Hello Folks, Does anyone have any connection with Retford Grammar School? I was there 1951-58 and run a small website about it on www.eyemead.com/OPEN.htm In particular I'm scanning and putting on CD copies of the school magazine, the "Retfordian", and so far I have 64 copies, perhaps 2,000 pages, between 1914 and 1960. The school closed in 2003, after 750 years. I'm hunting for copies of the Retfordian I don't have, to scan and add to the collection on CD. Maybe some old Retfordians have turned up with someone's Nottinghamshire ancestor? The magazine goes back to about 1870 I think. Any other photos or other mementoes of Retford Grammar School would be most welcome, with an eye to placing a scan/photo on the RGS website. Even better, any memories of the school would be even more welcome, to add to the website (after rude words have been removed). Many thanks, John Palmer, Dorset, England Author of RGS website www.eyemead.com/OPEN.htm

On 23/04/2009, Brian Griffiths <mail@briangriffiths.co.uk> wrote: > > Oh dear, here we go again I'm unsubscribing for a bit while all the toys are collected and put back in the prams This thread is closed, and I MEAN CLOSED!!!! I have already said something. If you want to continue this, take onto genbrit-l, not here. The personal attacks should stop also. Next one who says something on this thread will be taken off list. -- hugh listowner papatoetoe, new zealand facebook: http://profile.to/hughwinters

From: Nina Terry <enartee56@hotmail.com> > My only other > word on this is that we have a good informative and very willing list > here and yet every time Mr Stockdill decides to respond, do we end up > with animosity and ill feeling - shame! Nina Terry < Again, you see, you defame me with the words "Every time Mr Stockdill decides to respond, etc" Could I respectfully suggest that before making such outlandish and inaccurate statements you trawl the archives and see how many times I have helped fellow listers with my expert knowledge? I personally do not recall any previous unpleasantness started by myself. I suggest you check your facts before leaping in with your foot in your mouth! -- 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

I hesitate to get involved in this pointless argument. The Rootsweb guidelines include the statement : Don't include identifiable information about living people without their direct consent, or, in the case of minors, the consent of their parent or guardian. This includes (but is not limited to) a person's full name, location or contact information. see http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/rootsweb/community_guidelines.html That should be the end of it. Dai Bevan Nina Terry wrote: > I can see both sides of this argument. I worked for many years in a very busy A&E Department where protecting data was of prime importance and no information was given to anyone, including the police, in order to protect patients. Prime examples were violent partners enquiring about the whereabouts of a patient and being asked by police for details of anyone admitted with lacerations (possible breaking and entering) to telling us they had permission to look at our records (presumably to find a suspect). Information could be obtained about patients only by application to the Medical Records Officer which seems entirely reasonable to me. > There seems to be, on the other hand, little point in refusing details of names, phone numbers and addresses since these are mostly in the public view for anyone to find if they care to search long and hard enough. > So lets be reasonable about this and don't answer enquiries or reveal details that you are not happy to give or would not wish others to reveal about yourself. > My only other word on this is that we have a good informative and very willing list here and yet every time Mr Stockdill decides to respond, do we end up with animosity and ill feeling - > shame! > Nina Terry > > _________________________________________________________________ > View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more! > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/ > > > Notts Surname List > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/notts.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NOTTSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

> Mr Stockdill wrote:Oh dear, here we go again with the usual paranoid > nonsense! I get the feeling some people will not be happy until we are > all walking around with numbers stamped across our foreheads (or some > other appropriate part of our anatomy) and not permitted to have names > at all. Am I not allowed to know the name of my next-door neighbour > and what he does for a living or the names of his wife and children?I > Write:I wonder if your neighbours would like it if you gavetheir names > and personal details to a magazine or here on the list? I certainly > would not be very happy. Mr Stockdill also Wrote: Genealogists should > be the very last people to impose censorship on themselves. Are we not > supporters of freedom of information and should we not be calling for > more of it, not less?If freedom of speech orinformationis what you > want more of then why are you reporting a fellow genealogist to the > administrator...I think sir, you might only value your own > opinion.Yours Pat > Actually, only very recently I helped my next door neighbour's wife with her ancestry and she was very grateful! As for freedom of information, you clearly totally fail to understand that there is a difference between expressing an honest opinion and turning the debate into a personal attack on another lister, which Graham Williams did through making an ignorant and unreasonable co-relation between my opinions and my former profession. I take it he is no relation of yours, BTW? -- 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

