Hi Dennis, Thanks very much. Still interesting, despite restrictions to modern transactions. Best wishes, Mike -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of "dennis jackson" via Sent: 17 July 2014 18:40 To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR Hi Mike, Yes, it's online ... and yes, the index is free to check ... but, copies of documents are £3 for the title and £3 for the plan The online index goes back less than 25 years, so it has only limited use for history research. http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/ If you follow some of the links you'll discover you can also search using a map of the England & Wales. This can find details of properties that have not been sold in the last 20 years. But, for the few documents I've bought I haven't seen details older than 50 years. Dennis. on 16 Jul 2014 11:20, leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:20:47 +0100 > Subject: Re: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR > To: "'Rootsweb Leicestershire'" <leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com> > > Hi Dennis, > > I was interested to see that you found some Land Registry information. Can > you tell me whether the information is online and free, and if so, where to > find it, please ? > > Best wishes, > > Mike Gould > > -----Original Message----- > From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Sent: 16 July 2014 10:32 > To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR > > An entry at the Land Registry shows that no.18 was sold 22 Feb 2011. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Mike, Yes, it's online ... and yes, the index is free to check ... but, copies of documents are £3 for the title and £3 for the plan The online index goes back less than 25 years, so it has only limited use for history research. http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/ If you follow some of the links you'll discover you can also search using a map of the England & Wales. This can find details of properties that have not been sold in the last 20 years. But, for the few documents I've bought I haven't seen details older than 50 years. Dennis. on 16 Jul 2014 11:20, leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:20:47 +0100 > Subject: Re: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR > To: "'Rootsweb Leicestershire'" <leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com> > > Hi Dennis, > > I was interested to see that you found some Land Registry information. Can > you tell me whether the information is online and free, and if so, where to > find it, please ? > > Best wishes, > > Mike Gould > > -----Original Message----- > From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Sent: 16 July 2014 10:32 > To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR > > An entry at the Land Registry shows that no.18 was sold 22 Feb 2011.

Hi Dennis, I was interested to see that you found some Land Registry information. Can you tell me whether the information is online and free, and if so, where to find it, please ? Best wishes, Mike Gould -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Sent: 16 July 2014 10:32 To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR An entry at the Land Registry shows that no.18 was sold 22 Feb 2011. on 15 Jul 2014 13:02, leicestershire-plus-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:02:23 +0100 > From: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR > To: <leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com> > > Hi Roslyn, I am revisiting some posts that I flagged earlier in the year,now > that I have some spare time. > I live in Loughborough and if you would like to send me the address you have > off list, I will see if I can find anything for you. > Mike Clooney > > -----Original Message----- > From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Roslyn Macgregor > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 9:33 PM > To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Subject: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR > > Hello. > > I recently discovered that I have a first cousin, Brian F. Macgregor, born > 2/4, 1944. Lived in Loughborough, Leicestershire as recently as 2005. Then > he disappears. > > I wondered if anyone knew him? I realize it's tricky looking for living > (probably, but not certain) people. > > If anyone has a connection - if you know him, you may not be able to give > me contact information this way, but perhaps you could give him mine? > > I have an address for 2003-2005 from 192,com but no other traces in recent > years. > > Thank you for any help, > > Roslyn in Canada ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

An entry at the Land Registry shows that no.18 was sold 22 Feb 2011. on 15 Jul 2014 13:02, leicestershire-plus-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:02:23 +0100 > From: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR > To: <leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com> > > Hi Roslyn, I am revisiting some posts that I flagged earlier in the year,now > that I have some spare time. > I live in Loughborough and if you would like to send me the address you have > off list, I will see if I can find anything for you. > Mike Clooney > > -----Original Message----- > From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Roslyn Macgregor > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 9:33 PM > To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Subject: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR > > Hello. > > I recently discovered that I have a first cousin, Brian F. Macgregor, born > 2/4, 1944. Lived in Loughborough, Leicestershire as recently as 2005. Then > he disappears. > > I wondered if anyone knew him? I realize it's tricky looking for living > (probably, but not certain) people. > > If anyone has a connection - if you know him, you may not be able to give > me contact information this way, but perhaps you could give him mine? > > I have an address for 2003-2005 from 192,com but no other traces in recent > years. > > Thank you for any help, > > Roslyn in Canada

