Hello, Heather, Researchers in the UK and USA are spoiled by having access to old census returns (every 10 years from 1841 in the UK, and thenceforth once 100 years have passed since the census in question, similar rules in the USA, though different dates) but South Africa has never allowed this -- in fact, once the census returns had been checked and analysed for statistical content, they were destroyed soon afterwards. (I believe one package of returns in King Williams Town escaped this fate and was found many years later, but that is the only one. In the UK the opposite is true: a few packages of returns were lost at sea en route from Fife to Edinburgh in 1841.) The same goes for Australia, but the situation will be better for future generations, with notable exceptions. The census of a few years ago contained an optional vote for census details to be retained, which enough people ticked for them to proceed at the next census (5 years later) to make them available PROVIDED the subject had consented. It was at this point that they switched to an on-line census-taking procedure: a package of census forms was delivered to each house, and these gave the option of entering them on-line, and, moreover, you could save your reply if you were not sure about the answers, and log on later (with a password given at your first log- in) and finish the job. If this was done, the census-taker would simply not call again to pick up the completed papers, which you could then retain as a record of what you had said; if not, the caller would sit down with you and help you complete them. The on- line version included permission to disclose after a certain period, I think 100 years. Given that many questions have to be answered, or not, according to what you had said in previous questions, this saved an immense amount of time, because the on-line system would take you direct to the next question that did need answering -- and if you had made a mistake you could always go back and change any previous answers, and the inter-active system could cope with this also. This is an excellent system. Of course all the genies said yes, and I for one have been trying to get the Australian Taxation Office to adopt a similar system for tax returns, since their on-line returns require a special app -- which only works on certain versions of Windows and is thus useless for anyone using older versions, Vista, or any other OS, especially Macintosh, Android, open source OS, etc. They cite privacy as the reason for their refusal, despite the password aspect of it, and so do Social Services applying the assets and income tests for pensions. It's not clear to me why these are more private than intimate details of who slept where in the census! On 22 Jan 2014, at 12:24 PM, Heather Dickson wrote (snip): > that is why I an curious if there is a way to see who was living > at a given address. Andrew Rodger [email protected]

Hi Andrew, Yes, we are spoilt - I have to say the census have been so helpful and it is always interesting in having an address! It really is sad to think of all the census being destroyed. Take care, Heather Sent from my Cream Puff On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:09 PM, Andrew Rodger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, Heather, > > Researchers in the UK and USA are spoiled by having access to old > census returns (every 10 years from 1841 in the UK, and thenceforth > once 100 years have passed since the census in question, similar > rules in the USA, though different dates) but South Africa has never > allowed this -- in fact, once the census returns had been checked and > analysed for statistical content, they were destroyed soon > afterwards. (I believe one package of returns in King Williams Town > escaped this fate and was found many years later, but that is the > only one. In the UK the opposite is true: a few packages of returns > were lost at sea en route from Fife to Edinburgh in 1841.) > > The same goes for Australia, but the situation will be better for > future generations, with notable exceptions. The census of a few > years ago contained an optional vote for census details to be > retained, which enough people ticked for them to proceed at the next > census (5 years later) to make them available PROVIDED the subject > had consented. It was at this point that they switched to an on-line > census-taking procedure: a package of census forms was delivered to > each house, and these gave the option of entering them on-line, and, > moreover, you could save your reply if you were not sure about the > answers, and log on later (with a password given at your first log- > in) and finish the job. If this was done, the census-taker would > simply not call again to pick up the completed papers, which you > could then retain as a record of what you had said; if not, the > caller would sit down with you and help you complete them. The on- > line version included permission to disclose after a certain period, > I think 100 years. Given that many questions have to be answered, or > not, according to what you had said in previous questions, this saved > an immense amount of time, because the on-line system would take you > direct to the next question that did need answering -- and if you had > made a mistake you could always go back and change any previous > answers, and the inter-active system could cope with this also. > > This is an excellent system. Of course all the genies said yes, and > I for one have been trying to get the Australian Taxation Office to > adopt a similar system for tax returns, since their on-line returns > require a special app -- which only works on certain versions of > Windows and is thus useless for anyone using older versions, Vista, > or any other OS, especially Macintosh, Android, open source OS, etc. > They cite privacy as the reason for their refusal, despite the > password aspect of it, and so do Social Services applying the assets > and income tests for pensions. It's not clear to me why these are > more private than intimate details of who slept where in the census! > > On 22 Jan 2014, at 12:24 PM, Heather Dickson wrote (snip): > >> that is why I an curious if there is a way to see who was living >> at a given address. > > Andrew Rodger > [email protected] > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message