I can see both sides of this argument. I worked for many years in a very busy A&E Department where protecting data was of prime importance and no information was given to anyone, including the police, in order to protect patients. Prime examples were violent partners enquiring about the whereabouts of a patient and being asked by police for details of anyone admitted with lacerations (possible breaking and entering) to telling us they had permission to look at our records (presumably to find a suspect). Information could be obtained about patients only by application to the Medical Records Officer which seems entirely reasonable to me. There seems to be, on the other hand, little point in refusing details of names, phone numbers and addresses since these are mostly in the public view for anyone to find if they care to search long and hard enough. So lets be reasonable about this and don't answer enquiries or reveal details that you are not happy to give or would not wish others to reveal about yourself. My only other word on this is that we have a good informative and very willing list here and yet every time Mr Stockdill decides to respond, do we end up with animosity and ill feeling - shame! Nina Terry _________________________________________________________________ View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/

I agree here. Lets not be to pedantic about this. If something does occur, well deal with it when arises. Lets use some common sense. hugh listowner papatoetoe, new zealand facebook: http://profile.to/hughwinters Dan Quayle <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dan_quayle.html> - "I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix." 2009/4/22 Brian Binns <bnbinns@gmail.com> > I find that the DPA is quoted far too often these days. > Every person in the UK registered to vote is on a list which is freely > available. Telephone directories are freely available. > How can anyone's name and address be secret these days? > > Brian Binns > >

Oh dear, here we go again I'm unsubscribing for a bit while all the toys are collected and put back in the prams Brian (PS For what it's worth, I'm with Mr Stockdill on the general argument, though maybe I wouldn't be quite so passionate about it!) |-----Original Message----- |From: nottsgen-bounces@rootsweb.com |[mailto:nottsgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Roy Stockdill |Sent: 22 April 2009 19:19 |To: nottsgen-L@rootsweb.com; Gpwilliamsgpw@aol.com |Cc: nottsgen-admin@rootsweb.com |Subject: Re: [NTT] Fw: Re: Living and data protection | |From: Gpwilliamsgpw@aol.com | |> Now you have revealed what your occupation was I think we may |> understand where you are coming from. We all know that the Fleet St |> and journalist have know morals when it involves the intrusion and |> privacy of the public. |> |> Graham Williams < | |I object strongly to this post as personally insulting and I |am forwarding a |formal complaint to the Administrator. |

  Mr Stockdill wrote:   Oh dear, here we go again with the usual paranoid nonsense! I get the feeling some people will not be happy until we are all walking around with numbers stamped across our foreheads (or some other appropriate part of our anatomy) and not permitted to have names at all. Am I not allowed to know the name of my next-door neighbour and what he does for a living or the names of his wife and children?   I Write:   I wonder if your neighbours would like it if you gave their names and personal details to a magazine or here on the list? I certainly would not be very happy.   Mr Stockdill also Wrote: Genealogists should be the very last people to impose censorship on themselves. Are we not supporters of freedom of information and should we not be calling for more of it, not less?   If freedom of speech or information is what you want more of then why are you reporting a fellow genealogist to the administrator...I think sir, you might only value your own opinion.   Yours Pat

From: Gpwilliamsgpw@aol.com > Now you have revealed what your occupation was I think we may > understand where you are coming from. We all know that the Fleet St > and journalist have know morals when it involves the intrusion and > privacy of the public. > > Graham Williams < I object strongly to this post as personally insulting and I am forwarding a formal complaint to the Administrator. Your comments are out of order, since you do not know me personally at all or what I did in my former career. As it happens, I retired from journalism some 12 years ago and have been fully occupied with genealogy ever since. My comments on living people and data protection were made in the spirit of a perfectly rational and reasonable debate on the subject. However, you have gone well beyond this and turned it into a personal attack. I believe I can say that I am fairly well known and respected in the UK genealogical community. I served 6 years (two full terms) as a Trustee of the Society of Genealogists, am Chairman of the SoG's Publications section and Commissioning Editor of the My Ancestors series of books, was Editor for 10 years of the Journal of One-Name Studies for the Guild of One-Name Studies (twice winning the Elizabeth Simpson Award for the best family history journal) and am well known as a regular contributor to most of the commercial family history magazines, but specifically for Practical Family History in which I have a regular feature and column every month. I am also a regular and frequent lecturer on genealogy and family history around the country. I think other listers would also agree that I have given valuable help and guidance since joining this list. I suggest your comments are close to being defamatory, since they allege that I am an immoral person purely because of my former profession, a conclusion which also displays the logic of a stupid and ignorant person. I anticipate an immediate public apology. -- 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

