Hi Dennis,
I dare say someone else might be more knowledgeable on this, but I believe that's because the Birth, Marriage and Death records aren't "linked"!
There are more than a few instances of "not very nice folk" obtaining passports and the like using BC's for people who died as infants (A quick walk round any modern graveyard can supply that information). As I understand it, the passport office can't (or at least could'nt) check if a DC had ever been issued for that person, so was wasn't questioned.
I don't know if that situation has changed by now.
*** 2008 New Data Announcement ***
Moderator: Global Moderators
-
emanday
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2927
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 12:50 am
- Location: Born in Glasgow: now in Bristol
-
Currie
- Posts: 3924
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:20 am
- Location: Australia
Hello Mary and Dennis,
That scenario probably first come to public notice in a movie. I think it was “Day of the Jackal.” The Jackal needed a false identity, via a passport, in order to assassinate President De Gaulle and went looking for a suitable child’s gravestone etc. I’m not sure but he may have obtained the child’s birth certificate and that was all he needed to get the passport.
The movie was released in 1973 and I haven’t read reports of any great upsurge in that particular technique since then. However, over the years since there has been a tendency to require much more than just a birth certificate as proof of identity.
The matching of birth and death records brings visions of a white haired old man with a huge register writing down names of people as they are born, writing a note in the margin when the marry and ruling through the entry when they die. “Whoops! I crossed out the wrong one, what do I do now, write ‘stet’ or send in the extermination squad.”
Such a system would have to be “User Pays” i.e. you would have to pay an annual licence fee to maintain it. Imagine the Licence Inspector knocking on the door and asking to see your “Life Register Licence”. What would happen if you said you didn’t have one because you could no longer afford the fee?
Of course there still would be some who never got crossed off, and after 100 years or so they would have to be followed up, much like a Stale Cheque Register had to be.
Such a system would work much better if we all had numbers and electronic bracelets with built in microphones, perhaps also with inbuilt timers and high voltages to detect and correct deviations and to defrag the population when necessary.
The Crooks or Terrorists or whoever would probably have no difficulty finding a way around any such arrangement as is usually the case. In fact that form of identity theft is probably so unwieldy and time consuming that no self respecting modern criminal would bother with it especially if meant leaving the comfort of their own home.
Genealogy would probably become a lot easier. You could just put coins in a Genealogy Machine and out it all would come. Imagine how boring that would be.
I think I would prefer things to stay just the way they are.
Happy New Year,
Alan
That scenario probably first come to public notice in a movie. I think it was “Day of the Jackal.” The Jackal needed a false identity, via a passport, in order to assassinate President De Gaulle and went looking for a suitable child’s gravestone etc. I’m not sure but he may have obtained the child’s birth certificate and that was all he needed to get the passport.
The movie was released in 1973 and I haven’t read reports of any great upsurge in that particular technique since then. However, over the years since there has been a tendency to require much more than just a birth certificate as proof of identity.
The matching of birth and death records brings visions of a white haired old man with a huge register writing down names of people as they are born, writing a note in the margin when the marry and ruling through the entry when they die. “Whoops! I crossed out the wrong one, what do I do now, write ‘stet’ or send in the extermination squad.”
Such a system would have to be “User Pays” i.e. you would have to pay an annual licence fee to maintain it. Imagine the Licence Inspector knocking on the door and asking to see your “Life Register Licence”. What would happen if you said you didn’t have one because you could no longer afford the fee?
Of course there still would be some who never got crossed off, and after 100 years or so they would have to be followed up, much like a Stale Cheque Register had to be.
Such a system would work much better if we all had numbers and electronic bracelets with built in microphones, perhaps also with inbuilt timers and high voltages to detect and correct deviations and to defrag the population when necessary.
The Crooks or Terrorists or whoever would probably have no difficulty finding a way around any such arrangement as is usually the case. In fact that form of identity theft is probably so unwieldy and time consuming that no self respecting modern criminal would bother with it especially if meant leaving the comfort of their own home.
