"Ruth" <historyscape@gmail.com> wrote : > This sparked my interest as I recently reported to Ancestry that part > of Brighton appeared to be missing from its 1861 census product. This > was part of the Palace district. Now I know the reason. If you look > at the details of piece RG 9/601 on TNA's catalogue you will find a > note which states the piece is "Wanting", i.e. missing. You're not wrong - I should have looked more closely. In relation to the first part of the original question, it is perhaps worth noting that the TNA appears to be inconsistent in the way that it records missing sections. The Brighton piece is listed and noted as 'wanting' under the piece number, but there is no mention within the main details for the Brighton Registration District. To take a different missing section, the Pimlico part of St George Hanover Square RD, this was never allocated piece numbers and the only reference to its loss is under the main details for the RD. Presumably, this difference in treatment reflects the nature and timing of the loss, but it does make it more difficult to locate the necessary information. John Brown Leic., Eng

This sparked my interest as I recently reported to Ancestry that part of Brighton appeared to be missing from its 1861 census product. This was part of the Palace district. Now I know the reason. If you look at the details of piece RG 9/601 on TNA's catalogue you will find a note which states the piece is "Wanting", i.e. missing. On 7/19/05, John Brown <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> wrote: > "Jim Halsey" <jehalsey@gmail.com> wrote : > > > > Does anyone know whether any central authoritative list is available, > > and if so from which public or private source, as to which original > > census records for England and Wales are not available because of loss > > or accidental destruction? I have enquired of the Brighton History > > Centre whether the missing Piece Number for the 1861 Brighton census > > is missing from the microfilm copy by accident or error, or whether > > the original documents are lost or destroyed. They do not know the > > answer, so perhaps SOG members will know whether any informed source > > exists, within or without the public sector. > > The definitive list should be the TNA catalogue listing - this shows pieces > for Brighton being RG 9/591 tro RG 9/602, with no mention of any missing > piece. > > John Brown > Leic., Eng > >

"Jim Halsey" <jehalsey@gmail.com> wrote : > Does anyone know whether any central authoritative list is available, > and if so from which public or private source, as to which original > census records for England and Wales are not available because of loss > or accidental destruction? I have enquired of the Brighton History > Centre whether the missing Piece Number for the 1861 Brighton census > is missing from the microfilm copy by accident or error, or whether > the original documents are lost or destroyed. They do not know the > answer, so perhaps SOG members will know whether any informed source > exists, within or without the public sector. The definitive list should be the TNA catalogue listing - this shows pieces for Brighton being RG 9/591 tro RG 9/602, with no mention of any missing piece. John Brown Leic., Eng

Have you checked the Nat.Archives' catalogue? That has an entry for every piece in every released census. p At 21:56 18/07/2005, Jim Halsey wrote: >Does anyone know whether any central authoritative list is available, >and if so from which public or private source, as to which original >census records for England and Wales are not available because of loss >or accidental destruction? I have enquired of the Brighton History >Centre whether the missing Piece Number for the 1861 Brighton census >is missing from the microfilm copy by accident or error, or whether >the original documents are lost or destroyed. They do not know the >answer, so perhaps SOG members will know whether any informed source >exists, within or without the public sector. >Thank you. >Jim Halsey

In a message dated 19/07/2005 15:00:08 GMT Daylight Time, ml@ctwatts.plus.com writes: > Slight technical nick-pit. Wanting and missing are not actually the same. > Wanting means that the particular piece, or item, was not there on transfer > to the PRO (now TNA). Missing means that it cannot now be located at TNA - i.e. it has been> > mislaid or misfiled (on the over 100 miles of shelving!). > > In the former case, the chances of it turning up are very slim indeed. In > the latter case it should, hopefully, come to light in due course. > I was going to post this particular nit-pick but I see someone has got in before me! Regards, Colin Mills

Does anyone know whether any central authoritative list is available, and if so from which public or private source, as to which original census records for England and Wales are not available because of loss or accidental destruction? I have enquired of the Brighton History Centre whether the missing Piece Number for the 1861 Brighton census is missing from the microfilm copy by accident or error, or whether the original documents are lost or destroyed. They do not know the answer, so perhaps SOG members will know whether any informed source exists, within or without the public sector. Thank you. Jim Halsey