Doesn't work with that as Jan reported, but entering "summersale" without the space will do it. -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brian Binns Sent: 11 July 2014 15:45 To: nottsgen@rootsweb.com; leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: [LEI] Newspapers online I’ve discovered so much about my families from Newspaper reports – putting some flesh on the bones – so I would highly recommend this offer. British newspapers online for just £1 a month’s subscription Go to https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/account/subscribe?nextpage=%2Fpaym ents%3Fsisearchengine%3D1068%26siproduct%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Dsummer%26u tm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Duk%26utm_content%3D91800 <https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/account/subscribe?nextpage=%2Fpay ments%3Fsisearchengine%3D1068%26siproduct%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Dsummer%26 utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Duk%26utm_content%3D91800&gift=false> &gift=false Enter the promotion code SUMMER SALE, and get a month’s subscription for just £1. Offer ends 20th July Brian Binns ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Roslyn, I am revisiting some posts that I flagged earlier in the year,now that I have some spare time. I live in Loughborough and if you would like to send me the address you have off list, I will see if I can find anything for you. Mike Clooney -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Roslyn Macgregor Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 9:33 PM To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR Hello. I recently discovered that I have a first cousin, Brian F. Macgregor, born 2/4, 1944. Lived in Loughborough, Leicestershire as recently as 2005. Then he disappears. I wondered if anyone knew him? I realize it's tricky looking for living (probably, but not certain) people. If anyone has a connection - if you know him, you may not be able to give me contact information this way, but perhaps you could give him mine? I have an address for 2003-2005 from 192,com but no other traces in recent years. Thank you for any help, Roslyn in Canada -- Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. - Martin Luther King Jr. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Brian Tried it and it said: "sorry code not found". Jan Marchant in chilly Oz > From: bnbinns@gmail.com > To: nottsgen@rootsweb.com; leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:45:09 +0100 > Subject: [LEI] Newspapers online > > I’ve discovered so much about my families from Newspaper reports – putting > some flesh on the bones – so I would highly recommend this offer. British > newspapers online for just £1 a month’s subscription > > > > Go to > https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/account/subscribe?nextpage=%2Fpaym > ents%3Fsisearchengine%3D1068%26siproduct%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Dsummer%26u > tm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Duk%26utm_content%3D91800 > <https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/account/subscribe?nextpage=%2Fpay > ments%3Fsisearchengine%3D1068%26siproduct%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Dsummer%26 > utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Duk%26utm_content%3D91800&gift=false> > &gift=false > > > > Enter the promotion code SUMMER SALE, and get a month’s subscription for > just £1. > > > > Offer ends 20th July > > > > Brian Binns > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I’ve discovered so much about my families from Newspaper reports – putting some flesh on the bones – so I would highly recommend this offer. British newspapers online for just £1 a month’s subscription Go to https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/account/subscribe?nextpage=%2Fpaym ents%3Fsisearchengine%3D1068%26siproduct%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Dsummer%26u tm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Duk%26utm_content%3D91800 <https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/account/subscribe?nextpage=%2Fpay ments%3Fsisearchengine%3D1068%26siproduct%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Dsummer%26 utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Duk%26utm_content%3D91800&gift=false> &gift=false Enter the promotion code SUMMER SALE, and get a month’s subscription for just £1. Offer ends 20th July Brian Binns

