otherwise inevitably occur through trying to piece together information from other information sources.
But clearly you're not going to be convinced, so no point in trying.
Rule 1 never give your government any information they will only misuse it
Well you can believe that if you want. And to some extent it is true. But that is of course why Census information has such restrictive legislation surrounding it, as typified by the fact that the full detailed information can't be released for 100 years etc.
No releases for the next 30 years, I believe, as there was no census in 1941 and the 1931 records were destroyed in a fire.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
AIUI, there is no central registry of deaths.
Somerset house I believe is the repository of all birth certificates
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Can you think why in current circumstances handing a paper copy to a collector might not be a good idea?
It can be done with care - in the same way I took delivery of beer this afternoon. Alternatively I am happy to return by post.
And why should your personal preference, when alternative methods exist for other people, trump public safety considerations or require so much additional cost to no additional benefit in terms of compliance?
I'm surprised how cross this has made me, but your objections, despite having the initial figleaf of regard for the public (albeit a nonsensical one as those unable to respond online can do so) seems to do with nothing other than arrogant assumption that you had a right to fill out the census in the way you want, and even though you acknowledge you can still do it you are still mad that they would prefer it be another way.
Since the option has not been taken away from anyone, why are you so offended that an alternative option has been offered? Do you get mad when someone brings out a new flavour of crisps because how dare they assume you want the new flavour?
Is the purpose of the census to gather information or to gather it in a way that makes you personally happy? So long as they get the info from us, what does it matter how?
He regularly posts here so clearly has no problem with using the internet. It is not clear to me what the fuss is. If someone doesn't have access to the internet, they can request the paper copy. What's the big deal?
Still waiting for my copy, by the way.
The Amazing Drakeford should be put on the case, he could sort it out immediately.
More seriously, I suppose give it to Monday? Time to contact and get one in time if so.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
AIUI, there is no central registry of deaths.
Somerset house I believe is the repository of all birth certificates
I thought that was where Blair put his Supreme Court and births were now at the National Archives?
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
You seem a bit sensitive about this, and I wouldn't wish to censor your feelings. But there's no sense in us getting incensed in any sense by the census which they sent us despite the lack of cents for us...
Pfft not incensed, I just don't really see the point in filling in paperwork to tell them things they already know so won't bother
Well it's not things they already know. And even to the extent that information is available it's not held in one place. The whole point of a census, if filled in as intended, is it provides a complete and comprehensive picture of the population at a single point in time. It will capture people who move transiently about from place to place, who aren't easily captured by other data collection, who have little general contact with society, and will avoid duplication or omission that would otherwise inevitably occur through trying to piece together information from other information sources.
But clearly you're not going to be convinced, so no point in trying.
Rule 1 never give your government any information they will only misuse it
Well you can believe that if you want. And to some extent it is true. But that is of course why Census information has such restrictive legislation surrounding it, as typified by the fact that the full detailed information can't be released for 100 years etc.
Not released to the public != not usable by government
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Well the fact I have never appeared on a census means the number is down by at least 1
No, well not really. I'm not sure what they're doing this year what with COVID and all, but generally what they do is a form of capture and recapture.
As well as the Census, there will be a separate coverage survey. Imagine you go to a lake and catch 10 fish. You mark them up with an identifier. You come back a week later and catch 10 fish. One of them has the identifier. You then assume there are c.100 fish in the lake.
Now, it's a lot more complicated than that and there are all sorts of biases at play. But effectively that's what they do.
In 2011, the response rate worked out at 93.9%. In theory, you would have been captured by the 6.1% uplift.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Can you think why in current circumstances handing a paper copy to a collector might not be a good idea?
It can be done with care - in the same way I took delivery of beer this afternoon. Alternatively I am happy to return by post.
And why should your personal preference, when alternative methods exist for other people, trump public safety considerations or require so much additional cost to no additional benefit in terms of compliance?
I'm surprised how cross this has made me, but your objections, despite having the initial figleaf of regard for the public (albeit a nonsensical one as those unable to respond online can do so) seems to do with nothing other than arrogant assumption that you had a right to fill out the census in the way you want, and even though you acknowledge you can still do it you are still mad that they would prefer it be another way.
Since the option has not been taken away from anyone, why are you so offended that an alternative option has been offered? Do you get mad when someone brings out a new flavour of crisps because how dare they assume you want the new flavour?
Is the purpose of the census to gather information or to gather it in a way that makes you personally happy? So long as they get the info from us, what does it matter how?
He regularly posts here so clearly has no problem with using the internet. It is not clear to me what the fuss is. If someone doesn't have access to the internet, they can request the paper copy. What's the big deal?
Still waiting for my copy, by the way.
The Amazing Drakeford should be put on the case, he could sort it out immediately.
More seriously, I suppose give it to Monday? Time to contact and get one in time if so.
I frankly have better things to do with my time than chase a gang of third rate incompetents for a piece of paper a vaguely competent organisation could have sent out. Particularly given the huge amount of extra work the government is making me do right now.
They can have my census return if they send it. If they don’t, they won’t get it. Their lookout.
RE: AstraZeneca rubbishing. Not generally one for conspiracies - but does anyone wonder if somewhere under the radar there is the influence of the other vaccine makers at play? How convenient that the cheap vaccine being offered at cost is getting such a bad press around the world...
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
AIUI, there is no central registry of deaths.
Somerset house I believe is the repository of all birth certificates
I thought that was where Blair put his Supreme Court and births were now at the National Archives?
Well might be, I dont really care that much how they move it around principle is the same all birth certificates in the country end up in the same place
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
They need it in standard format to aggregate. And it only takes 10 minutes once every 10 years. People bang on about patriotism. Filling in the Census - correctly - is part of it. Rather more so than waving flags around if you ask me.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Well the fact I have never appeared on a census means the number is down by at least 1
No, well not really. I'm not sure what they're doing this year what with COVID and all, but generally what they do is a form of capture and recapture.
As well as the Census, there will be a separate coverage survey. Imagine you go to a lake and catch 10 fish. You mark them up with an identifier. You come back a week later and catch 10 fish. One of them has the identifier. You then assume there are c.100 fish in the lake.
Now, it's a lot more complicated than that and there are all sorts of biases at play. But effectively that's what they do.
In 2011, the response rate worked out at 93.9%. In theory, you would have been captured by the 6.1% uplift.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
They need it in standard format to aggregate. And it only takes 10 minutes once every 10 years. People bang on about patriotism. Filling in the Census - correctly - is part of it. Rather more so than waving flags around if you ask me.
I don't really care for what they need, they have civil servants to do data massage and they pay them. They aren't paying me so they can fuck off
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Well the fact I have never appeared on a census means the number is down by at least 1
No, well not really. I'm not sure what they're doing this year what with COVID and all, but generally what they do is a form of capture and recapture.
As well as the Census, there will be a separate coverage survey. Imagine you go to a lake and catch 10 fish. You mark them up with an identifier. You come back a week later and catch 10 fish. One of them has the identifier. You then assume there are c.100 fish in the lake.
Now, it's a lot more complicated than that and there are all sorts of biases at play. But effectively that's what they do.
In 2011, the response rate worked out at 93.9%. In theory, you would have been captured by the 6.1% uplift.
gosh I was extrapolated boy do I feel data raped
Actually, what they do is borrow records of real people to generate the uplift. So really it's those people who are violated.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Well the fact I have never appeared on a census means the number is down by at least 1
No, well not really. I'm not sure what they're doing this year what with COVID and all, but generally what they do is a form of capture and recapture.
As well as the Census, there will be a separate coverage survey. Imagine you go to a lake and catch 10 fish. You mark them up with an identifier. You come back a week later and catch 10 fish. One of them has the identifier. You then assume there are c.100 fish in the lake.
Now, it's a lot more complicated than that and there are all sorts of biases at play. But effectively that's what they do.
In 2011, the response rate worked out at 93.9%. In theory, you would have been captured by the 6.1% uplift.
gosh I was extrapolated boy do I feel data raped
Actually, what they do is borrow records of real people to generate the uplift. So really it's those people who are violated.
