I realise you have the right to speak up. Please accept that I had a right to say what I did too. I was not criticising that Mr. Etchells exercised his rights under the law. Mr. Etchells first approach to me was unsolicited and privately saying he was doing so because he wanted to put me right and would not contact me again without invitation. I disagree with the way Mr. Etchells subscribed to this List for the purpose of arguing with me about records in England & Wales which is most unprofessional. I personally dont agree with a cavalier attitude toward exercising rights under the law. We all have the same rights and freedom to exercise them in the same way and ignorance is no excuse in defence. If I want to be advised about my rights under the law I will get qualified advice for my purposes not based on someone else's need for information. Mr. Etchells has not been able to get the full information released for the fee he paid, some of it, sensitive data, has to wait 100 yrs. Laws are made for a reason. I wonder the effect when people who have received partial data receive it in full they will have issues about paying for incomplete information having paid for it and assumed, or drew conclusions that were mistaken, when all the information was pieced together, as well possibly as quibbling about the total fees paid. I sincerely hope this does not start a flame war. I hoped this off topic discussion about records in England & Wales would settle. Janet | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: "Kia" <kia.breizzze@ntlworld.com> | > To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> | > Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 12:09 PM | > Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] OT: Re: 100 year limit? | > | > | >>I think you'll find Guy is a member of many lists and I wouldn't think it impossible | >>that he read your message himself. | >> As for heroics, Guy isn't in it for himself. Guy has gone out of his way to help as | >> many people as possible in their quest for FOI. | >> You should be thanking Guy for his efforts, not criticising him or accusing him of | >> heroics. | >> | >> -------------------------------------------------- | >> From: "Janet" <wightway@tiscali.co.uk> | >> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 4:51 PM | >> To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> | >> Subject: [ABERDEEN] OT: Re: 100 year limit? | >> | >> In the way that Mr. Guy Etchells has written to me for the sole purposes of arguing | >> with me! What I don't understand is how he knew | >> I had posted...... ?! [someone knows but please don't reply in speculation.] | >> Exercising the Freedom of Information Act is open to everyone and it was easy to do | >> because the 1911 census was not held by the | >> Office of National Statistics. I applaud the common man who exercises their rights but | >> lets not have heroics. | >> | >> Janet

Kia, give it a rest!!! Will someone please change the subject? I think we've had enought of the 100 year limit here! Goldie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kia" <kia.breizzze@ntlworld.com> To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] 100 year limit? > Seriously, why do you feel singled out? > This is what I don't get. > Why are you taking everything so personally, so too heart, why do you feel > that people are deliberating singling you out and > persecuting you? > Really, honestly, truly they are not. > I'm very very sorry if things have happened in the past you make you feel > that. > But truthfully no-one wants to hurt you, single you out or otherwise. > > Given that there is/was a topic discussing Guy's efforts to make available > information to family historians, do you not think that > someone could have told him that that was being discussed and even Guy > himself stated that he had being informed that "there was > some misunderstanding on the list re the 1911 census release." > > That would suggest that Guy joined to correct that misunderstanding - > beneficial to many people (how many are on this list?) - and > not that he joined to single you out and he did not in his posting even > mention you or quote you and you were not the only person > active in the thread. > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Janet" <wightway@tiscali.co.uk> > Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:27 PM > To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] 100 year limit? > > I really dont need an attack at this time of the year, at any time of the > year, so hope > you will forgive me for having overlooked posting a significant date to > confirm I received > an unsolicited approach from him and I dont think any Lister deserves > this singling out. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guy Etchells" <guy.etchells@virgin.net> > To: <ABERDEEN@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 6:14 PM > Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] 100 year limit? > > > Sorry this posting is not threaded but I have just subscribed. > > I was advised of postings on this list by a friend who mentioned there > was some misunderstanding on the list re the 1911 census release. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I think you'll find Guy is a member of many lists and I wouldn't think it impossible that he read your message himself. As for heroics, Guy isn't in it for himself. Guy has gone out of his way to help as many people as possible in their quest for FOI. You should be thanking Guy for his efforts, not criticising him or accusing him of heroics. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Janet" <wightway@tiscali.co.uk> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 4:51 PM To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Subject: [ABERDEEN] OT: Re: 100 year limit? In the way that Mr. Guy Etchells has written to me for the sole purposes of arguing with me! What I don't understand is how he knew I had posted...... ?! [someone knows but please don't reply in speculation.] Exercising the Freedom of Information Act is open to everyone and it was easy to do because the 1911 census was not held by the Office of National Statistics. I applaud the common man who exercises their rights but lets not have heroics. Janet

