I got rather cross with someone who took issue with me, fairly recently since they were suggesting people outside of England & Wales - Scotland wasn't discussed - had a right to expect a certificate on paying a fee in accordance with an Act of 1953. My feathers were ruffled because if Register Offices are accepting less than the quality information we are required to give before we are able to obtain a certificate, there is something wrong, just because its more cost effective not to have to question. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gavin Bell" <g.bell@which.net> > Gordon Johnson wrote: > >> ... >> In Scotland, the Scotland Act stupidly enshrined the 100 year embargo on >> all Scottish public records, and the census was caught by that, so no >> early release in Scotland, unless the law is altered by the Scottish >> parliament. > > > I wouldn't call it stupid. There is a big difference between "the > public interest" and "what the public might be interested in". The > Census asks some quite personal questions, and the non-publication rule > is there to reassure people that their data will not be released until > long after they are dead and gone. > > Family historians may regret that some other data is embargoed, but in > at least some cases, the applicaton of the 100-year rule is posthumously > righting a historic invasion of privacy. While the relevant laws were > in force (until 1930) any data supplied by persons applying for relief > under the Poor Law immediately became a matter of public record, because > any ratepayer could demand to view the Registers (and in some cases, eg > the City of Aberdeen, the information was actually printed and published!) > > > Gavin Bell > > ------------------------------- > 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