I hope they picked someone nice to pretend to be me, maybe kinablu
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Can you think why in current circumstances handing a paper copy to a collector might not be a good idea?
It can be done with care - in the same way I took delivery of beer this afternoon. Alternatively I am happy to return by post.
And why should your personal preference, when alternative methods exist for other people, trump public safety considerations or require so much additional cost to no additional benefit in terms of compliance?
I'm surprised how cross this has made me, but your objections, despite having the initial figleaf of regard for the public (albeit a nonsensical one as those unable to respond online can do so) seems to do with nothing other than arrogant assumption that you had a right to fill out the census in the way you want, and even though you acknowledge you can still do it you are still mad that they would prefer it be another way.
Since the option has not been taken away from anyone, why are you so offended that an alternative option has been offered? Do you get mad when someone brings out a new flavour of crisps because how dare they assume you want the new flavour?
Is the purpose of the census to gather information or to gather it in a way that makes you personally happy? So long as they get the info from us, what does it matter how?
He regularly posts here so clearly has no problem with using the internet. It is not clear to me what the fuss is. If someone doesn't have access to the internet, they can request the paper copy. What's the big deal?
Still waiting for my copy, by the way.
The Amazing Drakeford should be put on the case, he could sort it out immediately.
More seriously, I suppose give it to Monday? Time to contact and get one in time if so.
I frankly have better things to do with my time than chase a gang of third rate incompetents for a piece of paper a vaguely competent organisation could have sent out. Particularly given the huge amount of extra work the government is making me do right now.
They can have my census return if they send it. If they don’t, they won’t get it. Their lookout.
Fair enough. It is their responsibility to get it to you. They can hardly complain people don't fill it in if they don't get it.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Can you think why in current circumstances handing a paper copy to a collector might not be a good idea?
It can be done with care - in the same way I took delivery of beer this afternoon. Alternatively I am happy to return by post.
And why should your personal preference, when alternative methods exist for other people, trump public safety considerations or require so much additional cost to no additional benefit in terms of compliance?
I'm surprised how cross this has made me, but your objections, despite having the initial figleaf of regard for the public (albeit a nonsensical one as those unable to respond online can do so) seems to do with nothing other than arrogant assumption that you had a right to fill out the census in the way you want, and even though you acknowledge you can still do it you are still mad that they would prefer it be another way.
Since the option has not been taken away from anyone, why are you so offended that an alternative option has been offered? Do you get mad when someone brings out a new flavour of crisps because how dare they assume you want the new flavour?
Is the purpose of the census to gather information or to gather it in a way that makes you personally happy? So long as they get the info from us, what does it matter how?
He regularly posts here so clearly has no problem with using the internet. It is not clear to me what the fuss is. If someone doesn't have access to the internet, they can request the paper copy. What's the big deal?
Still waiting for my copy, by the way.
The Amazing Drakeford should be put on the case, he could sort it out immediately.
More seriously, I suppose give it to Monday? Time to contact and get one in time if so.
I frankly have better things to do with my time than chase a gang of third rate incompetents for a piece of paper a vaguely competent organisation could have sent out. Particularly given the huge amount of extra work the government is making me do right now.
They can have my census return if they send it. If they don’t, they won’t get it. Their lookout.
Fair enough. It is their responsibility to get it to you. They can hardly complain people don't fill it in if they don't get it.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
AIUI, there is no central registry of deaths.
The general Registry Office keeps a central record of all births marriages and deaths.
And it is apparently now located in Southport, although there are portals at the National Archives in Kew.
It does seem absolutely bizarre that Scotland is not taking part in this census, but waiting a year. Presumably this is just the SNP being deliberately obstructive, but it really drives a coach and horses through what is supposed to be a UK-wide snapshot on a particular day.
Why on earth is gathering UK national statistics a devolved matter in the first place?
It does seem absolutely bizarre that Scotland is not taking part in this census, but waiting a year. Presumably this is just the SNP being deliberately obstructive, but it really drives a coach and horses through what is supposed to be a UK-wide snapshot on a particular day.
Why on earth is gathering UK national statistics a devolved matter in the first place?
Because it isn’t ‘UK national statistics.’ There are separate organisations for England/Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
It does seem absolutely bizarre that Scotland is not taking part in this census, but waiting a year. Presumably this is just the SNP being deliberately obstructive, but it really drives a coach and horses through what is supposed to be a UK-wide snapshot on a particular day.
Why on earth is gathering UK national statistics a devolved matter in the first place?
Because the census really isn't that important maybe?
It's had serious political consequences and to defuse it:
(1) Prince Harry needs to release a statement saying that this has been blown out of all proportion, and on reflection he might have read far too much into a passing comment of curiosity made many years ago - his family are welcoming and work hard to be welcoming and inclusive to everyone (2) The Royal Household needs to orchestrate a campaign of commonwealth leaders, ex commonwealth leaders, and dignitaries, around the world going on the record to say how hard HMQ, Charles and other royals have worked to unite people regardless of race, religion and background, and how generous they've been to them personally
Then, some of the damage might be repaired.
Why do you want Harry to lie?
As for your last point, they should Prince Philip front and centre for that.
You don't half talk some rubbish about the Royal Family.
An enterprising journalist should dig up what Harry said on the Today programme when he guest edited it just after his engagement and Xmas with Meghan at Sandringham. He gushed over how wonderful it had been, how she had been made welcome and how his family were the family she had never had. That last statement really stood out because it seemed like quite the dig at Meghan's own family and did indeed lead to criticism from them.
How is what he said then compatible with what he is saying now?
Apparently Meghan wasn't even present when the allegedly racist remarks were made. You know full well why hearsay evidence is generally disregarded. And yet everyone is now treating what she said as gospel truth.
On topic, it won't be this that damages/ends the monarchy.
Prince Andrew has the potential to do that, and the fact firm seems to be more angry at the Sussexeses for this interview than Andrew's interview.
As I understand they've launched an investigation in the Duchess of Sussex's bullying but not a single one into the behaviour of the Duke of York.
How do you know any of this? The family acted pretty bloody swiftly - rightly so IMO - to withdraw Andrew from any public role whatever. As for co-operating with the US authorities, any lawyer worth their salt and with any experience of dealing with the US authorities knows that you only do what you legally have to and only after the clearest and most comprehensive legal advice here and in the US and that you never ever volunteer anything to the US system. Andrew is, I understand, advised by Clare Montgomery QC - one of the best around.
I keep repeating this but it needs saying. Andrew may be an arse with the judgment of a dim snail. But he has not been charged with anything. The only time someone tried to have his name added to court proceedings it was thrown out by a US judge. He - like a everyone else- is entitled to the presumption of innocence. You know all this but you ignore it, preferring a fact free rant about royals. It really does not do you credit.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
No, I was too young for 2001. I meant, ‘that’s why I am so confident now, a decade later.’ Apologies if that was unclear.
Edit - to confirm, I worked extensively on 2011 in local offices and in the field. Agricultural area - not sure what or where your experience was but it was totally impossible to nail down the numbers in communal establishments. Guesses on dummy forms were about all that could be managed.
But how can this be to have more allegations of electoral fraud, when people who oppose voter ID insist there's never any electoral fraud?
The issue surely isn't that there is never any electoral fraud, but whether the measures purported to be to tackle such levels of fraud that may exist are proportionate and fair.
I'm not opposed, instinctively, to voter ID requirements of some kind, but I don't think it is merely that those opposed think fraud never happens.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Changing the subject completely, how many days has it been since you had the jab? It seems to be kicking in nicely
The worst thing that happened to me during the 2011 Census was our head of field ops going on holiday about six weeks after the big day. He went to Spain where he got talking to a guy from Sheffield who just happened to have moved into a new block of flats.
Now, when your printing a questionnaire for every household, you have to start printing the forms around five months before the big day. We had c.300,000 forms that we could commit to about a month before to try to capture late additions to the housing stock but it was always going to be an educated guess.