As one who came from Switzerland to England four days early to get a bit of research in London in before a business meeting in Macclesfield this Monday, and earmarked last Friday afternoon for some research at the society, I was disappointed to find a notice at the FRC that the SoG library was closed, not only on the Friday but on the Saturday as well. But that is life, and fortunately TNA in Kew, the Newspaper Library in Colindale and the FRC were functioning normally. On balance it was quite reasonable to close the library, in view of the possible difficulties in travelling on the Friday. Ah, well... Hector Davie

A very difficult decision to have to make on Thursday afternoon, with no Underground services and no bus services in Central London, and with many main-line stations closed. There was no information at that time on when services might start up, and it was not clear first thing on Friday morning what would be running in Central London. It was felt necessary to make a decision and publicise it rather than face problems with being unable to open due to staff unable to reach Central London. At the time, it was pretty clear to those of us who work in Central London, that a request would be made for non-essential journeys not to be made on Friday to ease the burden on the police and transport services. As I write this on Saturday evening, it is clear that it is likely that there will be problems still in Central London until at least Monday morning, and the Piccadilly line will be suspended for longer - the information I am reading suggest it may well be some weeks before that section is reopened because of possible damage to the tunnel lining. How soon the Circle Line through Barbican station will reopen is less clear, although access for forensic teams is a lot easier in those tunnels - my guess is that services will resume within a week. I make my comments with knowledge of the space available and what has to be done, and having worked in the railway industry for many years, including incident management, although, thankfully, nothing like this. As has been pointed out already, the Society does not open its doors for research on Mondays, although some staff and volunteers are in the building on Society business. Frank Hardy

Of course. Thanks for clarifying this Michael. So better than I'd thought. I think the principle still stands. Perhaps I should have written 'Friday just possibly, but Saturday...?' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael.C. Isherwood" <mci3@tutor.open.ac.uk> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] [SoG-NEWS] Society Closure > David Wason writes: >>Monday just possibly, but Tuesday? > > David surely the point is that the library doesn't open on Monday - hence > the Tuesday. > > Michael > >

David Wason writes: >Monday just possibly, but Tuesday? David surely the point is that the library doesn't open on Monday - hence the Tuesday. Michael

"In view of the current emergency situation in London the Society is closed until 10am Tuesday" . Tuesday? Monday just possibly, but Tuesday? Whatever happened to the pride of London, the spirit of the Blitz...? These outrages are designed in part to stop people going about their ordinary business. In the Society's case they seem to have succeeded.

Chris: >The index was kept by the late Margaret Audin. As to its fate, I too would >like to know. Thanks - that is indeed the name I now recall. (A Google search on her name did not provide an answer.) Cheers Brian -- School of Computing Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/

Thank you Geoff Riggs for providing such a full reply to my query. Thanks also to the SoG Genealogy Officer Else Churchill who has also sent me similar information. I am very pleased that the SoG and the FFHS are doing what they can in the circumstances. With no extra funding I guess the ONS will go for the least cost solution, hence the use of the central copies rather that the original records held in the local registries. I would suggest that in these circumstances it would be worth checking the accuracy of the new digitisation by comparing its results with that already done by FHS volunteers with the BMD records in certain local registries such as those in Cheshire and Herefordshire. This would need to be done by computer, rather than manually, by comparing the corresponding fields in files from the two methods. Manual inspection of any discrepancies found with both the local records and their central copies would enable one to find the three independent error/omission rates - in the new transcription of the central records' fields - in the recent transcription by FHSs of the local records - in the original copying of the local records in the past to produce the central certified copies Of course there will probably be some records, both locally and centrally, where the writing is so unclear that it cannot be interpreted with any certainty. Cheers, John John Addis-Smith Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England