Genealogy would probably become a lot easier. You could just put coins in a Genealogy Machine and out it all would come. Imagine how boring that would be.
I think I would prefer things to stay just the way they are.
Happy New Year,
Alan
-
ninatoo
- Posts: 1231
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Australia
Haha, I think I just received LAST year's notification letter again!
*** New Data Announcement***
We are pleased to announce that this year we have received permission to
release the new years statutory data earlier than in previous years.
Customers can now access, online, records from the Statutory Register of
Births for 1906, the Statutory Register of Marriages for 1931, and the
Statutory Register of Deaths for 1956.
Honestly, I just got this five minutes ago!
Too much Christmas cheer at SP?
*** New Data Announcement***
We are pleased to announce that this year we have received permission to
release the new years statutory data earlier than in previous years.
Customers can now access, online, records from the Statutory Register of
Births for 1906, the Statutory Register of Marriages for 1931, and the
Statutory Register of Deaths for 1956.
Honestly, I just got this five minutes ago!
Too much Christmas cheer at SP?
Researching: Easton ( Renfrewshire, Dunbarton and Glasgow), Corr (Londonderry and Glasgow), Carson (Co. Down, Irvine, Ayrshire and Glasgow), Logan (Londonderry and Glasgow)
-
emanday
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2927
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 12:50 am
- Location: Born in Glasgow: now in Bristol
Thanks Alan,
I knew I'd seen the method used somewhere, and you're right of course about it being a bit time consuming for "yer average villian" who'd probably just steal someone's passport
Having made my "numbering" suggestion without thinking it through properly...
...you are so right! What would I do with my time if it were made that easy?
Sneaks off to give self good talking to
I knew I'd seen the method used somewhere, and you're right of course about it being a bit time consuming for "yer average villian" who'd probably just steal someone's passport
That's the thing, certainly in some countries, though - we are all given a number at birth and then a second one when we start to work. Surely it wouldn't be that difficult to include these in registrations?Currie wrote:Such a system would work much better if we all had numbers
Currie wrote:Genealogy would probably become a lot easier. You could just put coins in a Genealogy Machine and out it all would come. Imagine how boring that would be.
I think I would prefer things to stay just the way they are.
Having made my "numbering" suggestion without thinking it through properly......you are so right! What would I do with my time if it were made that easy?
Sneaks off to give self good talking to
[b]Mary[/b]
A cat leaves pawprints on your heart
McDonald or MacDonald (some couldn't make up their mind!), Bonner, Crichton, McKillop, Campbell, Cameron, Gitrig (+other spellings), Clark, Sloan, Stewart, McCutcheon, Ireland (the surname)
A cat leaves pawprints on your heart
McDonald or MacDonald (some couldn't make up their mind!), Bonner, Crichton, McKillop, Campbell, Cameron, Gitrig (+other spellings), Clark, Sloan, Stewart, McCutcheon, Ireland (the surname)
-
speleobat2
- Posts: 1646
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:14 pm
- Location: USA--Alabama
Mary,
Your cats could probably come up with several suggestions for all that extra free time.
One of mine is rattling around downstairs right now so I'd better go make sure she didn't bring me a live present....
Carol
Your cats could probably come up with several suggestions for all that extra free time.
One of mine is rattling around downstairs right now so I'd better go make sure she didn't bring me a live present....
Carol
Looking for: Clerihew, Longmuir/Longmore, Chalmers, Milne, Barclay in Newhills,
Munro, Cadenhead, Raitt, Ririe/Reary
Munro, Cadenhead, Raitt, Ririe/Reary
-
Jean Jeanie
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1288
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 6:54 pm
- Location: Stafford West Mids
Hi Nina
Ah well, good job they'll last until next week
Best wishes
Jean
I received the above this morning too. Got all excited thinking it was the new data and bought some credits and wondered why I couldn't find what I was expecting to find.ninatoo wrote:Haha, I think I just received LAST year's notification letter again!
