On 2015-01-25 21:59:26 +0000, Ian Goddard said: > On 25/01/15 20:42, Tickettyboo wrote: >> On 2015-01-25 16:27:40 +0000, Ian Goddard said: >> >>> On 25/01/15 16:01, Tickettyboo wrote: >>>> On 2015-01-25 12:57:21 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe said: >>>> >>>>> On 25 Jan at 0:04, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip for brevity> >>>>> >>>>>> You couldn't make this up if you tried. Two days 'after' I downloaded >>>>>> the will and grant, I finally get the email telling me they are ready >>>>>> to download. Gosh it makes the price hike of 66% seem almost worth it >>>>>> for the entertainment value! >>>>> >>>>> It sounds to me as if the whole exercise has been done by in-house IT >>>>> people with no previous experience of running a large database for >>>>> consumer purposes. >>>>> >>>>> If a commercial firm had been involved, it would presumably have been >>>>> put out for tender Did anyone see any such thing. >>>>> >>>>> In some ways I would congratulate them for attempting a probably >>>>> low-cost project after the large scale projects that have failed and >>>>> cost the taxpayers megamillions. >>>> >>>> It is a commercial firm, Iron Mountain, http://www.ironmountain.co.uk >>> >>> Iron Mountain seem to be the go-to company for storage etc of paper >>> records. Integration with a public-facing service like this is a >>> different matter. >> >> Not sure how its a different matter. Its still documents, its still >> digitisation and retrieval. In this case its failing to meet an >> expected, minimum standard of efficiency. >> >> To this little Boo, it 'should' be fine, the principle is the same not >> matter 'who' originally holds the info/documents ? >> > > AFAIK Iron Mountain is usually looking after internal documents for > companies. If someone wants to consult a document they'd be inside the > company with some sort of VPN (virtual private network) to IM. I'd > guess that hanging an ecommerce front end onto that is pretty new. > That's why it advertises itself as being a beta product. The ecommerce side of it seems to be functioning just fine, they took my payment immediately with no problems. They had plenty of time to test out the delivery when they put the soldiers wills online. The fulfilling of their end of the contract is sadly lacking - in many ways. As they are being paid with my taxes (so I am therefore paying whether I use the service or not) I find it very hard to be as forgiving as you seem to be. -- Tickettyboo

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 17:46:01 -0500, SBrainstev via <[email protected]> wrote: >I wonder if any lister might be able to shed some light on a little enigma >......? > >In perusing a book of churchwardens' accounts (1709-1820) for a North Wilts > village church, I came across the following entries which may relate to >ancestors of mine: > >11 September 1777: for a warrant for Mary Brain and expenses..... 2s6d > >25 October 1777: for a warrant and expenses for Mary Brain and Hugh >Brain..... 16s6d > >6 November 1777: Expenses of Hugh and Mary Brain.....8s > >They are the only entries in 110 years of accounts that refer to "warrants" > so I am intrigued as to what these warrants refer to - what misdemeanour >might have led to the churchwardens paying out for them? > >I am particularly interested as Hugh's marriage took place on 27 October >that year in an adjacent village (he married Mary Giles): the warrants >mentioned in the first two entries therefore do not refer to Hugh's wife but >perhaps a sister or even his mother? > >All suggestions welcomed. > That will probably be a warrant associated with the removal of poor people back to their home parish after become a burden on another parish, see e.g. section IX in :- http://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol6/pp314-315

