From: tony@proctor_NoMore_SPAM.net   
      
   "J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in message   
   news:VQBLaDdkUI3aFwpd@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   
      
   I agree with you, John. The current data protection and privacy issues are   
   "hot topics", and I see many more cases cropping up of records being   
   destroyed unnecessarily, either because the rules were not clear, or to   
   avoid having to do the required work. Only a couple of days ago, there was a   
   post on facebook from someone who was ordered to destroy records in a   
   funeral home, and she felt very unhappy about it.   
      
       Tony Proctor   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)