Thank you Brian, I've emailed Leicester Record Office. Regards. Adrian. ________________________________ From: Brian Binns <bnbinns@gmail.com> To: 'Adrian Gardner' <adriangardner1@btinternet.com>; leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com; 'Maurice Sheppard' <maurice@msheppard.com> Sent: Friday, 27 June 2014, 15:01 Subject: RE: [LEI] RICHARDSON AND GARDNER LTD. It could be that business records and papers were deposited at Leics Archives, so try there. Brian Binns -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Gardner Sent: 27 June 2014 09:54 To: Maurice Sheppard Cc: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEI] RICHARDSON AND GARDNER LTD. Hi Maurice. Thank you for this information; I can see that it's going to be no easy task ahead of me! Best wishes. Adrian. ________________________________ From: Maurice Sheppard <maurice@msheppard.com> To: Adrian Gardner <adriangardner1@btinternet.com>; leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014, 21:14 Subject: Re: [LEI] RICHARDSON AND GARDNER LTD.   Hi Adrian, Companies House now no longer retain archives once a business has ceased trading for more than 20 years. So your best hope is either the London Gazette, whose search engine on the new website is pathetic compared to the old one, and/or British Library Newspaper Archives. Regards, Maurice at The LONGMORE Pages http://www.msheppard.com/ On 26/06/2014 11:45, Adrian Gardner wrote: > Hello there. > > This Leicester firm manufactured boot and shoes and went out of business c1936. As I have family connections with the firm, I am keen to find out the date/year and circumstances of the closure. Any help or guidance on this matter would be much appreciated. > > Thank you. > > Regards. > > Adrian. >  > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-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 LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It could be that business records and papers were deposited at Leics Archives, so try there. Brian Binns -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Gardner Sent: 27 June 2014 09:54 To: Maurice Sheppard Cc: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEI] RICHARDSON AND GARDNER LTD. Hi Maurice. Thank you for this information; I can see that it's going to be no easy task ahead of me! Best wishes. Adrian. ________________________________ From: Maurice Sheppard <maurice@msheppard.com> To: Adrian Gardner <adriangardner1@btinternet.com>; leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014, 21:14 Subject: Re: [LEI] RICHARDSON AND GARDNER LTD. Hi Adrian, Companies House now no longer retain archives once a business has ceased trading for more than 20 years. So your best hope is either the London Gazette, whose search engine on the new website is pathetic compared to the old one, and/or British Library Newspaper Archives. Regards, Maurice at The LONGMORE Pages http://www.msheppard.com/ On 26/06/2014 11:45, Adrian Gardner wrote: > Hello there. > > This Leicester firm manufactured boot and shoes and went out of business c1936. As I have family connections with the firm, I am keen to find out the date/year and circumstances of the closure. Any help or guidance on this matter would be much appreciated. > > Thank you. > > Regards. > > Adrian. >  > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-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 LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Maurice. Thank you for this information; I can see that it's going to be no easy task ahead of me! Best wishes. Adrian. ________________________________ From: Maurice Sheppard <maurice@msheppard.com> To: Adrian Gardner <adriangardner1@btinternet.com>; leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014, 21:14 Subject: Re: [LEI] RICHARDSON AND GARDNER LTD. Hi Adrian, Companies House now no longer retain archives once a business has ceased trading for more than 20 years. So your best hope is either the London Gazette, whose search engine on the new website is pathetic compared to the old one, and/or British Library Newspaper Archives. Regards, Maurice at The LONGMORE Pages http://www.msheppard.com/ On 26/06/2014 11:45, Adrian Gardner wrote: > Hello there. > > This Leicester firm manufactured boot and shoes and went out of business c1936. As I have family connections with the firm, I am keen to find out the date/year and circumstances of the closure. Any help or guidance on this matter would be much appreciated. > > Thank you. > > Regards. > > Adrian. >  > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Hi Adrian, Companies House now no longer retain archives once a business has ceased trading for more than 20 years. So your best hope is either the London Gazette, whose search engine on the new website is pathetic compared to the old one, and/or British Library Newspaper Archives. Regards, Maurice at The LONGMORE Pages http://www.msheppard.com On 26/06/2014 11:45, Adrian Gardner wrote: > Hello there. > > This Leicester firm manufactured boot and shoes and went out of business c1936. As I have family connections with the firm, I am keen to find out the date/year and circumstances of the closure. Any help or guidance on this matter would be much appreciated. > > Thank you. > > Regards. > > Adrian. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Hello there. This Leicester firm manufactured boot and shoes and went out of business c1936. As I have family connections with the firm, I am keen to find out the date/year and circumstances of the closure. Any help or guidance on this matter would be much appreciated. Thank you. Regards. Adrian.