The index was kept by the late Margaret Audin. As to its fate, I too would like to know. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Randell" <Brian.Randell@newcastle.ac.uk> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [SoG] [SoG-NEWS] Napoleonic Prisoners of War | Hi: | | >Places still available this Saturday for Napoleonic Prisoners of War... | > | >Saturday 9 July 2005, 10.30am, Napoleonic Prisoners of War. | > | >A half day course with Karen Selby from Peterborough Museum and Peter Clark, | >former BBC TV Educational Producer and President of the LAVIE Society | >(Captain Sir Thomas Lavie KCB RN was a famous POW and the Senior British | >Naval Officer at Verdun.) | | This announcement has prompted a (very) vague memory, of the death of | a (French?) lady a number of years ago who had built up a major index | to Napoleonic prisoners of war, and whose index had been bequeathed | to a university here in Britain. When I contacted them I was told | they had no resources to provide a look-up service. | | Can anyone identify this index, and tell me whether the index still | exists and is accessible? | | cheers | | Brian Randell | | -- | School of Computing Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, | NE1 7RU, UK | EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 | FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/ | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

Hi: >Places still available this Saturday for Napoleonic Prisoners of War... > >Saturday 9 July 2005, 10.30am, Napoleonic Prisoners of War. > >A half day course with Karen Selby from Peterborough Museum and Peter Clark, >former BBC TV Educational Producer and President of the LAVIE Society >(Captain Sir Thomas Lavie KCB RN was a famous POW and the Senior British >Naval Officer at Verdun.) This announcement has prompted a (very) vague memory, of the death of a (French?) lady a number of years ago who had built up a major index to Napoleonic prisoners of war, and whose index had been bequeathed to a university here in Britain. When I contacted them I was told they had no resources to provide a look-up service. Can anyone identify this index, and tell me whether the index still exists and is accessible? cheers Brian Randell -- School of Computing Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:44:01 +0100, John Addis-Smith wrote: >On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:02:12 +0100, Peter Christian wrote on the SoG >Mailing List:: > >>In today's Guardian >>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/egovernment/story/0,12767,1512480,00.html >> >>Probably best not to read this if you're easily outraged by government >>departments not learning their lesson. > >Some more details have since come to light: > >- Len Cook the Registrar General has released a statement on the ONS >web site at: > http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/digit0605.pdf > >- Steve Lloyd, the Communications Manager of Certificate Services at >the General Register Office has replied to an email saying that the >scans to be sent abroad will be made from the microfilm copies of the >centrally held ***certified copies*** of BMD records, not the original >records held in local registries around the country. > >So they have even saved money by scanning existing centrally held >films rather than the original registry records, thus preserving any >errors made in producing the centrally held 'certified copies'. > >Does anyone know if the SoG and the FFHS have made representations >about this? There is not much time before the contract with Siemens is >signed! > > >Cheers, John > >John Addis-Smith >Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England To me the post in another mail list says it all:- Tom ========================================================= On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:54:37 +0100, Guy Etchells wrote in mail list UK-1901-CENSUS >It amazes me that over four years after the idea was first raised >(September 1999), three years after the White Paper and a series of >seminars in February 2002 on the subject, genealogists raise the >subject as if it is a new revelation. >It was announced, consultation has taken place and the situation >generally accepted by the genealogical community including the >Federation of Family History Societies and the Society of Genealogists >that the registers would be digitised in such a manner. It was also >blatantly obvious the likely people to the keying would be based in the >Indian sub-continent. > >There is no Births and Deaths Registration Act that forbids such >information leaving England & Wales as if there was it would be illegal >for people overseas to obtain birth certificates from England & Wales. > >Incidentally there would be no need for the computerised records to be >scanned as they would be in digital format in any case, the records that >are to be scanned are the earlier records going back to possibly 1837 >which have not yet been digitised. Having said that the proposals first >suggested the government were only interested in paying to digitised >records 70 years old and less with private funding paying for older >records. >Cheers >Guy ==========================================================