Of course, this block in Sheffield hadn't made it on and the guy had had to phone up to get a form sent to him. And our head of field ops couldn't wait to get on the phone to find out what had gone wrong.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
And has published research on nineteenth century census data, at that.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
Historians have managed quite happily without censuses for years lets face it they are a recent addition to society, in this country since 1801. The thought that we should give out our personal information now to help future historians is I have to say odd
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
No, I was too young for 2001. I meant, ‘that’s why I am so confident now, a decade later.’ Apologies if that was unclear.
Edit - to confirm, I worked extensively on 2011 in local offices and in the field. Agricultural area - not sure what or where your experience was but it was totally impossible to nail down the numbers in communal establishments. Guesses on dummy forms were about all that could be managed.
Oh, you were a field enumerator in 2011?
Well my apologies if you had to work on communals. That was my baby and it was a mess. The problem was - and this was before I joined in 2009 - everyone thought that the regular address products would be fine for doing the communals. Of course, they weren't and we had to build a register from third party lists and it was all a bit rushed.
In theory the coverage survey was weighted to hard to count areas, but I suspect the agricultural areas may not have had as much attention.
It's had serious political consequences and to defuse it:
(1) Prince Harry needs to release a statement saying that this has been blown out of all proportion, and on reflection he might have read far too much into a passing comment of curiosity made many years ago - his family are welcoming and work hard to be welcoming and inclusive to everyone (2) The Royal Household needs to orchestrate a campaign of commonwealth leaders, ex commonwealth leaders, and dignitaries, around the world going on the record to say how hard HMQ, Charles and other royals have worked to unite people regardless of race, religion and background, and how generous they've been to them personally
Then, some of the damage might be repaired.
Why do you want Harry to lie?
As for your last point, they should Prince Philip front and centre for that.
You don't half talk some rubbish about the Royal Family.
An enterprising journalist should dig up what Harry said on the Today programme when he guest edited it just after his engagement and Xmas with Meghan at Sandringham. He gushed over how wonderful it had been, how she had been made welcome and how his family were the family she had never had. That last statement really stood out because it seemed like quite the dig at Meghan's own family and did indeed lead to criticism from them.
How is what he said then compatible with what he is saying now?
Apparently Meghan wasn't even present when the allegedly racist remarks were made. You know full well why hearsay evidence is generally disregarded. And yet everyone is now treating what she said as gospel truth.
On topic, it won't be this that damages/ends the monarchy.
Prince Andrew has the potential to do that, and the fact firm seems to be more angry at the Sussexeses for this interview than Andrew's interview.
As I understand they've launched an investigation in the Duchess of Sussex's bullying but not a single one into the behaviour of the Duke of York.
How do you know any of this? The family acted pretty bloody swiftly - rightly so IMO - to withdraw Andrew from any public role whatever. As for co-operating with the US authorities, any lawyer worth their salt and with any experience of dealing with the US authorities knows that you only do what you legally have to and only after the clearest and most comprehensive legal advice here and in the US and that you never ever volunteer anything to the US system. Andrew is, I understand, advised by Clare Montgomery QC - one of the best around.
I keep repeating this but it needs saying. Andrew may be an arse with the judgment of a dim snail. But he has not been charged with anything. The only time someone tried to have his name added to court proceedings it was thrown out by a US judge. He - like a everyone else- is entitled to the presumption of innocence. You know all this but you ignore it, preferring a fact free rant about royals. It really does not do you credit.
I read the newspapers of record in this country.
I've not accused him of any crime, I just want him to honour his own promises.
He said he would assist/comply with any request from the US authorities, when they asked he failed to assist them.
a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
receives it is well enough to take the hard copy to a post box? They have provided those who do not have access to the internet the means to complete it.
Your objection is therefore completely nonsensical as it isn't about people being left out, it is purely that you don't like the means by which they have asked for it to be filled out.
The government mandates how we are supposed to carry out the census. They've provided options, for the very good reason that if it were all online there would be problems, but it was never up to us to fill it out in the manner we would prefer.
You're preferring it to be another way is not a serious or legitimate objection - and that is the reason, since the fact people can fill out a hard copy proves they have not made the assumption you claim they have, indeed it proves the opposite, that they have assumed many, but not all, people have internet.
Which is true. Your objection to their 'assumption' is therefore based on a faulty premise about their assumption, and a faulty assumption that the manner of census completion is a matter of personal preference.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
They've also assumed that people sent it are literate, are you offended on behalf of the illiterate as well? Are you assuming everyone who receives it is well enough to take the hard copy to a post box? They have provided those who do not have access to the internet the means to complete it.
Your objection is therefore completely nonsensical as it isn't about people being left out, it is purely that you don't like the means by which they have asked for it to be filled out.
The government mandates how we are supposed to carry out the census. They've provided options, for the very good reason that if it were all online there would be problems, but it was never up to us to fill it out in the manner we would prefer.
You're preferring it to be another way is not a serious or legitimate objection - and that is the reason, since the fact people can fill out a hard copy proves they have not made the assumption you claim they have, indeed it proves the opposite, that they have assumed many, but not all, people have internet.
Which is true. Your objection to their 'assumption' is therefore based on a faulty premise about their assumption, and a faulty assumption that the manner of census completion is a matter of personal preference.
But the Census Office does imply that personal preference is relevant - ie complete onlne or ring up for a hard copy. Someone has mentioned that In Wales hard copies have already been sent out. I await my own copy!
FWIW, I agree with you.
For important legal and historical records like this I prefer paper and post.
You're looking at someone whose work gave him an iPad and magic pen, to replace notetaking, but who tried it for a day, didn't like it at all, and then stuck it in the cupboard and forgot about it.
RE: AstraZeneca rubbishing. Not generally one for conspiracies - but does anyone wonder if somewhere under the radar there is the influence of the other vaccine makers at play? How convenient that the cheap vaccine being offered at cost is getting such a bad press around the world...
Just a thought
A very interesting conspiracy.
Well there is Russian disinformation being spread about the safety of Western vaccines, although their intent is probably more along the usual lines of stirring things up in democracies, rather than hoping to gain some commercial benefit.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
AIUI, there is no central registry of deaths.
Somerset house I believe is the repository of all birth certificates
I thought that was where Blair put his Supreme Court and births were now at the National Archives?
According to Wiki, the General Register Office for England and Wales (which used to hold all these records) left Somerset House in 1970 and is currently based in Southport. Based on what I've read I'm assuming that all the paper records have indeed ended up in the National Archives, but I wouldn't swear to it.
The Supreme Court is based in the old Middlesex Guildhall on the West side of Parliament Square.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
AIUI, there is no central registry of deaths.
Somerset house I believe is the repository of all birth certificates
I thought that was where Blair put his Supreme Court and births were now at the National Archives?
The Supreme Court is in the former Middlesex Guildhall (subsequently a Crown Court) in Parliament Square. Somerset House has been repurposed as the Courtald Institute amongst other things,
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
Historians have managed quite happily without censuses for years lets face it they are a recent addition to society, in this country since 1801. The thought that we should give out our personal information now to help future historians is I have to say odd
Actually they haven't. They have simply not had access to that information so have been unable to make real conclusions about everyday life beyond generalisations. The census is one of the great sources of information for 19th century life.
It does seem absolutely bizarre that Scotland is not taking part in this census, but waiting a year. Presumably this is just the SNP being deliberately obstructive, but it really drives a coach and horses through what is supposed to be a UK-wide snapshot on a particular day.
Why on earth is gathering UK national statistics a devolved matter in the first place?
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
And has published research on nineteenth century census data, at that.
But that was then, this is now.
If you are saying it no longer has use then I have along list of professional historians who would beg to differ. Indeed I attended a talk by several of them only last week.
That's quite the drop for Meghan and Harry, over the course of three years.
Which, they would put down entirely to unfavourable press coverage.
Never their own actions or behaviour.
I find it remarkable that there is an implication in your post that H and M have behaved " badly". Now moving on let's talk about Prince Andrew, and on a lower scale altogether, but nonetheless a reprehensible track record of infidelity while married, Prince Charles. Undoubtedly, men behaving badly.