On 14/06/2014 20:11, Nivard Ovington wrote: > You are perfectly entitled to your opinion Guy > > But "The living are capable of taking whatever steps are required to > protect themselves" ??? > > Many people are not users of the internet at all and a great many of > those that do, know very little about it or the dangers involved > > Yes we should strive to record an accurate account of the deceased but > the living should be protected far more, it is simply not good enough to > say publish and be damned, just because we can I am not saying publish and be damned, just because we can. As I wrote previously- There can be no rigid right or wrong when publishing details of living persons, every publication must be a judgement call based on reason. > > As I said previously I am all for open records and the ability of the > general public to check them but that does not necessitate publishing > those finds far and wide So you are against newspapers, parish magazines, school magazines, biographies and all the other publications that publish information about living people without their permission. Do not forget the advent of the internet is in reality no greater a leap forward that the advent of the printing press was at the time. It is often forgotten that the world already had fast forms of communication of information, telephone, fax, photocopying, amateur radio communication, CB radios, etc. prior to the internet. > > The living should be respected and given the choice as to whether the > personal details of them or their children are put online on the kind of > resource such as rootsweb My opposition is against peoples irrational assumption that all details about living people should not be published. It depends on what you claim to be personal details. Details of birth and marriage are details about an individual and so may be claimed to be personal details but they are public records that by law are open to the public and in the case of a marriage are not valid without public intervention. Whereas details such as a persons financial situation or medical condition is sensitive personal information and an individual is entitled to expect that information not to be disclosed. > > If they break the law that is an entirely different matter but we are > not talking about that are we If a persons birth is not public then how can the public be protect themselves against breaking such laws as not selling tobacco, or not selling alcohol to under age persons or even allowing driving under age. I mention those as they are illustrations as to why details such as date of birth can not be viewed as "private" details. > > Bringing operation yewtree into the subject is a red herring and is > irrelevent in the situation we are discussing But it is not as that is again about something that people knew but kept quite about so as not to annoy, embarrass or upset, exactly the same arguments that the people who try to censor information online claim as reasons for not publishing. > > To be honest this whole discussion is irrelevant as its against > rootswebs guidelines > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > I would disagree as the whole discussion has been kept within the guidelines and in the main conducted in a polite manner but I do agree it has run its course and as a result I will not post again on this thread. If anyone wishes they are of course welcome to PM me on the subject. Cheers Guy

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion Guy But "The living are capable of taking whatever steps are required to protect themselves" ??? Many people are not users of the internet at all and a great many of those that do, know very little about it or the dangers involved Yes we should strive to record an accurate account of the deceased but the living should be protected far more, it is simply not good enough to say publish and be damned, just because we can As I said previously I am all for open records and the ability of the general public to check them but that does not necessitate publishing those finds far and wide The living should be respected and given the choice as to whether the personal details of them or their children are put online on the kind of resource such as rootsweb If they break the law that is an entirely different matter but we are not talking about that are we Bringing operation yewtree into the subject is a red herring and is irrelevent in the situation we are discussing To be honest this whole discussion is irrelevant as its against rootswebs guidelines Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > It may surprise you but I disagree with the second part of your posting. > > The living are capable of taking whatever steps are required to protect > themselves. > > I have more concerns about the deceased and protecting the memory of the > deceased. > They cannot correct any wrongs done to them , they cannot contest and > libel or slander. > > Out first thoughts should be to ensure we record fully and accurately > the history of our family and ancestors, our second thought should be to > leave accurate records to our descendants and if that upsets some of our > living relatives who wish to hide their shame under a facade of > innocence then so be it. > That is the hypocrisy of the Victorian times where a cloak of innocence > hide the true picture of abuse. > It is time such subterfuge was condemned to the vaults of history and > banished from the face of the earth. > > Why are the police actively engaged in Operation Yewtree today, because > people in the past were too frightened, star struck or simply did not > want to cause upset or annoy living persons at the time. Plenty of > people knew or suspected what was going on but kept quiet. > > People in the 19th century spoke out against shipping "home children" to > the colonies but they were silenced by the political pressure of the > time and see the damage do there. > > History, including family history is about recording and accurately > publishing the true historical picture, in the fullest possible detail, > without fear or favour. > Who better to write a history of a family in the 21st century than the > people in that very family who know and have research and recorded the > true situation? > > The real question to ask is not whether we can put the details of living > persons online but *whether the true details will be recorded if we do > not put the accurate facts online.* > > Cheers > Guy

