From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk
In message ,
Chris Dickinson writes:
[Twice, I think (-:]
>On Saturday, 21 April 2018 18:40:10 UTC+1, MB wrote:
[]
>I'm trying not to get into political territory.
(I fear you can't avoid it if you enter this one.)
>
>The TNA records are not complete nor duplicate the records destroyed.
>For instance, they don't include arrivals by plane, and (I think,
>though could well be wrong) only numbers of children rather than more
>specific details.
>
>The problem with incomplete records is that absence from the written
>record does not prove anything (genealogists should be acutely aware of
>that)
In this case, _presence_ in the written record _would_ be useful to
those affected, though.
>
>This raises loads of political, practical, humanitarian and ethical
>issues (which I would argue forcefully on other forums), but these are
>not appropriate here.
If proof of arriving on the Windrush (OK, in the case of children, it
sounds as if it isn't provable from this source) alone is useful to
those affected, then such a source is better than nothing. I certainly
don't agree with the destruction - and definitely data protection
legislation seems more used as an excuse for doing, or not doing, things
than it is for doing. [As the LostCousins newsletter writer says, data
protection legislation ought at least to protect data!]
I presume the Home Office (or whoever it is)'s argument is that proof of
arrival isn't enough: they need proof of being here (and paying taxes,
if you like) for a substantial part of the intervening time. They don't
want to actually say that that's what they need, though, as it at least
_implies_ an accusation of fraud.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"I'm not against women. Not often enough, anyway." - Groucho Marx
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
