Humph. Thank you for that.
It doesn't surprise me that TNA didn't contact the ICO - they seem, in my view, to make a habit of making decisions that they are not qualified to. For instance in that fuss about discovering that there were young people in the Durham Home Guard, TNA decided that the (genuinely) necessary redactions would make it financially impossible for any IT supplier to proceed. It wasn't their place to make that decision - (a) that's why we have IT experts and (b) the IT companies could decide to run it as a loss leader....
We welcome any query on Who When Where. If you have previously posted it on another forum (including the old WDYTYA forum), please state this in your opening post - this will save people redoing the research which has been done before: they can look at it and possibly go further with it.
1921 census review
-
AdrianBruce
- Posts: 358
- Joined: 14 Jun 2020, 18:57
- Location: South Cheshire
Re: 1921 census review
Adrian Bruce
Re: 1921 census review
In my view TNA nowadays are keeping records closed on the smallest of reasons, particularly on data protection and section 38 (Health and Safety) grounds (e.g James Hanratty and Derek Bentley) yet take no action on records which in my view should never have been opened. I take the point on the Durham Home Guard records, a lot of them can be released as most of the people are dead. A classic example of wrong opening of records were the Seamen's Pouches (the BT 372 series) where the series was supposed to end in 1972 but had men born in the 1980s and that the documents had National Insurance numbers and fingerprints, even the records had previously been opened in Glamorgan. They include the records of Tom Baker and Johnny Dankworth. The BT 372s still have to have that information redacted by TNA even when the men were born over 100 years ago, TNA should fully open the records for those who were born over 100 years ago, it's a no-brainer.