They have indeed behaved not just badly but disgracefully. Your Whataboutism is pointless here. Andrew should indeed be hung out to dry for his actions but that in no way excuses the way the Sussexes have behaved.
One can also have some sympathy for how H&M have been treated, without thinking their behaviour acceptable.
The press stories (Mail and Express) are often bizarre and have a peculiar slant. I don't think it's racistly motivated; I think it was the same with Diana and people like Selina Scott. I am surprised that readers go for this sort of thing really. However, I am not in favour of 'action' being taken, because that would almost certainly be a curtailment of a free press, and on balance I prefer to live in a country where wealthy celebrities endure unfair and sometimes cruel criticism to a country where they are considered immune from it.
It's an odd complaint to make while living in a country which has the First Amendment against a country which has a press subject to some pretty repellent libel laws, laws so repellent in fact that the US has passed legislation making U.K. court libel judgments unenforceable in the US.
If the US press ever decided to attack H&M there would be precious little they could do about it, whereas they have been a bit more successful in the U.K. courts.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
I remember we used to be quite careful about talking about genealogy as a reason for doing the Census. I agree that it's a nice to have, but it's not the main purpose of doing it. But don't get too downbeat, I think c.94% is a decent effort for that.
The other thing that the ONS do is the longitudinal survey. There are four dates (i.e. birthdays - one in each quarter of the year) that are used to produce the sample where they follow people through the decades to see how their lives progress. Those dates are a closely guarded secret and I never found out what they are.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
Historians have managed quite happily without censuses for years lets face it they are a recent addition to society, in this country since 1801. The thought that we should give out our personal information now to help future historians is I have to say odd
Actually they haven't. They have simply not had access to that information so have been unable to make real conclusions about everyday life beyond generalisations. The census is one of the great sources of information for 19th century life.
Then surely people like me who refuse to fill it out is an important historical fact?
Ofcom confirm they have received a complaint from the Duchess of Sussex re Piers Morgan's comments
I presume OGH would receive complaints from the Duchess of Sussex about my comments, @Cyclefree's comments and @Richard_Tyndall 's comments if she read the site.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
No, I was too young for 2001. I meant, ‘that’s why I am so confident now, a decade later.’ Apologies if that was unclear.
Edit - to confirm, I worked extensively on 2011 in local offices and in the field. Agricultural area - not sure what or where your experience was but it was totally impossible to nail down the numbers in communal establishments. Guesses on dummy forms were about all that could be managed.
Oh, you were a field enumerator in 2011?
Well my apologies if you had to work on communals. That was my baby and it was a mess. The problem was - and this was before I joined in 2009 - everyone thought that the regular address products would be fine for doing the communals. Of course, they weren't and we had to build a register from third party lists and it was all a bit rushed.
In theory the coverage survey was weighted to hard to count areas, but I suspect the agricultural areas may not have had as much attention.
It certainly was. As for subsequent weightings, I wasn’t involved in that but given that hardly anyone lived in the area apart from in these bloody dormitories half of which weren’t on our lists (ironic, given that mobile phone masts and a random derelict signal box were) I can’t see how it could have been done effectively anyway. That’s why we spoke to the (few) neighbours, scrawled guesses on dummies and sent them in.
Which, to come back to the start, was why when it was pitched to us at that meeting that this would be the last census as it was too costly and not accurate enough, we all thought that was a reasonable position.
Yes, it loses many other amazing things, and that is a shame. But if it doesn’t work...
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Bloody hell, Starmer's got to you! Where's the flag emoji?
For important legal and historical records like this I prefer paper and post.
You're looking at someone whose work gave him an iPad and magic pen, to replace notetaking, but who tried it for a day, didn't like it at all, and then stuck it in the cupboard and forgot about it.
Nothing wrong with a preference. And happily, a means to fulfill that preference. Hence why there's no problem.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
And has published research on nineteenth century census data, at that.
But that was then, this is now.
If you are saying it no longer has use then I have along list of professional historians who would beg to differ. Indeed I attended a talk by several of them only last week.
Undoubtedly. Just as you will find long lists of professional historians who bemoan the loss of telephone directories. Or newspapers. Or local libraries. Or national railway timetables. All of which are incredibly valuable in doing historical research.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
Historians have managed quite happily without censuses for years lets face it they are a recent addition to society, in this country since 1801. The thought that we should give out our personal information now to help future historians is I have to say odd
Actually they haven't. They have simply not had access to that information so have been unable to make real conclusions about everyday life beyond generalisations. The census is one of the great sources of information for 19th century life.
Then surely people like me who refuse to fill it out is an important historical fact?
If you note my original comment was
"Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else LEADING TO IT BEING DISCONTINUED is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information."
(apologies for the capitals but I don't know how to bold or underline on here)
Of course there are some inaccuracies and omissions and that has to be taken into account. But as a basic source of information for those studying social, architectural or local history it is invaluable. If mass boycotting leads to it being discontinued it really would be a great loss.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
No, I was too young for 2001. I meant, ‘that’s why I am so confident now, a decade later.’ Apologies if that was unclear.
Edit - to confirm, I worked extensively on 2011 in local offices and in the field. Agricultural area - not sure what or where your experience was but it was totally impossible to nail down the numbers in communal establishments. Guesses on dummy forms were about all that could be managed.
Oh, you were a field enumerator in 2011?
Well my apologies if you had to work on communals. That was my baby and it was a mess. The problem was - and this was before I joined in 2009 - everyone thought that the regular address products would be fine for doing the communals. Of course, they weren't and we had to build a register from third party lists and it was all a bit rushed.
In theory the coverage survey was weighted to hard to count areas, but I suspect the agricultural areas may not have had as much attention.
It certainly was. As for subsequent weightings, I wasn’t involved in that but given that hardly anyone lived in the area apart from in these bloody dormitories half of which weren’t on our lists (ironic, given that mobile phone masts and a random derelict signal box were) I can’t see how it could have been done effectively anyway. That’s why we spoke to the (few) neighbours, scrawled guesses on dummies and sent them in.
Which, to come back to the start, was why when it was pitched to us at that meeting that this would be the last census as it was too costly and not accurate enough, we all thought that was a reasonable position.
Yes, it loses many other amazing things, and that is a shame. But if it doesn’t work...
But it does work. It's about small area stats for which sample surveys aren't accurate enough.
I remember David Cameron going on the One Show around the time of the Census saying that 2011 would be the last one. Anyone who knows anything about it would tell you that he didn't know what he was talking about.
It's had serious political consequences and to defuse it:
(1) Prince Harry needs to release a statement saying that this has been blown out of all proportion, and on reflection he might have read far too much into a passing comment of curiosity made many years ago - his family are welcoming and work hard to be welcoming and inclusive to everyone (2) The Royal Household needs to orchestrate a campaign of commonwealth leaders, ex commonwealth leaders, and dignitaries, around the world going on the record to say how hard HMQ, Charles and other royals have worked to unite people regardless of race, religion and background, and how generous they've been to them personally
Then, some of the damage might be repaired.
Why do you want Harry to lie?
As for your last point, they should Prince Philip front and centre for that.
You don't half talk some rubbish about the Royal Family.
An enterprising journalist should dig up what Harry said on the Today programme when he guest edited it just after his engagement and Xmas with Meghan at Sandringham. He gushed over how wonderful it had been, how she had been made welcome and how his family were the family she had never had. That last statement really stood out because it seemed like quite the dig at Meghan's own family and did indeed lead to criticism from them.
How is what he said then compatible with what he is saying now?
Apparently Meghan wasn't even present when the allegedly racist remarks were made. You know full well why hearsay evidence is generally disregarded. And yet everyone is now treating what she said as gospel truth.
On topic, it won't be this that damages/ends the monarchy.
Prince Andrew has the potential to do that, and the fact firm seems to be more angry at the Sussexeses for this interview than Andrew's interview.
As I understand they've launched an investigation in the Duchess of Sussex's bullying but not a single one into the behaviour of the Duke of York.