I anticipate filing this list as SPAM. On Apr 22, 2009 7:19pm, Roy Stockdill <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> wrote: > From: Gpwilliamsgpw@aol.com > > Now you have revealed what your occupation was I think we may > > understand where you are coming from. We all know that the Fleet St > > and journalist have know morals when it involves the intrusion and > > privacy of the public. > > > > Graham Williams > I object strongly to this post as personally insulting and I am > forwarding a > formal complaint to the Administrator. > Your comments are out of order, since you do not know me personally at > all or what I did in my former career. As it happens, I retired from > journalism some 12 years ago and have been fully occupied with > genealogy ever since. > My comments on living people and data protection were made in the > spirit of a perfectly rational and reasonable debate on the subject. > However, you have gone well beyond this and turned it into a personal > attack. > I believe I can say that I am fairly well known and respected in the UK > genealogical community. I served 6 years (two full terms) as a Trustee of > the Society of Genealogists, am Chairman of the SoG's Publications > section and Commissioning Editor of the My Ancestors series of books, > was Editor for 10 years of the Journal of One-Name Studies for the Guild > of One-Name Studies (twice winning the Elizabeth Simpson Award for > the best family history journal) and am well known as a regular > contributor to most of the commercial family history magazines, but > specifically for Practical Family History in which I have a regular > feature > and column every month. I am also a regular and frequent lecturer on > genealogy and family history around the country. I think other listers > would also agree that I have given valuable help and guidance since > joining this list. > I suggest your comments are close to being defamatory, since they > allege that I am an immoral person purely because of my former > profession, a conclusion which also displays the logic of a stupid and > ignorant person. > I anticipate an immediate public apology. > -- > 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 > Notts Surname List > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/notts.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NOTTSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Roy, I can assure you that my son did not return his form. Possibly it was never chased up as he lived in rented accommodation at the time, moving frequently because of his work situation. Having a legal obligation to return a form only works if you are concerned about the consequences of failing to do so. As for not being listed in the phone book being a form of snobbery, well - that made me smile. Nothing at all to do with that, in fact I have never even considered that as a reason! Being unlisted means that I get to choose who has my number - unlike some of my friends who are plagued with cold calls from firms trying to sell them something. If someone is happy to conduct research that involves chasing up living relatives then that is for that person to decide. What is the problem with requesting that this is done off list so that at least there is still a degree of privacy for the people concerned. Regards, Dot Dorothy Holden Dover Kent England There are three things that can never be retrieved- the spoken word, time past and the neglected opportunity I volunteer for the Random Acts of Genealogical Kindness website www.raogk.org

Can I respond in support of Roy S - he has helped many people on this site, and I think its time this thread was closed - and lets get back to what we do best - help each other and enjoying the list. Lin

Now you have revealed what your occupation was I think we may understand where you are coming from. We all know that the Fleet St and journalist have know morals when it involves the intrusion and privacy of the public. Graham Williams