On 25/01/15 16:27, Ian Goddard wrote: > > And the dash to online services for gov.uk has a dreadful reputation in > the UK IT industry. I was reading recently that their new verification > system for HMRC was able to verify 40% of users and that was counted as > a success. Oops. 60% was counted as a success. https://identityassurance.blog.gov.uk/2015/01/19/gov-uk-verify-self-assessment-trial-an-update/ -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 25/01/15 20:42, Tickettyboo wrote: > On 2015-01-25 16:27:40 +0000, Ian Goddard said: > >> On 25/01/15 16:01, Tickettyboo wrote: >>> On 2015-01-25 12:57:21 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe said: >>> >>>> On 25 Jan at 0:04, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip for brevity> >>>> >>>>> You couldn't make this up if you tried. Two days 'after' I downloaded >>>>> the will and grant, I finally get the email telling me they are ready >>>>> to download. Gosh it makes the price hike of 66% seem almost worth it >>>>> for the entertainment value! >>>> >>>> It sounds to me as if the whole exercise has been done by in-house IT >>>> people with no previous experience of running a large database for >>>> consumer purposes. >>>> >>>> If a commercial firm had been involved, it would presumably have been >>>> put out for tender Did anyone see any such thing. >>>> >>>> In some ways I would congratulate them for attempting a probably >>>> low-cost project after the large scale projects that have failed and >>>> cost the taxpayers megamillions. >>> >>> It is a commercial firm, Iron Mountain, http://www.ironmountain.co.uk >> >> Iron Mountain seem to be the go-to company for storage etc of paper >> records. Integration with a public-facing service like this is a >> different matter. > > Not sure how its a different matter. Its still documents, its still > digitisation and retrieval. In this case its failing to meet an > expected, minimum standard of efficiency. > > To this little Boo, it 'should' be fine, the principle is the same not > matter 'who' originally holds the info/documents ? > AFAIK Iron Mountain is usually looking after internal documents for companies. If someone wants to consult a document they'd be inside the company with some sort of VPN (virtual private network) to IM. I'd guess that hanging an ecommerce front end onto that is pretty new. That's why it advertises itself as being a beta product. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 25 Jan at 16:01, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2015-01-25 12:57:21 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe said: > > > On 25 Jan at 0:04, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > <snip for brevity> > > > > > You couldn't make this up if you tried. Two days 'after' I > > > downloaded the will and grant, I finally get the email telling me > > > they are ready to download. Gosh it makes the price hike of 66% > > > seem almost worth it for the entertainment value! > > > > It sounds to me as if the whole exercise has been done by in-house > > IT people with no previous experience of running a large database > > for consumer purposes. > > > > If a commercial firm had been involved, it would presumably have > > been put out for tender Did anyone see any such thing. > > > > In some ways I would congratulate them for attempting a probably > > low-cost project after the large scale projects that have failed and > > cost the taxpayers megamillions. > > It is a commercial firm, Iron Mountain, http://www.ironmountain.co.uk Then it is a disgrace. Shades of Quockup and the 1901 census. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On 2015-01-25 16:27:40 +0000, Ian Goddard said: > On 25/01/15 16:01, Tickettyboo wrote: >> On 2015-01-25 12:57:21 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe said: >> >>> On 25 Jan at 0:04, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> <snip for brevity> >>> >>>> You couldn't make this up if you tried. Two days 'after' I downloaded >>>> the will and grant, I finally get the email telling me they are ready >>>> to download. Gosh it makes the price hike of 66% seem almost worth it >>>> for the entertainment value! >>> >>> It sounds to me as if the whole exercise has been done by in-house IT >>> people with no previous experience of running a large database for >>> consumer purposes. >>> >>> If a commercial firm had been involved, it would presumably have been >>> put out for tender Did anyone see any such thing. >>> >>> In some ways I would congratulate them for attempting a probably >>> low-cost project after the large scale projects that have failed and >>> cost the taxpayers megamillions. >> >> It is a commercial firm, Iron Mountain, http://www.ironmountain.co.uk > > Iron Mountain seem to be the go-to company for storage etc of paper > records. Integration with a public-facing service like this is a > different matter. Not sure how its a different matter. Its still documents, its still digitisation and retrieval. In this case its failing to meet an expected, minimum standard of efficiency. To this little Boo, it 'should' be fine, the principle is the same not matter 'who' originally holds the info/documents ? -- Tickettyboo

On 25/01/15 16:01, Tickettyboo wrote: > On 2015-01-25 12:57:21 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe said: > >> On 25 Jan at 0:04, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> <snip for brevity> >> >>> You couldn't make this up if you tried. Two days 'after' I downloaded >>> the will and grant, I finally get the email telling me they are ready >>> to download. Gosh it makes the price hike of 66% seem almost worth it >>> for the entertainment value! >> >> It sounds to me as if the whole exercise has been done by in-house IT >> people with no previous experience of running a large database for >> consumer purposes. >> >> If a commercial firm had been involved, it would presumably have been >> put out for tender Did anyone see any such thing. >> >> In some ways I would congratulate them for attempting a probably >> low-cost project after the large scale projects that have failed and >> cost the taxpayers megamillions. > > It is a commercial firm, Iron Mountain, http://www.ironmountain.co.uk Iron Mountain seem to be the go-to company for storage etc of paper records. Integration with a public-facing service like this is a different matter. And the dash to online services for gov.uk has a dreadful reputation in the UK IT industry. I was reading recently that their new verification system for HMRC was able to verify 40% of users and that was counted as a success. Companies House webcheck was easy to find; now Companies House diverts to this new .gov.uk portal & after a bit of digging around a hard-to-find link takes you back to the Companies House site. In short, if the .gov.uk portal is involved it's no surprise that it's chaotic. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 2015-01-25 12:57:21 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe said: > On 25 Jan at 0:04, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: > > <snip for brevity> > >> You couldn't make this up if you tried. Two days 'after' I downloaded >> the will and grant, I finally get the email telling me they are ready >> to download. Gosh it makes the price hike of 66% seem almost worth it >> for the entertainment value! > > It sounds to me as if the whole exercise has been done by in-house IT > people with no previous experience of running a large database for > consumer purposes. > > If a commercial firm had been involved, it would presumably have been > put out for tender Did anyone see any such thing. > > In some ways I would congratulate them for attempting a probably > low-cost project after the large scale projects that have failed and > cost the taxpayers megamillions. It is a commercial firm, Iron Mountain, http://www.ironmountain.co.uk -- Tickettyboo