How do you know any of this? The family acted pretty bloody swiftly - rightly so IMO - to withdraw Andrew from any public role whatever. As for co-operating with the US authorities, any lawyer worth their salt and with any experience of dealing with the US authorities knows that you only do what you legally have to and only after the clearest and most comprehensive legal advice here and in the US and that you never ever volunteer anything to the US system. Andrew is, I understand, advised by Clare Montgomery QC - one of the best around.
I keep repeating this but it needs saying. Andrew may be an arse with the judgment of a dim snail. But he has not been charged with anything. The only time someone tried to have his name added to court proceedings it was thrown out by a US judge. He - like a everyone else- is entitled to the presumption of innocence. You know all this but you ignore it, preferring a fact free rant about royals. It really does not do you credit.
I read the newspapers of record in this country.
I've not accused him of any crime, I just want him to honour his own promises.
He said he would assist/comply with any request from the US authorities, when they asked he failed to assist them.
If you rely on newspapers to write an accurate record of legal requests or legal matters you are, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, being very silly.
Assisting the authorities does not mean doing so without legal advice.
For important legal and historical records like this I prefer paper and post.
You're looking at someone whose work gave him an iPad and magic pen, to replace notetaking, but who tried it for a day, didn't like it at all, and then stuck it in the cupboard and forgot about it.
Nothing wrong with a preference. And happily, a means to fulfill that preference. Hence why there's no problem.
I haven't done anything about it though, so I think it'll have to be online now.
To be honest, I've paid so little attention to it I've forgotten about it.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
Historians have managed quite happily without censuses for years lets face it they are a recent addition to society, in this country since 1801. The thought that we should give out our personal information now to help future historians is I have to say odd
Actually they haven't. They have simply not had access to that information so have been unable to make real conclusions about everyday life beyond generalisations. The census is one of the great sources of information for 19th century life.
Then surely people like me who refuse to fill it out is an important historical fact?
If you note my original comment was
"Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else LEADING TO IT BEING DISCONTINUED is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information."
(apologies for the capitals but I don't know how to bold or underline on here)
Of course there are some inaccuracies and omissions and that has to be taken into account. But as a basic source of information for those studying social, architectural or local history it is invaluable. If mass boycotting leads to it being discontinued it really would be a great loss.
But you see there you are arguing intrusion now against maybe a good in the future. It could be worse if I thought I would actually be fined I would fill in the form using another identity
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
And has published research on nineteenth century census data, at that.
But that was then, this is now.
If you are saying it no longer has use then I have along list of professional historians who would beg to differ. Indeed I attended a talk by several of them only last week.
Undoubtedly. Just as you will find long lists of professional historians who bemoan the loss of telephone directories. Or newspapers. Or local libraries. Or national railway timetables. All of which are incredibly valuable in doing historical research.
All of which still exist.... well with the exception of national railway timetables and I happen to know there is a whole loose society of enthusiasts who religiously record those from the various websites on a daily basis. They even have various rail companies providing them with details of cancelled services.
But for most historians the census is pretty much irreplaceable as a snapshot of occupation.
Ofcom confirm they have received a complaint from the Duchess of Sussex re Piers Morgan's comments
I presume OGH would receive complaints from the Duchess of Sussex about my comments, @Cyclefree's comments and @Richard_Tyndall 's comments if she read the site.
It's had serious political consequences and to defuse it:
(1) Prince Harry needs to release a statement saying that this has been blown out of all proportion, and on reflection he might have read far too much into a passing comment of curiosity made many years ago - his family are welcoming and work hard to be welcoming and inclusive to everyone (2) The Royal Household needs to orchestrate a campaign of commonwealth leaders, ex commonwealth leaders, and dignitaries, around the world going on the record to say how hard HMQ, Charles and other royals have worked to unite people regardless of race, religion and background, and how generous they've been to them personally
Then, some of the damage might be repaired.
Why do you want Harry to lie?
As for your last point, they should Prince Philip front and centre for that.
You don't half talk some rubbish about the Royal Family.
An enterprising journalist should dig up what Harry said on the Today programme when he guest edited it just after his engagement and Xmas with Meghan at Sandringham. He gushed over how wonderful it had been, how she had been made welcome and how his family were the family she had never had. That last statement really stood out because it seemed like quite the dig at Meghan's own family and did indeed lead to criticism from them.
How is what he said then compatible with what he is saying now?
Apparently Meghan wasn't even present when the allegedly racist remarks were made. You know full well why hearsay evidence is generally disregarded. And yet everyone is now treating what she said as gospel truth.
On topic, it won't be this that damages/ends the monarchy.
Prince Andrew has the potential to do that, and the fact firm seems to be more angry at the Sussexeses for this interview than Andrew's interview.
As I understand they've launched an investigation in the Duchess of Sussex's bullying but not a single one into the behaviour of the Duke of York.
How do you know any of this? The family acted pretty bloody swiftly - rightly so IMO - to withdraw Andrew from any public role whatever. As for co-operating with the US authorities, any lawyer worth their salt and with any experience of dealing with the US authorities knows that you only do what you legally have to and only after the clearest and most comprehensive legal advice here and in the US and that you never ever volunteer anything to the US system. Andrew is, I understand, advised by Clare Montgomery QC - one of the best around.
I keep repeating this but it needs saying. Andrew may be an arse with the judgment of a dim snail. But he has not been charged with anything. The only time someone tried to have his name added to court proceedings it was thrown out by a US judge. He - like a everyone else- is entitled to the presumption of innocence. You know all this but you ignore it, preferring a fact free rant about royals. It really does not do you credit.
I read the newspapers of record in this country.
I've not accused him of any crime, I just want him to honour his own promises.
He said he would assist/comply with any request from the US authorities, when they asked he failed to assist them.
If you rely on newspapers to write an accurate record of legal requests or legal matters you are, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, being very silly.
Assisting the authorities does not mean doing so without legal advice.
More importantly, it doesn't mean doing absolutely everything that the authorities want you to do. Though they might well want people to think that is what it means...
Ofcom confirm they have received a complaint from the Duchess of Sussex re Piers Morgan's comments
I presume OGH would receive complaints from the Duchess of Sussex about my comments, @Cyclefree's comments and @Richard_Tyndall 's comments if she read the site.
Without having paid too much attention, to the extent that i have i don't get the impression that Harry and Meghan are at all on the same page about how this is going. Harry seems to have originally passed on the comment about the skin colour of a potential child, but has been reluctant to labour the point, even to the extent of going out of his way to rule people out. Whereas Meghan has taken it too another level and ascribed all sorts of additional consequences to it, eg. Archie being denied becoming a Prince. I wonder if she even knows who is supposed to have made the comment.
Harry has also said that this interview is intended to be their final word on their departure from the Royal Family and they now want to get on with their lives (and he seems keen to not destroy bridges with his father, brother etc). Meghan is clearly far less bothered about that - after all it wouldn't be the first time, however justified or not that might be. I can't think launching Ofcom complaints etc is exactly consistent with now stepping out of the limelight. I wonder if the response they have received in America has blinded them somewhat to the general feeling in the UK, which appears to be ambivalent at best.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
Historians have managed quite happily without censuses for years lets face it they are a recent addition to society, in this country since 1801. The thought that we should give out our personal information now to help future historians is I have to say odd
Actually they haven't. They have simply not had access to that information so have been unable to make real conclusions about everyday life beyond generalisations. The census is one of the great sources of information for 19th century life.
Then surely people like me who refuse to fill it out is an important historical fact?
Sorry yes it is. Unless your information is back filled in some other way.
But my point was I was not attacking you personally for not filling it out. More the attempts to portray it as outdated and pointless and the worry that mass refusal would lead to it being ended. That would be a great and unnecessary loss.
Of course one reason that politicians are not greatly in favour of the census is that it has the potential to reveal some nasty information about their assumptions upon which they have based their funding plans. Particularly at times of large scale immigration or emigration.
I'm finding this massive argument about the census a little difficult to understand. It takes very little time to complete and seems pretty innocuous.