From: "Dorothy Holden" <DMHolden@ntlworld.com> > Not everyone is registered to vote - I have a son who refused to > return the form for many years and he isn't the only person I know > that won't give their details. You can ask that your details are > withheld from the general register on display at Libraries etc - > something you can request on the form itself < I understood that it is a legal requirement for all those eligible to vote to return the form and thus be on the electoral register, even if they choose not to exercise their right to vote. As for the full and edited versions of the register, which is what you are talking about, this came about because a man in Wakefield, Yorks, a few years ago took his local council to court for selling his details to commercial companies. However, it seems to me that wanting your address kept secret is largely irrelevant since the register does not run in alphabetical order of surnames but streets and roads, etc. Anyone wanting to find someone's address would have to spend hours wading through every single street unless they got lucky in the first few pages. What really annoys me about this paranoia over privacy is that government departments, local councils, the NHS, all kinds of other official and semi-official public offices know EVERYTHING about us but apparently we are not supposed to have access to such information!!! You place an order by telephone with virtually any company of any size and you will be asked for your postcode, at which the person on the other end immediately tells you your name and address because they have access to a gigantic database which has everybody on it. This database is available to umpteen organisation and firms but not to ordinary citizens! This is why I resist any attempts to restrict my right to handle information. > Not everyone appears in the phone book - I don't and I've had a phone > at home for over 25 years without an entry in the local directory.> I am afraid this is something I confess I don't pretend to understand. Apparently, something like 40% of people in the UK are now ex-directory. Why is beyond me unless it's some kind of snobbery. If you want to stop annoying double glazing salesmen and people doing surveys pestering you, all you have to do is register with the Telephone Preference Service. You can also have your address registered to stop junk mail. Why anyone would not want to have their phone number listed for any other reason - other than wanting to avoid violent ex-spouses, which is one reason I would accept - is debateable. When I was a Fleet Street investigative journalist many years ago I sometimes used to get threats from villains I'd exposed, but I never had my number removed from the public domain. Likewise, I wrote a comment column for a local newspaper for 10 years and often used to upset some people but I kept my phone number in the book because I took the view that it would be extremely hypocritical of me to campaign for greater openness and hide my own whereabouts. Privacy paranoia appears to be a growing disease these days! -- 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

It is generally accepted that the Rootsweb guidelines are followed and details for those born in the last 100 years are not posted to the list. Most abide by this. Asking if anyone knows of the X family who lived at 10 Anywhere Lane, Anytown in the 1950s and invite private replies would seem to be outside the guidelines. One needs to read the DPA to see what it actually provides, rather than believe the construction many place on it. If one wants total privacy then lobby for all government and private databases to wiped clean. Keith Wellington, NZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "P WILLIAMS" <p.williams352@btinternet.com> To: "nottsgen" <nottsgen-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:07 AM Subject: [NTT] Fw: Re: Living and data protection Hi All I don't wish to put any spokes in the wheel so to speak, but are we 100% sure that we should give out living people's details on our lists. I work for the Government and under our DPA rules we are not allowed to give out any details unless prior consent from the person in question. I know there is a great deal to be found about anybody these days, if we search hard enough, but we have to remember that security for what ever reason is of the utmost importance, especially in our current climate. We, at our place of work have procedures to follow even if the police require information, we must remember that Loan Sharks and Debt Collectors all have devious ways of tracing people and may use even this list as a way of tracking a person down. In no way am I saying that this is the case, but are we sure? I'm sorry, to be a spoil sport in all of this, but would it be better if we could advise the person on how to trace rather than pass any relevant information on. For example 192.com. All the Best Pat Williams Notts Surname List http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/notts.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NOTTSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

now is the time for all good men now is the time for all good men now is the time for all good men now is the time for all good men _________________________________________________________________ Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/

Not everyone is registered to vote - I have a son who refused to return the form for many years and he isn't the only person I know that won't give their details. You can ask that your details are withheld from the general register on display at Libraries etc - something you can request on the form itself Not everyone appears in the phone book - I don't and I've had a phone at home for over 25 years without an entry in the local directory. If I get a request for data on a living person I give the requestor the information on how to find this themselves, including suggesting they try writing to the local newspaper(s) who are often willing to run a letter or small article requesting people to get in contact. I also mention the various agencies whose role it is to locate missing people. The GRO index is available to everyone and local libraries with a local studies section often keep copies of old newspapers in their archive collection. As several listers have already pointed out there is an awful lot of data about the general public already recorded and available if you know where to look for it; requestors should be able to discover the information they want for themselves once aware of those sources. Regards, Dot Dorothy Holden Dover Kent England There are three things that can never be retrieved- the spoken word, time past and the neglected opportunity I volunteer for the Random Acts of Genealogical Kindness website www.raogk.org

