Roy, I know the proposal was to restrict access to records less than 100 years old. The only thing I can find online about it without considerable search time is this: http://www.familyrecords.gov.uk/frc/news/summer2003_23.htm Sandra ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Stockdill" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [HRT] Heir Hunters > From: "Sandra J Smith"<[email protected]> > >> At the moment anyone can purchase any certificate, but I believe it is >> due to change. > >> > Yes that's what I meant to say - got my words a bit wrong I think. >> > Yes, it is great to see the genealogists at work but how do they get >> > a certificate from a registry office of someone who was born within >> > the last 100 years? One registry office provided a copy within 10 >> > minutes. Does that mean I can go and get anyone's particulars? I >> > didn't think you could do that - fraud etc?? >> > > > I sincerely hope it is NOT due to change !!! Any restrictions on the > supply > of birth, marriage and death certificates would seriously hinder, if not > virtually kill off, family history as a hobby and must be opposed at all > costs. > > Can we get something clear here? There is widespread paranoia about > birth dates supposedly being confidential. Birth dates are NOT > confidential information and never have been. Ever since civil > registration > was introduced into England & Wales in 1837 it has always been > perfectly possible for someone to get anybody else's birth certificate > they > like, and rightly so. They are PUBLIC documents in the public domain, as > are the BMD indexes. No-one owns exclusive access to their birth date - > it is not a State secret! > > Nor are there are period restrictions. I as a professional who does > celebrity ancestries for a magazine have in my files the birth > certificates > of a number of famous people, all obviously born within the last 100 > years and some within the last 30 or 40 years, The GRO and local > register offices have a statutory duty to provide them and cannot refuse. > Please, folks, ignore this nonsense about there being some kind of 100- > year rule, it simply isn't the case. That applies only to the censuses, > not > BMDs. > > Identity theft is a complete red herring. Since some time in the early > 1990s, or possibly even earlier, every certificate of a birth, marriage > and > death has carried in large bold, capital letters the following slogan: > "WARNING: A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY". That > government depts like the passport office, banks and other financial > institutions, etc, do accept a birth certificate as proof of identity is > down to > their own stupidity and not a flaw in the system. Banks are especially > stupid in continuing to ask customers for their mother's maiden name as > a security word when we all know that the GRO Birth Indexes give the > maiden name of the mother on every birth since the Sep quarter of 1911. > Anyone with a computer, Internet access and a subscription to one of the > various ppv websites that carries them can find out the maiden name of > anyone's mother in a few minutes. > > My advice to anyone asked for their mother's maiden name is this: MAKE > ONE UP! All they want, after all, is a codeword that only you and they > know. > > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: > www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > _______________________________________ > No viruses found in this incoming message > Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.4.5 > http://www.iolo.com > _______________________________________ No viruses found in this outgoing message Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.4.5 http://www.iolo.com

From: "Sandra J Smith"<[email protected]> > Roy, > > I know the proposal was to restrict access to records less than 100 > years old. The only thing I can find online about it without > considerable search time is this: > http://www.familyrecords.gov.uk/frc/news/summer2003_23.htm Thanks, Sandra, but that proposal appeared in the proposed review of civil registration a few years ago which fell by the wayside and never became law. The government tried to sneak it through the back door using regulatory legislation, without it going fully through parliament, and it was thrown out by a Commons committee. No doubt, though, its ugly head will resurface at some future date! The proposal was not to restrict access to certificates over 100 years old but to restrict SOME data thought to be personal and sensitive in certificates under 100 years old. Personally, I would oppose with every bone in my body any restrictions at all and so, I hope, would all family historians. One of the proposals, I seem to recall, was to suppress occupations on certificates. I vividly recall going to a seminar and listening to a presentation by the civil service bigwig who was leading the whole thing. When it came to questions I asked him "What on earth is sensitive about knowing that somebody was a lawyer, a plumber or a farmer" when he married 30, 40 or 50 years ago?" His answer; "None whatsoever, but some people seem to think it is!" Another proposal was to remove addresses - something that would cause endless headaches to genealogists. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE