On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:50:12 +0100, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote: >On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:56:01 +0100, Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> >wrote: > >>Hi all, >> Findmypast at the moment goes up to 2006 for BMD >>registrations if I am right? >>When do firms like them move up to a later year? >> >Usually when the indexes are available to them (distinct from >distributed to a chosen few libraries etc.) and I'm not sure if they >are. > >>This is not criticizing just wondering? >>A local society is up to 2010, but I realize for a small area. >> >It's possible they had an arrangement with the local registrar to >produce an index in the same way that e.g. the CheshireBMD index was >produced. Thank you for the information, I was wondering if other paid for search providers were more current? Mick IOW.

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:03:47 +0100, Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:50:12 +0100, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:56:01 +0100, Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> >>wrote: >> >>>Hi all, >>> Findmypast at the moment goes up to 2006 for BMD >>>registrations if I am right? >>>When do firms like them move up to a later year? >>> >>Usually when the indexes are available to them (distinct from >>distributed to a chosen few libraries etc.) and I'm not sure if they >>are. >> >>>This is not criticizing just wondering? >>>A local society is up to 2010, but I realize for a small area. >>> >>It's possible they had an arrangement with the local registrar to >>produce an index in the same way that e.g. the CheshireBMD index was >>produced. > >Thank you for the information, I was wondering if other paid for >search providers were more current? > I don't think so. That seems to suggest the problem is availability rather than unwillingness on the part of Ancestry/FMP/etc. It is possibly another thing they can't be bothered with since the English GRO was taken over by the passport mob.

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:32:21 +0100, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote: >On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:03:47 +0100, Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:50:12 +0100, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> >>wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:56:01 +0100, Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Hi all, >>>> Findmypast at the moment goes up to 2006 for BMD >>>>registrations if I am right? >>>>When do firms like them move up to a later year? >>>> >>>Usually when the indexes are available to them (distinct from >>>distributed to a chosen few libraries etc.) and I'm not sure if they >>>are. >>> >>>>This is not criticizing just wondering? >>>>A local society is up to 2010, but I realize for a small area. >>>> >>>It's possible they had an arrangement with the local registrar to >>>produce an index in the same way that e.g. the CheshireBMD index was >>>produced. >> >>Thank you for the information, I was wondering if other paid for >>search providers were more current? >> >I don't think so. That seems to suggest the problem is availability >rather than unwillingness on the part of Ancestry/FMP/etc. It is >possibly another thing they can't be bothered with since the English >GRO was taken over by the passport mob. Thank you, I now understand better. Mick IOW.

"Charles Ellson" <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:i8nms8543vlu6a3frhbmte2s1ihr0sc5hc@4ax.com... > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:03:47 +0100, Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: > >>On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:50:12 +0100, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> >>wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:56:01 +0100, Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Hi all, >>>> Findmypast at the moment goes up to 2006 for BMD >>>>registrations if I am right? >>>>When do firms like them move up to a later year? >>>> >>>Usually when the indexes are available to them (distinct from >>>distributed to a chosen few libraries etc.) and I'm not sure if they >>>are. >>> >>>>This is not criticizing just wondering? >>>>A local society is up to 2010, but I realize for a small area. >>>> >>>It's possible they had an arrangement with the local registrar to >>>produce an index in the same way that e.g. the CheshireBMD index was >>>produced. >> >>Thank you for the information, I was wondering if other paid for >>search providers were more current? >> > I don't think so. That seems to suggest the problem is availability > rather than unwillingness on the part of Ancestry/FMP/etc. It is > possibly another thing they can't be bothered with since the English > GRO was taken over by the passport mob. I suspect it's as much unwillingness as can't be bothered. In their ideal world no records would be released less than 100 years old because they are paranoid about identity fraud. This is just one more creeping restriction. Brian Austin

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:40:06 +0100, "Brian Austin" <brian.austin@btinternet.com> wrote: > >"Charles Ellson" <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >news:i8nms8543vlu6a3frhbmte2s1ihr0sc5hc@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:03:47 +0100, Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:50:12 +0100, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:56:01 +0100, Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi all, >>>>> Findmypast at the moment goes up to 2006 for BMD >>>>>registrations if I am right? >>>>>When do firms like them move up to a later year? >>>>> >>>>Usually when the indexes are available to them (distinct from >>>>distributed to a chosen few libraries etc.) and I'm not sure if they >>>>are. >>>> >>>>>This is not criticizing just wondering? >>>>>A local society is up to 2010, but I realize for a small area. >>>>> >>>>It's possible they had an arrangement with the local registrar to >>>>produce an index in the same way that e.g. the CheshireBMD index was >>>>produced. >>> >>>Thank you for the information, I was wondering if other paid for >>>search providers were more current? >>> >> I don't think so. That seems to suggest the problem is availability >> rather than unwillingness on the part of Ancestry/FMP/etc. It is >> possibly another thing they can't be bothered with since the English >> GRO was taken over by the passport mob. > >I suspect it's as much unwillingness as can't be bothered. In their ideal >world no records would be released less than 100 years old because they are >paranoid about identity fraud. > That can work both ways. ISTR the availability of the basic set of BMD records is still recognised by enough officials (distinct from "something must be done" politicians trying to solve problems that don't actually/practically exist) as part of the armoury which makes identity fraud harder to achieve. >This is just one more creeping restriction. > >Brian Austin