I find that the DPA is quoted far too often these days. Every person in the UK registered to vote is on a list which is freely available. Telephone directories are freely available. How can anyone's name and address be secret these days? Brian Binns -----Original Message----- From: nottsgen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:nottsgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of ListMail Sent: 21 April 2009 23:22 To: nottsgen Subject: Re: [NTT] Fw: Re: Living and data protection It is generally accepted that the Rootsweb guidelines are followed and details for those born in the last 100 years are not posted to the list. Most abide by this. Asking if anyone knows of the X family who lived at 10 Anywhere Lane, Anytown in the 1950s and invite private replies would seem to be outside the guidelines. One needs to read the DPA to see what it actually provides, rather than believe the construction many place on it. If one wants total privacy then lobby for all government and private databases to wiped clean. Keith Wellington, NZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "P WILLIAMS" <p.williams352@btinternet.com> To: "nottsgen" <nottsgen-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:07 AM Subject: [NTT] Fw: Re: Living and data protection Hi All I don't wish to put any spokes in the wheel so to speak, but are we 100% sure that we should give out living people's details on our lists. I work for the Government and under our DPA rules we are not allowed to give out any details unless prior consent from the person in question. I know there is a great deal to be found about anybody these days, if we search hard enough, but we have to remember that security for what ever reason is of the utmost importance, especially in our current climate. We, at our place of work have procedures to follow even if the police require information, we must remember that Loan Sharks and Debt Collectors all have devious ways of tracing people and may use even this list as a way of tracking a person down. In no way am I saying that this is the case, but are we sure? I'm sorry, to be a spoil sport in all of this, but would it be better if we could advise the person on how to trace rather than pass any relevant information on. For example 192.com. All the Best Pat Williams Notts Surname List http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/notts.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NOTTSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Notts Surname List http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/notts.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NOTTSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

From: "P WILLIAMS" <p.williams352@btinternet.com> > I don't wish to put any spokes in the wheel so to speak, but are we > 100% sure that we should give out living people's details on our > lists.   I work for the Government and under our DPA rules we are not > allowed to give out any details unless prior consent from the person > in question. I know there is a great deal to be found about anybody > these days, if we search hard enough, but we have to remember that > security for what ever reason is of the utmost importance, especially > in our current climate.   We, at our place of work have procedures to > follow even if the police require information, we must remember that > Loan Sharks and Debt Collectors all have devious ways of tracing > people and may use even this list as a way of tracking a person down. > In no way am I saying that this is the case, but are we sure?   I'm > sorry, to be a spoil sport in all of this, but would it be better if > we could advise the person on how to trace rather than pass any > relevant information on. For example 192.com.< Oh dear, here we go again with the usual paranoid nonsense! I get the feeling some people will not be happy until we are all walking around with numbers stamped across our foreheads (or some other appropriate part of our anatomy) and not permitted to have names at all. Am I not allowed to know the name of my next-door neighbour and what he does for a living or the names of his wife and children? Genealogists should be the very last people to impose censorship on themselves. Are we not supporters of freedom of information and should we not be calling for more of it, not less? Let's get one thing clear, shall we? No-one's birthdate is their own exclusive private property! It is a matter of public record that I was born on a certain day of a certain month in the year 1940 in Bradford, Yorkshire. Any half decent family historian could find me and I can usually find most people's birth, including their mother's surname which have been on record since the third quarter of 1911 in the GRO birth indexes. Name me any moderately well-known person you like and I will take a bet that you will find their full birth details with Google. There are so many other aids to identifying people - phone books both on paper and online, electoral registers, etc - that to claim we as family historians are putting people at risk is simply scaremongering. I find it ironic, amusing even, that you as a government civil servant should be calling for us to impose restrictions on ourselves when we have all read of scandal after scandal of this government's appalling record of collecting enormous amounts of data on everybody and then LOSING IT !!!!! All this paranoia about identity theft is just so much wearisome rubbish. The simple solution is NEVER to give your mother's maiden name to a bank or any other financial institution. MAKE SOMETHING UP, for pete's sake! All they want, after all, is a codeword that only you and they know. I changed mine the day the GRO indexes went online, so it won't help anybody to find it. Really, I do get fed up of all this paranoia about living people. The only complaints I've ever had from my relatives when writing up the family history and including them in descendant charts is when I've accidentially left somebody out! Let's take a common sense view and not a panic- stirring one, shall we? -- 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