On 25 Jan at 0:04, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: <snip for brevity> > You couldn't make this up if you tried. Two days 'after' I downloaded > the will and grant, I finally get the email telling me they are ready > to download. Gosh it makes the price hike of 66% seem almost worth it > for the entertainment value! It sounds to me as if the whole exercise has been done by in-house IT people with no previous experience of running a large database for consumer purposes. If a commercial firm had been involved, it would presumably have been put out for tender Did anyone see any such thing. In some ways I would congratulate them for attempting a probably low-cost project after the large scale projects that have failed and cost the taxpayers megamillions. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On 2015-01-23 16:11:53 +0000, Geoff Pearson said: > "Tickettyboo" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected] >> On 2015-01-17 06:19:02 +0000, Geoff Pearson said: >> >>> I've had an email this morning telling me that wills are now taking 18 >>> days to deliver from GOV.uk - i was expecting one today. >> >> I had the same mail, so far no notification that the will and grant are >> available but I looked this morning and they were there! >> Have downloaded them, but the system seems to be flakey to say the least. >> Worth checking back every now and then in case you don't get the >> confirmation email. >> -- >> Tickettyboo >> > > And Lo! Mine was there too when I checked after TB's message - delivered on > 19 January but no message saying so. > > Geoff You couldn't make this up if you tried. Two days 'after' I downloaded the will and grant, I finally get the email telling me they are ready to download. Gosh it makes the price hike of 66% seem almost worth it for the entertainment value! -- Tickettyboo

I wonder if any lister might be able to shed some light on a little enigma ......? In perusing a book of churchwardens' accounts (1709-1820) for a North Wilts village church, I came across the following entries which may relate to ancestors of mine: 11 September 1777: for a warrant for Mary Brain and expenses..... 2s6d 25 October 1777: for a warrant and expenses for Mary Brain and Hugh Brain..... 16s6d 6 November 1777: Expenses of Hugh and Mary Brain.....8s They are the only entries in 110 years of accounts that refer to "warrants" so I am intrigued as to what these warrants refer to - what misdemeanour might have led to the churchwardens paying out for them? I am particularly interested as Hugh's marriage took place on 27 October that year in an adjacent village (he married Mary Giles): the warrants mentioned in the first two entries therefore do not refer to Hugh's wife but perhaps a sister or even his mother? All suggestions welcomed. Steve BRAIN PS Hugh was my 4x great grandfather

A BUCKS GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY TALK The WHITECHAPEL MURDERS of the '90s have fascinated people for over a century, especially those whose ancestors lived in the East End in those scary times. Jack the Ripper was blamed - and has been identified with various Victorian doctors, a Royal Prince, and more recently, on very shaky evidence, a Russian Jew. One of the investigating team was a P C John Neill, and (in costume) his near namesake, John Neal, a former London policeman, has studied the crimes more searchingly, in the light of modern techniques, and come to the conclusion that JACK THE RIPPER WAS INNOCENT -OK? Come and hear his theories, agree or disagree, on Saturday February 14 at the Southcourt Community Centre, Prebendal Ave. Aylesbury HP21 8LF (parallel with Oxford Rd A418, just off ring road) 2 for 2.30pm Directions and details: www.bucksgs.org.uk or [email protected] or 01844 291631 Easy parking on site. Visitors welcome, but no responsibility for fainting fits, shock or horrors! EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:11:53 -0000, "Geoff Pearson" <[email protected]> wrote: > >"Tickettyboo" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected] >> On 2015-01-17 06:19:02 +0000, Geoff Pearson said: >> >>> I've had an email this morning telling me that wills are now taking 18 >>> days to deliver from GOV.uk - i was expecting one today. >> >> I had the same mail, so far no notification that the will and grant are >> available but I looked this morning and they were there! >> Have downloaded them, but the system seems to be flakey to say the least. >> Worth checking back every now and then in case you don't get the >> confirmation email. >> -- >> Tickettyboo >> > >And Lo! Mine was there too when I checked after TB's message - delivered on >19 January but no message saying so. > >Geoff I had the same thing happen, but only the "Grant" link worked, not the will. The Grant had a two-page codicil attached, so on a cursory look it might have been thought to be the whole thing. I mailed them. They replied - "oh we can get it, here it is attached". It was the grant and codicil again. I explained again, but silence followed. I mailed again yesterday, explaining yet again, and they have at least responded, saying they are dealing with it. I hope it's a juicy one when it eventually DOES come. Barbara

