| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4745
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 6:40 pm: | 
|
Glenn, how can White have your moustache when it is here?
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3865
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
Robert,
You're weird. 
But that's why we love you.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 618
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Thanks Glenn, I love the illustrations in 'The Illustrated Police News' reminds me of the penny dreadfuls. And I have to say I really enjoyed your illustrations in the latest 'Ripper Notes'
All the best
Rob |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3869
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 10:45 pm: |
|
Thanks Rob.
If I had the money and opportunity it would actually be great to collect some of those illustrated contemporary papers. There seems to have been bundles of different ones.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AmateurSleuth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Stephen White was born in 1855 according to the 1881 Census. |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 678
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Actually it's 1854, according to his birth certificate (I have a copy). And I wouldn't rely on census records for accuracy
Rob |
AmateurSleuth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Thank you for responding to my post.
Is it possible for you to post your copy on Casebook or is it already on here? It's such a large site to search for something specific. Why were the Census records inaccurate? Were they not based on each citizen's birth certificate?
Thanks, AS |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 681
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Hi AS
Sorry I can't post an image of the certificate, as it is copyrighted. I did post the main details of the certificate earlier in this thread (post 272 Saturday 17 July 2004).
If I remember this correctly (someone like Chris Scott will know for definite) Census forms were handed out door to door and filled in by the head of the household. They were then given back to an enumerator, who writes it into the census records which we can access today. There can be any number of reasons for inaccurate information, bad memory, transcription errors by the enumerator or people just guessing, but if you follow individuals over several census returns there occasionally is variance in ages. I'm not saying this happens to everyone, but it happens enough, so it is best to use other sources like birth records for accuracy.
All the best
Rob |
AmateurSleuth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 12:04 am: |
|
Thanks Rob for your information. I just thought that the enumerator required each person to show their birth certificate and then the enumerator filled out the form and the individual signed it. I guess I was mistaken. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 435
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
I believe at one time there was only a legal accuracy required for ages in census returns plus or minus five years.
Peter Birchwood would know for sure.
I would suggest AS before plastering the site with 'corrections' you first of all know what you are talking about - as regards to census returns you obviously don't!
Bob Hinton
Bob Hinton |
AmateurSleuth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Hi Bob:
Thanks for your suggestion but in future if you wish to respond to my posts, could you possibly be a little more polite?
Thank you and have a nice day. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 4:12 am: |
|
AS,
I wrote:
"I would suggest AS before plastering the site with 'corrections' you first of all know what you are talking about - as regards to census returns you obviously don't! "
Since you have already agreed that you don't know what you are talking about, your post December 8th.
" I just thought that the enumerator required each person to show their birth certificate and then the enumerator filled out the form and the individual signed it. I guess I was mistaken."
What do you find impolite in my statement?
The problem I have with you AS is that you have made numerous ‘corrections’ on this board. None of us like being corrected, but I am sure that the majority of us, myself included, will overcome this in a desire to learn more.
However when these ‘corrections’ turn out to be based on faulty information that you have about the way the census works, information that was readily available with a little effort and access to the Internet, I really do find that offensive.
It is the equivalent of a stranger coming into your home and telling you how everything in it is wrong.
What is worse, when someone points out your discourteous behaviour you start whining and demanding that people treat you ‘politely’. I maintain that I have not treated you in any other way, but even if I had – wouldn’t I be justified?
People like you continually bring up their ‘right’ to their say, but they never mention the other ‘R’ word – responsibility. If you wish to jump in correcting everyone you have a responsibility to ensure that you are in fact right!
Bob Hinton |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page