Gordon Johnson wrote: > ** Tremendous news! When I asked, many years ago, the relevant > department dealing with information release was very negative. > Well done, Guy... > Gordon johnson. > Thanks Gordon. In case any wish to apply the information supplied will be something like the following supplied to me- http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/census/1939NatReg.htm Cheers Guy --

** Tremendous news! When I asked, many years ago, the relevant department dealing with information release was very negative. Well done, Guy... Gordon johnson. > Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:24:05 +0000 > From: Guy Etchells <guy.etchells@virgin.net> > Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] 100 year limit > To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <4B2158E5.7070706@virgin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Update on the 1939 National Registration (England & Wales). > > The NHS have decided not to appeal the Information Commissioner's > decision and are now looking in to how best to release the information. > Cheers > Guy

--- On Wed, 12/2/09, Jan Lannan <janlannan@hotmail.com> wrote: > I am also interested in the MILNE surname. Elizabeth MILNE married Daniel ROBERTSON, 16 February, 1839. I have tried before with little success maybe this time...... And today Victoria West <vawest2000@yahoo.com> replied: > Have you tried searching on the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS site). > > > I found Elizabeth Milne married to a Daniel Robertson on 16 Feb 1839 in > Old Macher,Aberdeen,Scotland. > > > Only one child listed Helen Robertson born 30 Apr 1839 in Old > Macher,Aberdeen,Scotland. > _____________________________________________ Hi Jan The reason you are not having any success tracing Daniel ROBERTSON and Elizabeth MILNE and their daughter Helen is possibly because these two records are filed by a member of the LDS. There are no OPR records for the marriage or for the birth. LDS records should always be treated with caution as you can't check the original source. What is in the OPR records is as follows [note these MAY NOT apply to your Daniel!!]: In Old Machar one or more Daniel ROBERTSON[s] married: Agnes SPOTTISWOOD in 1831 [Elizabeth MILNE in 1839 - LDS entry] Margaret THOMSON in 1845 Margaret DIACK in 1852 [1851 is probably a typo] Susan McDONALD in 1858 Daniel ROBERTSON[s] in Old Machar had the following children: Mother = Elizabeth MILNE [Helen ROBERTSON in 1839 - LDS entry] Mother = Mary MILNE John ROBERTSON in 1846 Mother = Margaret DIACK Margaret Jane ROBERTSON in 1852 five other children two of whom probably died in infancy. I have no idea whether these Daniel ROBERTSONs are the same or in any way related. You would need to look at the OPR images and at the birth certificates of the later children of Daniel and Margaret DIACK to ascertain the lineage. It is intersting that there is a child of a Margaret MILNE but no marriage to her. If you check the OPR Image for this it might give you a clue. Remember that remarrying was the norm in those days for all the standard reasons and it often involved the sibling of the dead spouse. While there are few death records for the period there may be something on the films in Elizabeth &/or Margaret MILNE died and Daniel remarried. Food for thought -- Best wishes Ray ********************************************************** >From Ray Hennessy Forenames website: www.whatsinaname.net Preferred Email address: ray@whatsinaname.net Hints for Scotland's People at http://bit.ly/WIAN-SCP **********************************************************

Hi Jan,   Have you tried searching on the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS site).   I found Elizabeth Milne married to a Daniel Robertson on 16 Feb 1839 in Old Macher,Aberdeen,Scotland.   Only one child listed Helen Robertson born 30 Apr 1839 in Old Macher,Aberdeen,Scotland.   Vicki --- On Wed, 12/2/09, Jan Lannan <janlannan@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Jan Lannan <janlannan@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] MILNEs To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 10:22 PM I am also interested in the MILNE surname. Elizabeth MILNE married Daniel ROBERTSON, 16 February, 1839. I have tried before with little success maybe this time...... Jan                           _________________________________________________________________ Looking for a great date? Meet singles at ninemsn dating http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/150855801/direct/01/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi   Your MILNE's where are they from that you are looking for them?   Vicki --- On Wed, 12/2/09, Jan Lannan <janlannan@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Jan Lannan <janlannan@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] MILNEs To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 10:22 PM I am also interested in the MILNE surname. Elizabeth MILNE married Daniel ROBERTSON, 16 February, 1839. I have tried before with little success maybe this time...... Jan                           _________________________________________________________________ Looking for a great date? Meet singles at ninemsn dating http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/150855801/direct/01/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

HI   This site you would be interested in.   http://www.abdn.ac.uk/historic/mem_single.php?memid=140   The name is George Stephen of Messrs G.Stephen & Son.   I hope I anwered your question.   Vicki   --- On Thu, 12/10/09, Wendy Main <johnwendymain@yahoo.com> wrote:   From: Wendy Main <johnwendymain@yahoo.com> Subject: [ABERDEEN] Surname Stephen To: fraserburgh@yahoogroups.com, aberdeen@rootsweb.com Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 7:35 AM Hi everyone I am trying to find out if anyone know the first name of G. Stephen of Messrs G. Stephen & Co., fishcurers, Fraserburgh. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Wendy Main Ontario, Canada       __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Schani Biermann wrote: > do city directories for Aberdeen City and surrounding parishes exist > for the years 185-1855 exist? Only for Aberdeen City, which at those dates consisted of the parish of St Nicholas and a relatively small part of the parish of Old Machar. > does anyone on the list have acess to them and do a lookup for me? There is a complete set held by Aberdeen Public Library, who used to accept email enquiries. However, as a result of financial problems, this service appears meantime to be suspended: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Libraries/lib/Lib_LocalStudies.asp But are you aware that these Directories only ever included a minority of Aberdeen's inhabitants? Only heads of household are named, and as you had to pay for inclusion in the Directory only people who were active in trade or commerce (and saw inclusion as a useful advertisement) or people who thought themselves to be in the upper strata of society are liable to be listed. Gavin Bell

Update on the 1939 National Registration (England & Wales). The NHS have decided not to appeal the Information Commissioner's decision and are now looking in to how best to release the information. Cheers Guy --

You'll find the STEPHEN name also in Kincardineshire. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wendy Main" <johnwendymain@yahoo.com> > Hi everyone > > I am trying to find out if anyone know the first name of G. Stephen of Messrs G. Stephen > & Co., fishcurers, Fraserburgh. > > Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks

do city directories for Aberdeen City and surrounding parishes exist for the years 185-1855 exist? does anyone on the list have acess to them and do a lookup for me? thanks Schani Biermann Canada

Hi everyone I am trying to find out if anyone know the first name of G. Stephen of Messrs G. Stephen & Co., fishcurers, Fraserburgh. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Wendy Main Ontario, Canada __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/

Janet wrote: > Only for the purpose of adding to the interest, the Data Protection Act 1998 requires the permission of all living persons before being shared. > > Janet > > > Only if the shared information is data. Data has a very narrow specific meaning when applied by the Data Protection Act. Section 1/1 * “data” means information which— (a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose, (b) is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment, (c) is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system, or (d) does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) but forms part of an accessible record as defined by section 68; Section 68 Meaning of “accessible record” (1) In this Act “accessible record” means— (a) a health record as defined by subsection (2), (b) an educational record as defined by Schedule 11, or (c) an accessible public record as defined by Schedule 12. (2) In subsection (1)(a) “health record” means any record which— (a) consists of information relating to the physical or mental health or condition of an individual, and (b) has been made by or on behalf of a health professional in connection with the care of that individual. Cheers Guy --