"Tickettyboo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > On 2015-01-17 06:19:02 +0000, Geoff Pearson said: > >> I've had an email this morning telling me that wills are now taking 18 >> days to deliver from GOV.uk - i was expecting one today. > > I had the same mail, so far no notification that the will and grant are > available but I looked this morning and they were there! > Have downloaded them, but the system seems to be flakey to say the least. > Worth checking back every now and then in case you don't get the > confirmation email. > -- > Tickettyboo > And Lo! Mine was there too when I checked after TB's message - delivered on 19 January but no message saying so. Geoff

On 2015-01-17 06:19:02 +0000, Geoff Pearson said: > I've had an email this morning telling me that wills are now taking 18 > days to deliver from GOV.uk - i was expecting one today. I had the same mail, so far no notification that the will and grant are available but I looked this morning and they were there! Have downloaded them, but the system seems to be flakey to say the least. Worth checking back every now and then in case you don't get the confirmation email. -- Tickettyboo

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 9:14:03 PM UTC+1, eve via wrote: > > Was it here someone was enquiring for Wm Izzard b Dudley 1855? > > If so, the nearest seems to be William b 1860, son of John and Rachel, (lab) > > correction, son of Thomas & Rachel. Umpteen siblings here, enough to fill > a church, with their own families, by the wedding. > Wonder if any connection with Eddie? > > > > living aged 4 months in Brewery St, Dudley, with parents 23,20 and sister > > Mary Ann Eliza, 3. > > Another b 1852/3 in Grandborough WAR s John and Mary. > > EVE. > > > Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians > Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society thanks for this. I was wondering if there was a connection to Eddie too - perhaps a project for Roy Stockdill. My big problem is trying to tie names to faces on the photo for which I really need a family member with photos of their own so we can match faces, hence my fishing post regards melanie

On 22/01/2015 02:37, [email protected] wrote: > I'm looking for any info on these ancesters, James Sutherland born > about 1791 and his wife Jannet Sinclair born about 1797. Marriage > registry has thier marriage 22 Nov 1816, Harpsdale, Halkirk, > Caithness. They had 10 children James 1820 Issabella 1821 Janet 1824 > Alexander 1826 Ann 1827 Jane 1829 James 1831. Married twice, Mary > Buchan, Martha Tulloch Elizabeth 1833 William 1835 Mary 1842 ? > > Any info on any of them would be much appreciated. All the children > seem to have been born in Edinburgh. > The FHS has baptisims but I expect you've seen them.. Name: Mary Sutherland Gender: Female Birth Date: 21 Apr 1842 Birth Place: Saint Cuthberts, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland Baptism Place: Saint Cuthberts, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland Father: James Sutherland Mother: Janet Sinclair FHL Film Number: 1040214 Reference ID: 2:18MG5JM

> Was it here someone was enquiring for Wm Izzard b Dudley 1855? > If so, the nearest seems to be William b 1860, son of John and Rachel, (lab) correction, son of Thomas & Rachel. Umpteen siblings here, enough to fill a church, with their own families, by the wedding. Wonder if any connection with Eddie? > living aged 4 months in Brewery St, Dudley, with parents 23,20 and sister > Mary Ann Eliza, 3. > Another b 1852/3 in Grandborough WAR s John and Mary. > EVE. > Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

On 22/01/2015 15:46, Richard Smith wrote: > On 21/01/15 09:30, Michael Wright wrote: > >> His Name is Philip Wright and he was a Verger at the Sub Deanery of >> St.Peter The Great, Chichester Cathedral, West Sussex, UK. > > This doesn't answer to your question but is perhaps of interest. St > Peter the Great is a paricularly curious parish -- not quite unique, but > not far from it. Until the mid 19th century it didn't have a parish > church, and instead part of the north transept of Chichester Cathedral > was designated the parish church. The only comparable example I'm aware > of is St Faith under St Paul's in the City of London, where part of the > crypt of St Paul's Cathedral is designated the parish church. > IIRC part of Truro cathedral is the local parish church. The cathedral was built on top of the church! -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On 21/01/15 09:30, Michael Wright wrote: > His Name is Philip Wright and he was a Verger at the Sub Deanery of > St.Peter The Great, Chichester Cathedral, West Sussex, UK. This doesn't answer to your question but is perhaps of interest. St Peter the Great is a paricularly curious parish -- not quite unique, but not far from it. Until the mid 19th century it didn't have a parish church, and instead part of the north transept of Chichester Cathedral was designated the parish church. The only comparable example I'm aware of is St Faith under St Paul's in the City of London, where part of the crypt of St Paul's Cathedral is designated the parish church. Richard