It’s an argument that happens every 10 years. This is the third occasion that the argument has migrated to internet discussion boards. I will give good money that 10 years ago someone on this very site was raising the same points.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
And has published research on nineteenth century census data, at that.
But that was then, this is now.
If you are saying it no longer has use then I have along list of professional historians who would beg to differ. Indeed I attended a talk by several of them only last week.
Undoubtedly. Just as you will find long lists of professional historians who bemoan the loss of telephone directories. Or newspapers. Or local libraries. Or national railway timetables. All of which are incredibly valuable in doing historical research.
All of which still exist.... well with the exception of national railway timetables and I happen to know there is a whole loose society of enthusiasts who religiously record those from the various websites on a daily basis. They even have various rail companies providing them with details of cancelled services.
But for most historians the census is pretty much irreplaceable as a snapshot of occupation.
But if you looked me up from tax records you wouldn't find out where I live, if you looked me up from rental records you wouldn't find out what I do so I fail to see how it helps you
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
And has published research on nineteenth century census data, at that.
But that was then, this is now.
If you are saying it no longer has use then I have along list of professional historians who would beg to differ. Indeed I attended a talk by several of them only last week.
Undoubtedly. Just as you will find long lists of professional historians who bemoan the loss of telephone directories. Or newspapers. Or local libraries. Or national railway timetables. All of which are incredibly valuable in doing historical research.
All of which still exist.... well with the exception of national railway timetables and I happen to know there is a whole loose society of enthusiasts who religiously record those from the various websites on a daily basis. They even have various rail companies providing them with details of cancelled services.
But for most historians the census is pretty much irreplaceable as a snapshot of occupation.
You still get telephone directories in Lincs? I haven’t had one in years. Only once since moving north, I think.
As for local libraries, when it comes to keeping local records they are a very pale shadow of what they once were. Even twenty years ago when I was doing my BA it was perfectly normal to travel to different local libraries to consult several collections of local material. Now, they’re more or less all gone. Cannock is a particular disappointment in that regard.
True, county archives heroically try to gather up the slack, but they’re hopelessly under-resources and pushed for space as it is.
I'm finding this massive argument about the census a little difficult to understand. It takes very little time to complete and seems pretty innocuous.
Its a principle thing...tell them as little as possible
Why? Much of the information gathered is part of the public record in the first place and there's nothing embarrassing amongst the remaining questions (e.g. on religion) which are, in any event, optional.
@ydoethur can think himself lucky to have not been enumerating in the field in 2001. One overly enthusiastic enumerator decided to ignore "do not enter" signs at a farm and were greeted with the farmer pointing their shotgun at them.
Thankfully we didn't have anything as difficult as foot and mouth or COVID to deal with.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
Historians have managed quite happily without censuses for years lets face it they are a recent addition to society, in this country since 1801. The thought that we should give out our personal information now to help future historians is I have to say odd
Actually they haven't. They have simply not had access to that information so have been unable to make real conclusions about everyday life beyond generalisations. The census is one of the great sources of information for 19th century life.
Then surely people like me who refuse to fill it out is an important historical fact?
If you note my original comment was
"Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else LEADING TO IT BEING DISCONTINUED is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information."
(apologies for the capitals but I don't know how to bold or underline on here)
Of course there are some inaccuracies and omissions and that has to be taken into account. But as a basic source of information for those studying social, architectural or local history it is invaluable. If mass boycotting leads to it being discontinued it really would be a great loss.
But you see there you are arguing intrusion now against maybe a good in the future. It could be worse if I thought I would actually be fined I would fill in the form using another identity
Tell me one thing in the census that a Government department somewhere doesn't already know by some other means? The issue is that, quite rightly, no outsider is likely to ever get to see that information and certainly not in a format that will be of any great use to them. So from a historical point of view its usefulness is extremely limited.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
And has published research on nineteenth century census data, at that.
But that was then, this is now.
If you are saying it no longer has use then I have along list of professional historians who would beg to differ. Indeed I attended a talk by several of them only last week.
Undoubtedly. Just as you will find long lists of professional historians who bemoan the loss of telephone directories. Or newspapers. Or local libraries. Or national railway timetables. All of which are incredibly valuable in doing historical research.
All of which still exist.... well with the exception of national railway timetables and I happen to know there is a whole loose society of enthusiasts who religiously record those from the various websites on a daily basis. They even have various rail companies providing them with details of cancelled services.
But for most historians the census is pretty much irreplaceable as a snapshot of occupation.
But if you looked me up from tax records you wouldn't find out where I live, if you looked me up from rental records you wouldn't find out what I do so I fail to see how it helps you
I'm confused. I thought you're argument was that the census is pointless because all the information is available elsewhere? It's a different argument (put forward by ydoether) that the whole thing is completely useless.
Of course he and Richard are arguably at cross purposes - because i think Richard's opinion can only really be based on the census of 100 years ago - it is speculation the extent to which it will have the same utility in the future. Although no doubt the hope is that it will.
I'm finding this massive argument about the census a little difficult to understand. It takes very little time to complete and seems pretty innocuous.
Its a principle thing...tell them as little as possible
Why? Much of the information gathered is part of the public record in the first place and there's nothing embarrassing amongst the remaining questions (e.g. on religion) which are, in any event, optional.
Well, we can’t argue about Radiohead all the time. There’d be no commentators left.
I'm not sure I understand the point of massive arguments about Radiohead, either.
Well for one thing , for reasons I wont go into since the 80's when it was easy I have bank accounts in different names, my rent comes out of one, my pay comes into another. Not really planning on unknotting that one
I'm finding this massive argument about the census a little difficult to understand. It takes very little time to complete and seems pretty innocuous.
Its a principle thing...tell them as little as possible
Its part of living in a society though. There's records in this country going back to the Domesday Book and beyond.
If the questions are unreasonable or intrusive then that would be one thing, but basic questions are not.
Domesday is an interesting one in itself of course, because leaving aside the fact that many of the entries were forged to take land off Saxons and give it to Normans, quite large chunks of the country weren’t covered. That’s especially true of the north. So although it’s so authoritative and famous...
And don’t get me wrong - it is incredibly useful, although still nobody can work out why he actually did it (personally, I’ve always thought the aforementioned land grab is the likeliest explanation, but it may indeed have been about tax, or population, or to Show He Could). But that doesn’t make it accurate.
Ofcom confirm they have received a complaint from the Duchess of Sussex re Piers Morgan's comments
I presume OGH would receive complaints from the Duchess of Sussex about my comments, @Cyclefree's comments and @Richard_Tyndall 's comments if she read the site.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
And has published research on nineteenth century census data, at that.
But that was then, this is now.
If you are saying it no longer has use then I have along list of professional historians who would beg to differ. Indeed I attended a talk by several of them only last week.
Undoubtedly. Just as you will find long lists of professional historians who bemoan the loss of telephone directories. Or newspapers. Or local libraries. Or national railway timetables. All of which are incredibly valuable in doing historical research.
All of which still exist.... well with the exception of national railway timetables and I happen to know there is a whole loose society of enthusiasts who religiously record those from the various websites on a daily basis. They even have various rail companies providing them with details of cancelled services.
But for most historians the census is pretty much irreplaceable as a snapshot of occupation.
You still get telephone directories in Lincs? I haven’t had one in years. Only once since moving north, I think.
As for local libraries, when it comes to keeping local records they are a very pale shadow of what they once were. Even twenty years ago when I was doing my BA it was perfectly normal to travel to different local libraries to consult several collections of local material. Now, they’re more or less all gone. Cannock is a particular disappointment in that regard.
True, county archives heroically try to gather up the slack, but they’re hopelessly under-resources and pushed for space as it is.
I must be lucky. Both Grantham and Newark libraries have excellent records. And yes I am also a reader at both Lincoln and Nottingham CROs so - before covid at least - spent far too much time poring over old documents. Enclosure maps and Turnpike Acts are my favourites. Oh and Tithe maps.
I'm finding this massive argument about the census a little difficult to understand. It takes very little time to complete and seems pretty innocuous.
It’s an argument that happens every 10 years. This is the third occasion that the argument has migrated to internet discussion boards. I will give good money that 10 years ago someone on this very site was raising the same points.
Quite possibly. But, alas, whilst the articles from 10 years ago exist, the comments have been vapourized. Another invaluable record of life in the 21st Century has been tragically lost. The analytical genius of PB will, alas, go unappreciated by future generations.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
And has published research on nineteenth century census data, at that.
But that was then, this is now.
If you are saying it no longer has use then I have along list of professional historians who would beg to differ. Indeed I attended a talk by several of them only last week.
Undoubtedly. Just as you will find long lists of professional historians who bemoan the loss of telephone directories. Or newspapers. Or local libraries. Or national railway timetables. All of which are incredibly valuable in doing historical research.
All of which still exist.... well with the exception of national railway timetables and I happen to know there is a whole loose society of enthusiasts who religiously record those from the various websites on a daily basis. They even have various rail companies providing them with details of cancelled services.
But for most historians the census is pretty much irreplaceable as a snapshot of occupation.
But if you looked me up from tax records you wouldn't find out where I live, if you looked me up from rental records you wouldn't find out what I do so I fail to see how it helps you
I'm confused. I thought you're argument was that the census is pointless because all the information is available elsewhere? It's a different argument (put forward by ydoether) that the whole thing is completely useless.
Of course he and Richard are arguably at cross purposes - because i think Richard's opinion can only really be based on the census of 100 years ago - it is speculation the extent to which it will have the same utility in the future. Although no doubt the hope is that it will.
I’m not saying it’s completely useless. Far from it. It’s undoubtedly useful. I’m questioning whether the uses it has, given the limitations of its data, which can be gathered more regularly and potentially more accurately in other ways, are worth the time, effort and money put into it.
I'm finding this massive argument about the census a little difficult to understand. It takes very little time to complete and seems pretty innocuous.
Its a principle thing...tell them as little as possible
Its part of living in a society though. There's records in this country going back to the Domesday Book and beyond.
If the questions are unreasonable or intrusive then that would be one thing, but basic questions are not.
Domesday is an interesting one in itself of course, because leaving aside the fact that many of the entries were forged to take land off Saxons and give it to Normans, quite large chunks of the country weren’t covered. That’s especially true of the north. So although it’s so authoritative and famous...
And don’t get me wrong - it is incredibly useful, although still nobody can work out why he actually did it (personally, I’ve always thought the aforementioned land grab is the likeliest explanation, but it may indeed have been about tax, or population, or to Show He Could). But that doesn’t make it accurate.
Like all historical records, it is useful as long as you are aware of its limitations, and are prepared to adjust accordingly. And not treat it as a single, unimpeachable source. It is better for historians that it exists, than that it doesn't.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
:LOL:
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Then you should have told my former line manager at the ONS that, because I’m quoting her.
Got a name? I might have worked with her in 2011.
Truthfully, I can’t remember it. It was a long time ago. She was Australian if that helps.
I knew one Australian whilst I was there, but it probably wasn't them.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
I spent a great deal of time doing that too.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
You worked on 2001? The worst thing about 2011 was that we were separating communals from the household list. Trying to reduce the overlap without missing anything was not fun.
Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else leading to it being discontinued is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information. It is true that the Government can get the information other ways but anyone else cannot. Historians set huge store by the census for social and economic history, for things like house history and for myriad other lines of research. They simply cannot have access to all those other sources of information, many of which are considered private even long after people have died. Whilst it is true that we will not see the post war census returns until probably after I am dead it saddens me that people in the future may not be able to reply on this information.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
And has published research on nineteenth century census data, at that.
But that was then, this is now.
If you are saying it no longer has use then I have along list of professional historians who would beg to differ. Indeed I attended a talk by several of them only last week.
Undoubtedly. Just as you will find long lists of professional historians who bemoan the loss of telephone directories. Or newspapers. Or local libraries. Or national railway timetables. All of which are incredibly valuable in doing historical research.
All of which still exist.... well with the exception of national railway timetables and I happen to know there is a whole loose society of enthusiasts who religiously record those from the various websites on a daily basis. They even have various rail companies providing them with details of cancelled services.
But for most historians the census is pretty much irreplaceable as a snapshot of occupation.
But if you looked me up from tax records you wouldn't find out where I live, if you looked me up from rental records you wouldn't find out what I do so I fail to see how it helps you
I'm confused. I thought you're argument was that the census is pointless because all the information is available elsewhere? It's a different argument (put forward by ydoether) that the whole thing is completely useless.
Of course he and Richard are arguably at cross purposes - because i think Richard's opinion can only really be based on the census of 100 years ago - it is speculation the extent to which it will have the same utility in the future. Although no doubt the hope is that it will.
well I am sort of a special case in some ways as I said to black rook and largely because of stuff I did in the 80's
I'm finding this massive argument about the census a little difficult to understand. It takes very little time to complete and seems pretty innocuous.
Its a principle thing...tell them as little as possible
Its part of living in a society though. There's records in this country going back to the Domesday Book and beyond.
If the questions are unreasonable or intrusive then that would be one thing, but basic questions are not.
Domesday is an interesting one in itself of course, because leaving aside the fact that many of the entries were forged to take land off Saxons and give it to Normans, quite large chunks of the country weren’t covered. That’s especially true of the north. So although it’s so authoritative and famous...
And don’t get me wrong - it is incredibly useful, although still nobody can work out why he actually did it (personally, I’ve always thought the aforementioned land grab is the likeliest explanation, but it may indeed have been about tax, or population, or to Show He Could). But that doesn’t make it accurate.
Well, the north may have had a, er, harrowing time, as it were. Might have complicated things eg?
And it must have been tax, surely? Not as though grabbing land could not be done effectively without out I'd have thought, nobles had always seemed able to get by.
But what about Roman censuses? Did they actually make people return to their place of birth, that seems like it would defeat the point?
Comments
I have had plenty of money off Horizon 2020, as I expect have many other scientists on this board.
When we were in the EU, money that was originally dispersed by the UK funding Councils (say ten years earlier) was given to the EU to disperse.
The EU created a very bureaucratic and very expensive peer review system -- which certainly enriched me enormously -- to dispense the grant money.
You might as well give the credit to the original governments who provided Horizon 2020 with the money as the EU.
As always with the EU, the administration & peer review could have been handleed much more efficiently and with way less administrative costs.
Those claims are, how can I put it, utter shite.
Edit - and certainly that was my experience working on it. It was complaining, for example, that people were shown as non-resident at particular properties which just happened to be mobile phone masts.
Somebody unpleasant will get stung.
You don’t mind which.
You sort of hope it’s both of them.
But truly, because it doesn’t involve you directly, you don’t care much.
More seriously, I suppose give it to Monday? Time to contact and get one in time if so.
As well as the Census, there will be a separate coverage survey. Imagine you go to a lake and catch 10 fish. You mark them up with an identifier. You come back a week later and catch 10 fish. One of them has the identifier. You then assume there are c.100 fish in the lake.
Now, it's a lot more complicated than that and there are all sorts of biases at play. But effectively that's what they do.
In 2011, the response rate worked out at 93.9%. In theory, you would have been captured by the 6.1% uplift.
They can have my census return if they send it. If they don’t, they won’t get it. Their lookout.
I slogged my guts out getting the HMOs right in 2011 and then spent a lot of time working with our field team to make sure we were capturing all the beds in sheds etc.
I even created records for one set of people the police wouldn't let us enumerate. Well, that's not quite true. They told us that it wouldn't be a good idea to try to enumerate them as the situation at the time was delicate.
That’s one reason I am so confident a decade later that they were completely wide of the mark.
And it is apparently now located in Southport, although there are portals at the National Archives in Kew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Register_Office_for_England_and_Wales
But how can this be to have more allegations of electoral fraud, when people who oppose voter ID insist there's never any electoral fraud?
Why on earth is gathering UK national statistics a devolved matter in the first place?