Hi John Both the FFHS and the SoG have made strong representations, and the FFHS invited Else Churchill of the SoG to accompany Richard Ratcliffe and myself to give oral evidence in the House of Commons to the Regulatory Reform Committee last October. We also presented comparable written evidence to the equivalent House of Lords Committee. As a result, both Committees threw out the DOVE Regulatory Reform Order, and endorsed our comments that the transcriptions should not be outsourced overseas and should ideally be made from the localised records (though in the latter case we realised it would be more cost-effective and logistically practical to use the centralised microfilms). Please see http://www.ffhs.org.uk/Societies/Liaison/Commons.htm sections 108-113 in particular. However, because the RRO was thrown out, there was no legislation (and consequently no extra funding) in place to proceed with DOVE as planned. The GRO are therefore working within the current legislation and funding allocations. The unions have only just woken up to the fact that they are going ahead with the work and outsourcing it overseas, hence the Early Day Motion 394 (see http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/Default.aspx) which has so far received the support of 62 MPs. On the plus side, the GRO are liaising with the FFHS and the SoG on this project, recognising that as users we have a valuable contribution to make in helping to "get it right". We've had 3 meetings to date with the DOVE team, and were also invited to a special presentation in Birmingham by the then three short-listed suppliers and asked for our reactions to them. To be fair, Siemens were the most impressive of the three and were the only bidder who would carry out their quality control testing of the transcriptions back here in the UK rather than in India. The FFHS (and SoG) are continuing to liaise with the GRO in order to get the best possible outcome for family historians, given the circumstances. Geoff Riggs ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Addis-Smith" <genl@addisgen.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 4:44 PM Subject: Digitisation of Civil Registration Records > On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:02:12 +0100, Peter Christian wrote on the SoG > Mailing List:: > > >In today's Guardian > >http://politics.guardian.co.uk/egovernment/story/0,12767,1512480,00.html > > > >Probably best not to read this if you're easily outraged by government > >departments not learning their lesson. > > Some more details have since come to light: > > - Len Cook the Registrar General has released a statement on the ONS > web site at: > http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/digit0605.pdf > > - Steve Lloyd, the Communications Manager of Certificate Services at > the General Register Office has replied to an email saying that the > scans to be sent abroad will be made from the microfilm copies of the > centrally held ***certified copies*** of BMD records, not the original > records held in local registries around the country. > > So they have even saved money by scanning existing centrally held > films rather than the original registry records, thus preserving any > errors made in producing the centrally held 'certified copies'. > > Does anyone know if the SoG and the FFHS have made representations > about this? There is not much time before the contract with Siemens is > signed! > > > Cheers, John > > John Addis-Smith > Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England > > ______________________________

Thank you, Patricia. I'm grateful for that and will try that for now! I am hoping to get a solution that will enable us Mac users to save and print images, too. Stella On 6 Jul 2005, at 14:34, Patricia Ward wrote: >> Stella > I had the same problem. My son advised looking at the images using a > browser called 'Firefox'. > This did enable me to see the images, but I was still unable to print. > >> http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ > > Patricia > > > On 6 Jul 2005, at 09:32, stella wrote: > >> Please can someone help me? I'm trying to view Tiff images on Origins >> - and can't! Apparently alternatiff is only for Windows, and I have a >> Mac. I'm getting really frustrated here, and am not very >> techy-minded. Have others had this problem? Or does everybody else >> use PCs? >> Surely there's a way? All advice gratefully received! >> >> Stella >> >

> Stella I had the same problem. My son advised looking at the images using a browser called 'Firefox'. This did enable me to see the images, but I was still unable to print. > http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ Patricia On 6 Jul 2005, at 09:32, stella wrote: > Please can someone help me? I'm trying to view Tiff images on Origins > - and can't! Apparently alternatiff is only for Windows, and I have a > Mac. I'm getting really frustrated here, and am not very techy-minded. > Have others had this problem? Or does everybody else use PCs? > Surely there's a way? All advice gratefully received! > > Stella >

In message of 6 Jul, stella <stellamy@mac.com> wrote: > Please can someone help me? I'm trying to view Tiff images on Origins - > and can't! Apparently alternatiff is only for Windows, and I have a > Mac. I'm getting really frustrated here, and am not very techy-minded. > Have others had this problem? Or does everybody else use PCs? > Surely there's a way? All advice gratefully received! Possibly your cheapest option might be to get a pc-emulator for the Mac and then run the Origins file reader on that. I think the files are an unusual format and not many tiff readers can handle them. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org