On 14/06/2014 12:11, Nivard Ovington wrote: > Firstly I would just say that I am all in favour of having the ability > to check details for people, such as births, marriages, deaths etc etc > > Its much safer to have the ability to check details and you are less > likely to have your identity stolen if anyone can check the details are > legitimate > > However I think Aretha Franklin said it all in R E S P E C T > > Its not about whether we *can* put details of living persons online > > Its whether we *should* > > No more, no less > > Our first thought should be, will it cause upset, harm or annoy the > living, if the answer may be yes we shouldn't do it > > The fact we can do it, does not make it right > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > It may surprise you but I disagree with the second part of your posting. The living are capable of taking whatever steps are required to protect themselves. I have more concerns about the deceased and protecting the memory of the deceased. They cannot correct any wrongs done to them , they cannot contest and libel or slander. Out first thoughts should be to ensure we record fully and accurately the history of our family and ancestors, our second thought should be to leave accurate records to our descendants and if that upsets some of our living relatives who wish to hide their shame under a facade of innocence then so be it. That is the hypocrisy of the Victorian times where a cloak of innocence hide the true picture of abuse. It is time such subterfuge was condemned to the vaults of history and banished from the face of the earth. Why are the police actively engaged in Operation Yewtree today, because people in the past were too frightened, star struck or simply did not want to cause upset or annoy living persons at the time. Plenty of people knew or suspected what was going on but kept quiet. People in the 19th century spoke out against shipping "home children" to the colonies but they were silenced by the political pressure of the time and see the damage do there. History, including family history is about recording and accurately publishing the true historical picture, in the fullest possible detail, without fear or favour. Who better to write a history of a family in the 21st century than the people in that very family who know and have research and recorded the true situation? The real question to ask is not whether we can put the details of living persons online but *whether the true details will be recorded if we do not put the accurate facts online.* Cheers Guy

Absolutely agree Respect also applies for everyone on every list on Rootsweb. This is a hobby it should be enjoyable for all. Sharing our successes without preaching or being boring or belittling. Being confident to reach out for help without fear of being made to look foolish. Providing constructive, insightful suggestions to each other. This makes the community stronger. We don't have to agree on everything. Dealing with and accepting ambiguity is a core part of what we do. We are all learning. But if we can't demonstrate respect, politeness, and restraint with every post we make - possibly we shouldn't be on any of the Rootsweb boards. Very Best Regards Richard Heaton

Nivard, I could not agree with you more. Derek. On 14/06/2014, Nivard Ovington <ovington.one@gmail.com> wrote: > Firstly I would just say that I am all in favour of having the ability > to check details for people, such as births, marriages, deaths etc etc > > Its much safer to have the ability to check details and you are less > likely to have your identity stolen if anyone can check the details are > legitimate > > However I think Aretha Franklin said it all in R E S P E C T > > Its not about whether we *can* put details of living persons online > > Its whether we *should* > > No more, no less > > Our first thought should be, will it cause upset, harm or annoy the > living, if the answer may be yes we shouldn't do it > > The fact we can do it, does not make it right > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Firstly I would just say that I am all in favour of having the ability to check details for people, such as births, marriages, deaths etc etc Its much safer to have the ability to check details and you are less likely to have your identity stolen if anyone can check the details are legitimate However I think Aretha Franklin said it all in R E S P E C T Its not about whether we *can* put details of living persons online Its whether we *should* No more, no less Our first thought should be, will it cause upset, harm or annoy the living, if the answer may be yes we shouldn't do it The fact we can do it, does not make it right Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

On 11/06/2014 20:15, Louis Mills wrote: > English law has traditionally protected your physical privacy via laws against trespass and assault. It is true that there is no "traditional" protection about informational privacy. > > The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into English law the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8.1 of the ECHR provided an explicit right to respect for a > private life for the first time within English law. The Convention also > requires the judiciary to "have regard" to the Convention in developing > the common law. > Lou > > People simply do not understand what privacy really means, it has from inception meant the right of an individual to prevent the state interfering with his/her personal life. In recent years people assume privacy means the right for an individual to hide details about themselves from others but that although it is becoming more and more accepted is a distortion of the meaning. If one looks at Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) one will see it is concerned with public authorities (the state) delving into the lives of their citizens, and not about the right of private citizens to prevent other private citizens publishing facts about them. Article 8 reads- “Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others” As I stated there is no, repeat _no_ privacy law on the statute book in England & Wales even though some people try to use other laws such as the Data Protection Act and the ECHR to act in lieu of such a statute The closure rules are in the main nothing more than “office policy” and have no standing in law though a few have statutory backing. Cheers Guy