An enterprising journalist should dig up what Harry said on the Today programme when he guest edited it just after his engagement and Xmas with Meghan at Sandringham. He gushed over how wonderful it had been, how she had been made welcome and how his family were the family she had never had. That last statement really stood out because it seemed like quite the dig at Meghan's own family and did indeed lead to criticism from them.
How is what he said then compatible with what he is saying now?
Apparently Meghan wasn't even present when the allegedly racist remarks were made. You know full well why hearsay evidence is generally disregarded. And yet everyone is now treating what she said as gospel truth. How do you know any of this? The family acted pretty bloody swiftly - rightly so IMO - to withdraw Andrew from any public role whatever. As for co-operating with the US authorities, any lawyer worth their salt and with any experience of dealing with the US authorities knows that you only do what you legally have to and only after the clearest and most comprehensive legal advice here and in the US and that you never ever volunteer anything to the US system. Andrew is, I understand, advised by Clare Montgomery QC - one of the best around.
I keep repeating this but it needs saying. Andrew may be an arse with the judgment of a dim snail. But he has not been charged with anything. The only time someone tried to have his name added to court proceedings it was thrown out by a US judge. He - like a everyone else- is entitled to the presumption of innocence. You know all this but you ignore it, preferring a fact free rant about royals. It really does not do you credit.
Edit - to confirm, I worked extensively on 2011 in local offices and in the field. Agricultural area - not sure what or where your experience was but it was totally impossible to nail down the numbers in communal establishments. Guesses on dummy forms were about all that could be managed.
I'm not opposed, instinctively, to voter ID requirements of some kind, but I don't think it is merely that those opposed think fraud never happens.
I am particularly shocked by the response of ydoethur who is, I believe, a history teacher.
Now, when your printing a questionnaire for every household, you have to start printing the forms around five months before the big day. We had c.300,000 forms that we could commit to about a month before to try to capture late additions to the housing stock but it was always going to be an educated guess.
Of course, this block in Sheffield hadn't made it on and the guy had had to phone up to get a form sent to him. And our head of field ops couldn't wait to get on the phone to find out what had gone wrong.
But that was then, this is now.
Well my apologies if you had to work on communals. That was my baby and it was a mess. The problem was - and this was before I joined in 2009 - everyone thought that the regular address products would be fine for doing the communals. Of course, they weren't and we had to build a register from third party lists and it was all a bit rushed.
In theory the coverage survey was weighted to hard to count areas, but I suspect the agricultural areas may not have had as much attention.
I've not accused him of any crime, I just want him to honour his own promises.
He said he would assist/comply with any request from the US authorities, when they asked he failed to assist them.
Your objection is therefore completely nonsensical as it isn't about people being left out, it is purely that you don't like the means by which they have asked for it to be filled out.
The government mandates how we are supposed to carry out the census. They've provided options, for the very good reason that if it were all online there would be problems, but it was never up to us to fill it out in the manner we would prefer.
You're preferring it to be another way is not a serious or legitimate objection - and that is the reason, since the fact people can fill out a hard copy proves they have not made the assumption you claim they have, indeed it proves the opposite, that they have assumed many, but not all, people have internet.
Which is true. Your objection to their 'assumption' is therefore based on a faulty premise about their assumption, and a faulty assumption that the manner of census completion is a matter of personal preference. They've also assumed that people sent it are literate, are you offended on behalf of the illiterate as well? Are you assuming everyone who receives it is well enough to take the hard copy to a post box? They have provided those who do not have access to the internet the means to complete it.
Your objection is therefore completely nonsensical as it isn't about people being left out, it is purely that you don't like the means by which they have asked for it to be filled out.
The government mandates how we are supposed to carry out the census. They've provided options, for the very good reason that if it were all online there would be problems, but it was never up to us to fill it out in the manner we would prefer.
You're preferring it to be another way is not a serious or legitimate objection - and that is the reason, since the fact people can fill out a hard copy proves they have not made the assumption you claim they have, indeed it proves the opposite, that they have assumed many, but not all, people have internet.
Which is true. Your objection to their 'assumption' is therefore based on a faulty premise about their assumption, and a faulty assumption that the manner of census completion is a matter of personal preference.
But the Census Office does imply that personal preference is relevant - ie complete onlne or ring up for a hard copy. Someone has mentioned that In Wales hard copies have already been sent out. I await my own copy!
FWIW, I agree with you.
For important legal and historical records like this I prefer paper and post.
You're looking at someone whose work gave him an iPad and magic pen, to replace notetaking, but who tried it for a day, didn't like it at all, and then stuck it in the cupboard and forgot about it.
The Supreme Court is based in the old Middlesex Guildhall on the West side of Parliament Square.
If the US press ever decided to attack H&M there would be precious little they could do about it, whereas they have been a bit more successful in the U.K. courts.
The other thing that the ONS do is the longitudinal survey. There are four dates (i.e. birthdays - one in each quarter of the year) that are used to produce the sample where they follow people through the decades to see how their lives progress. Those dates are a closely guarded secret and I never found out what they are.
Which, to come back to the start, was why when it was pitched to us at that meeting that this would be the last census as it was too costly and not accurate enough, we all thought that was a reasonable position.
Yes, it loses many other amazing things, and that is a shame. But if it doesn’t work...
"Trouble is for all those refusing to complete the census or anything else LEADING TO IT BEING DISCONTINUED is that they are ruining a vital source of historical information."
(apologies for the capitals but I don't know how to bold or underline on here)
Of course there are some inaccuracies and omissions and that has to be taken into account. But as a basic source of information for those studying social, architectural or local history it is invaluable. If mass boycotting leads to it being discontinued it really would be a great loss.
I remember David Cameron going on the One Show around the time of the Census saying that 2011 would be the last one. Anyone who knows anything about it would tell you that he didn't know what he was talking about.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-minister-fergus-ewing-exerted-undue-pressure-civil-servants-claim-3nwwt6vv7?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1615532119
Assisting the authorities does not mean doing so without legal advice.
To be honest, I've paid so little attention to it I've forgotten about it.
But for most historians the census is pretty much irreplaceable as a snapshot of occupation.
Harry has also said that this interview is intended to be their final word on their departure from the Royal Family and they now want to get on with their lives (and he seems keen to not destroy bridges with his father, brother etc). Meghan is clearly far less bothered about that - after all it wouldn't be the first time, however justified or not that might be. I can't think launching Ofcom complaints etc is exactly consistent with now stepping out of the limelight. I wonder if the response they have received in America has blinded them somewhat to the general feeling in the UK, which appears to be ambivalent at best.
But my point was I was not attacking you personally for not filling it out. More the attempts to portray it as outdated and pointless and the worry that mass refusal would lead to it being ended. That would be a great and unnecessary loss.
Of course one reason that politicians are not greatly in favour of the census is that it has the potential to reveal some nasty information about their assumptions upon which they have based their funding plans. Particularly at times of large scale immigration or emigration.
As for local libraries, when it comes to keeping local records they are a very pale shadow of what they once were. Even twenty years ago when I was doing my BA it was perfectly normal to travel to different local libraries to consult several collections of local material. Now, they’re more or less all gone. Cannock is a particular disappointment in that regard.
True, county archives heroically try to gather up the slack, but they’re hopelessly under-resources and pushed for space as it is.
If the questions are unreasonable or intrusive then that would be one thing, but basic questions are not.
Thankfully we didn't have anything as difficult as foot and mouth or COVID to deal with.
Of course he and Richard are arguably at cross purposes - because i think Richard's opinion can only really be based on the census of 100 years ago - it is speculation the extent to which it will have the same utility in the future. Although no doubt the hope is that it will.
And don’t get me wrong - it is incredibly useful, although still nobody can work out why he actually did it (personally, I’ve always thought the aforementioned land grab is the likeliest explanation, but it may indeed have been about tax, or population, or to Show He Could). But that doesn’t make it accurate.
And it must have been tax, surely? Not as though grabbing land could not be done effectively without out I'd have thought, nobles had always seemed able to get by.
But what about Roman censuses? Did they actually make people return to their place of birth, that seems like it would defeat the point?