*** New Data Announcement***
We are pleased to announce that this year we have received permission to
release the new years statutory data earlier than in previous years.
Customers can now access, online, records from the Statutory Register of
Births for 1906, the Statutory Register of Marriages for 1931, and the
Statutory Register of Deaths for 1956.
Honestly, I just got this five minutes ago!
Too much Christmas cheer at SP?
Ah well, good job they'll last until next week
Best wishes
Jean
-
Currie
- Posts: 3924
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:20 am
- Location: Australia
The following is the relevant section of the email I received on 24th December.
*** New Data Announcement***
We are pleased to announce that this year we have received permission to release the new years statutory data earlier than in previous years.
Customers can now access, online, records from the Statutory Register of Births for 1906, the Statutory Register of Marriages for 1931, and the Statutory Register of Deaths for 1956. Almost 100,000 new index and corresponding image entries have been added to the site, amounting to six gigabytes of data. This is now available at http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/
It clearly states “now access” “have been added” “now available.” The link takes you to the ScotlandsPeople home page, not specifically to any particular additional detail.
An announcement on another ScotlandsPeople site page is as follows:
*** 2008 New Data Announcement ***
We are pleased to announce that this year we have received permission to release the new years statutory data on 31st December 2007. This will comprise records from the Statutory Register of Births for 1907, the Statutory Register of Marriages for 1932, and the Statutory Register of Deaths for 1957. Almost 120,000 new index and corresponding image entries have been added to the site, amounting to six gigabytes of data.
Eagle eyed customers will have noticed that the dates given in the newsletter were one year out! Apologies for this.
You will note that the ScotlandsPeople have apologised for the error in the dates and has implied that only eagle-eyed customers would have noticed it. Another thing you may notice is that they have added the date of release “31st December 2007” but this time without comment or apology.
Are they saying that people with normal vision would have read the dates as 2007 and then gone on to read that the data was available ”now”.
At least two people on this forum, experienced genealogists, have wasted credits because of confusion over the wording of ScotlandsPeople’s email. The money wasted is currently in the pockets of ScotlandsPeople. How many people, world-wide, do you imaging would have been affected.
Has anyone received an email correcting the previous error, apologising for it and offering to refund any credits wasted because of confusion caused by its wording. I’m still waiting, nothing so far, not even the correct information.
Hopefully ScotlandsPeople is not going to sit back and wish that the matter will go away and that people will not ask for the return of their money. Any organisation taking such a “not my fault” attitude could find itself subject to legal penalty and customer hostility.
To put it in a nutshell,
1. The email from ScotlandsPeople was incorrect in its content.
2. People have reacted to the email by paying money to ScotlandsPeople.
3. Credits purchased have been spent on a product which doesn’t exist.
3. ScotlandsPeople have acknowledged that the email was incorrect.
4. ?
The emails announcing the new data are, it seems, still going out to potential confusees even subsequent to the posting of the correction on the ScotlandsPeople site. As you read this people may still be wasting credits looking for data which will not appear until 31st December.
My suggestion to those who have fallen into this trap is that they ask for a refund of their credits, ask for emails to be sent out to everyone who was sent the original email, giving them the correct information, apologising for the error and offering a refund of wasted credits purchased within the particular timeframe by anyone claiming to have been misled.
If you are concerned that the Christmas/New Year break is delaying a full and appropriate response from ScotlandsPeople by all means wait for a week or so until things are back to normal and then pursue the matter without fail.
Alan
LATER
Having just re-read my post while wearing my eagle eyeglasses I think that the bit in the paragraph about half way down should read “….. normal vision would have read the dates as 1907 etc. and then….”
Alan
*** New Data Announcement***
We are pleased to announce that this year we have received permission to release the new years statutory data earlier than in previous years.