Only for the purpose of adding to the interest, the Data Protection Act 1998 requires the permission of all living persons before being shared. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Johnson" <gordon@kinhelp.co.uk> | This is the standard wording that archivists are using regarding their | public records: | > Under the Data Protection Act 1998, and the Freedom of | Information (Scotland) Act 2002, archives must implement | certain rules regarding access. Basically, records going | back 100 years from the present are restricted access, | closed to users except persons named in the records, who | have a right to see their own record, and their own record | ONLY. | It seems that the 100 year rule is generally being applied to ALL public | records, though I found that I could access police records of more | recent date PROVIDED the volume did not include living (or assumed | living policemen). BUT I had to ask for this under the Freedom of | Information Act provisions; if you don't mention that, the usual | response is "sorry these records are closed for 100 years". | The Census is, of course, regarded as different...... | Gordon.

This is the standard wording that archivists are using regarding their public records: > Under the Data Protection Act 1998, and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, archives must implement certain rules regarding access. Basically, records going back 100 years from the present are restricted access, closed to users except persons named in the records, who have a right to see their own record, and their own record ONLY. It seems that the 100 year rule is generally being applied to ALL public records, though I found that I could access police records of more recent date PROVIDED the volume did not include living (or assumed living policemen). BUT I had to ask for this under the Freedom of Information Act provisions; if you don't mention that, the usual response is "sorry these records are closed for 100 years". The Census is, of course, regarded as different...... Gordon.

Hi Ray There is a reference in the link below to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 exempting personal Census records from disclosure until after a 100 year closure period. I haven't looked at the Act to see exactly what it says http://www.1911census.org.uk/scotland.htm Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Hennessy" <ray@whatsinaname.net> To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] 100 year limit >> Aye, Andy. Gavin has written to me with a similar view and it seems from > Chris Paton's blog you cite that you are right and the Scottish 1931 > records > are safe. Hooray. > > Gavin has also questioned whether the Whitehall decisions - specifically > the > 1920 Act and the 1991 amendment - still hold sway in Scotland. When they > were enacted they certainly did cover Scotland [1920 paragraph 9, and 1991 > Paragraph , section "(2)"]. > > I freely admit that I don't know if that has been superseded by the > Scottish > devolution act or later amendments to it. Maybe someone with a better > grasp > of the legalese of the Acts could find out???? The verbiage confuses the > wotsit out of me! > > -- > Best wishes > > Ray >

Hi Ray I believe the 1931 Scottish census survived. I have seen a couple of references to that (including in the link below) http://scottishancestry.blogspot.com/2009/11/1939-nhs-census-to-be-made-available-in.html Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Hennessy" <ray@whatsinaname.net> To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] 100 year limit > ___________________________________ > > Hi Gordon > > I think the last word in your posting - "early" - is redundant as it > suggests that there is some specified time-limit. The Scotland's People > website FAQs does state that Census "Records may only be inspected after > 100 > years" but I think this is not necessarily the true state of the > legislation > - unless there is an amendment I can't find [not unlikely!!] > > As I read the 1920 Act and the 1991 Amendment, and Guy stressed this, > there > was NO date for the release of the Census data for any Census taken after > 1920. It is now open to the Registrar-General of Scotland to move to > insert > a provision to release the data. Whether that has been done is obscure to > me - I can't bear to try to plough through the various annual publications > from Holyrood on the matter!! > > I believe the 1931 Census records were destroyed in the war and there was > no > Census in 1941. So in ten years we [or our successors] may be doing this > all over again and then there will be a gap of thirty years before it is > likely to be revisited. > > Given the determination of the GROS to not release Scottish 1911 before > 2011 > despite the decison in Whitehall, and the no-release-date provision for > 1921 > and later, perhaps we should start agitating now for a release date to be > enacted?? > > -- > Best wishes > > Ray

2009/12/9 Andy Candlish <andycandlish@ozemail.com.au> wrote: Hi Ray > > There is a reference in the link below to the Freedom of Information > (Scotland) Act 2002 exempting personal Census records from disclosure until > after a 100 year closure period. I haven't looked at the Act to see exactly > what it says > > http://www.1911census.org.uk/scotland.htm > > Andy > -------------------------------------------------------- Thanks Andy Now we know [ish!]. Lets hope no jobsworth decides to overturn the decision. Ray