Customers can now access, online, records from the Statutory Register of Births for 1906, the Statutory Register of Marriages for 1931, and the Statutory Register of Deaths for 1956. Almost 100,000 new index and corresponding image entries have been added to the site, amounting to six gigabytes of data. This is now available at http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/
It clearly states “now access” “have been added” “now available.” The link takes you to the ScotlandsPeople home page, not specifically to any particular additional detail.
An announcement on another ScotlandsPeople site page is as follows:
*** 2008 New Data Announcement ***
We are pleased to announce that this year we have received permission to release the new years statutory data on 31st December 2007. This will comprise records from the Statutory Register of Births for 1907, the Statutory Register of Marriages for 1932, and the Statutory Register of Deaths for 1957. Almost 120,000 new index and corresponding image entries have been added to the site, amounting to six gigabytes of data.
Eagle eyed customers will have noticed that the dates given in the newsletter were one year out! Apologies for this.
You will note that the ScotlandsPeople have apologised for the error in the dates and has implied that only eagle-eyed customers would have noticed it. Another thing you may notice is that they have added the date of release “31st December 2007” but this time without comment or apology.
Are they saying that people with normal vision would have read the dates as 2007 and then gone on to read that the data was available ”now”.
At least two people on this forum, experienced genealogists, have wasted credits because of confusion over the wording of ScotlandsPeople’s email. The money wasted is currently in the pockets of ScotlandsPeople. How many people, world-wide, do you imaging would have been affected.
Has anyone received an email correcting the previous error, apologising for it and offering to refund any credits wasted because of confusion caused by its wording. I’m still waiting, nothing so far, not even the correct information.
Hopefully ScotlandsPeople is not going to sit back and wish that the matter will go away and that people will not ask for the return of their money. Any organisation taking such a “not my fault” attitude could find itself subject to legal penalty and customer hostility.
To put it in a nutshell,
1. The email from ScotlandsPeople was incorrect in its content.
2. People have reacted to the email by paying money to ScotlandsPeople.
3. Credits purchased have been spent on a product which doesn’t exist.
3. ScotlandsPeople have acknowledged that the email was incorrect.
4. ?
The emails announcing the new data are, it seems, still going out to potential confusees even subsequent to the posting of the correction on the ScotlandsPeople site. As you read this people may still be wasting credits looking for data which will not appear until 31st December.
My suggestion to those who have fallen into this trap is that they ask for a refund of their credits, ask for emails to be sent out to everyone who was sent the original email, giving them the correct information, apologising for the error and offering a refund of wasted credits purchased within the particular timeframe by anyone claiming to have been misled.
If you are concerned that the Christmas/New Year break is delaying a full and appropriate response from ScotlandsPeople by all means wait for a week or so until things are back to normal and then pursue the matter without fail.
Alan
LATER
Having just re-read my post while wearing my eagle eyeglasses I think that the bit in the paragraph about half way down should read “….. normal vision would have read the dates as 1907 etc. and then….”
Alan
-
ninatoo
- Posts: 1231
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Australia
-
Jean Jeanie
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1288
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 6:54 pm
- Location: Stafford West Mids
-
iainkennedy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:54 pm
They seem to have made a bit of a hash of this year's release. I set my alarm for first thing yesterday but didn't see any data until about 4pm, then the site was so busy I couldn't get any search results. Now finally I am in but they have extended? the data by *another* year (1908/1933/1958) but the 1958 deaths are index only, no images ...
'Statutory Registers
» Births 1855-1908
» Marriages 1855-1933
» Deaths 1855-1958'
Is this a mini-trial of their plan to release all the indexes up to the present day but without the images?
Iain Kennedy
Glasgow
http://www.kennedydna.com/kons.htm
'Statutory Registers
» Births 1855-1908
» Marriages 1855-1933
» Deaths 1855-1958'
Is this a mini-trial of their plan to release all the indexes up to the present day but without the images?
Iain Kennedy
Glasgow
http://www.kennedydna.com/kons.htm