Preparedness for when

Karmacat

pineapple wrote: »

Norty pineapple was a census refusenik. Well she didn't 'refuse' exactly, she just never seemed to be in when the Capita hirelings came a knocking :huh:

I understand in relation to this thread, but I'm an amateur genealogist :eek: **cries**





CTC - you've made some good points there ...

fuddle

CTC It's the not knowing, the ifs and then whens that fuel the panic for me re: money. Once the path is clear I enter head down and sort mode.

I agree with you about keeping our service personnel as safe as possible and can fully understand the need for services to have everyone at risk, together in a lesser risky position. Not everyone is against us all of the time.

jk0

Can you guys believe the news about our soldiers being investigated for war crimes in Iraq?

!!!!!!, insurgents don't follow the Geneva Convention. Why on earth should our lads? Who'd be a soldier in politically correct Britain, eh?

GreyQueen

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I wouldn't because, as far as I'm concerned, the less TPTB know about me, the better.

Yeah. An ONS survey geezer wanted me for their survey and seemed affronted and astonished that I didn't want to participate. He was very pushy - eventually I told him it wasn't convenient just then and he self-arranged to return.

Sadly I was 'out'. I have lately adopted the habit of some of my asocial neighbours and am 'out' to all unexpected callers. Saves me from the door-to-door chuggers, too.:rotfl:

[Deleted User]

For the benefit of fuddle (and anyone else looking for one), Home Bargains are selling a 2000W electric convection heater, for £12-99.

armyknife

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I wouldn't because, as far as I'm concerned, the less TPTB know about me, the better.

Even if that means they have a more inaccurate picture of the UK population and so government expenditure is more inefficiently apportioned, ending up costing all of us tax payers slightly more or getting a bit less services as a result?

armyknife

jk0 wrote: »

Can you guys believe the news about our soldiers being investigated for war crimes in Iraq?

!!!!!!, insurgents don't follow the Geneva Convention. Why on earth should our lads? Who'd be a soldier in politically correct Britain, eh?

Have you read the Geneva conventions?

moneyistooshorttomention

GQ - I had a feeling you might have encountered this survey before. Hmmm....conspiracy theory for the day - its the "rebels" on this thread that have encountered this = Bedsit Bob, your good self and now me:cool:

Not that I'm paranoid - but I used ta' work for the Gubinment (for my sins) and therefore am all too well aware about not feeling very trusting of them re confidentiality or owt else....

Sorta looks like decision made. That and I found me the Government document about this and scrolled down to the statistics about how long these interviews tend to take and thought "Looks like it would be more than half an hour then....and now I've got an income anyway (ie pension), I won't work for less than £20 per hour (unless I'm the one that chooses to do so - ie in voluntary work)".

One of the blessings of being retired = we set our own terms for any "work" or forget it....:D. It was a source of satisfaction to recently walk out of one voluntary job I was doing because I wasn't happy with it - and counting my blessings I was in a position to do so. One huge virtue of retirement is not having to mentally grit teeth/and do virtual gag yourself and tie yourself to the nearest desk when at work - or otherwise you know you would just walk out and refuse to go back in again. Its all either voluntary (so you can walk out) or reasonably paid (as you don't have to take it if it isn't):T

Oh well.....

GreyQueen

armyknife wrote: »

Even if that means they have a more inaccurate picture of the UK population and so government expenditure is more inefficiently apportioned, ending up costing all of us tax payers slightly more or getting a bit less services as a result?

There are plenty of ways the grubbyment can gather data for gross statistical purposes, such as determining the need for services presently and the anticipated future needs.

They're totally rubbish at using what they already have access to, such as matching the number of births in an area to the number of nursery and school places which will be required a few years later. Heck, they can't even manage to extrapolate the numbes of children in primary education to the likley demand for places in secondary eduction.

If the State can't do something as basic as that, with data they already have, they ought to hang fire on gathering any more info.

They could get info from GP practices; numbers of patients registered in each age band and gender. Council tax data will reveal single adult households (or households where the additional adult(s) falls into an exempt category).

DWP know who they're paying pensions and welfare benefits to now, and who they will be paying pensions to in the future. They've got your kids' details, too, which is why your child tax credits and HB will go wonky when your offspring hit landmark birthdays.

The State already knows who we are and where we live. They know our birthweight and our vaccination history. They know our ages, our genders, our household's composition. They know where we were educated and what our qualifications are. They do not need to be given additional data which may end up being used for purposes other than for which is was gathered.

Which is why I spread misinformation whenever I can get away with it (such as being a Jedi on several censuses) and, preferably, give no information at all.

armyknife

GreyQueen wrote: »

There are plenty of ways the grubbyment can gather data for gross statistical purposes, such as determining the need for services presently and the anticipated future needs.

They're totally rubbish at using what they already have access to, such as matching the number of births in an area to the number of nursery and school places which will be required a few years later. Heck, they can't even manage to extrapolate the numbes of children in primary education to the likley demand for places in secondary eduction.

If the State can't do something as basic as that, with data they already have, they ought to hang fire on gathering any more info.

They could get info from GP practices; numbers of patients registered in each age band and gender. Council tax data will reveal single adult households (or households where the additional adult(s) falls into an exempt category).

DWP know who they're paying pensions and welfare benefits to now, and who they will be paying pensions to in the future. They've got your kids' details, too, which is why your child tax credits and HB will go wonky when your offspring hit landmark birthdays.

The State already knows who we are and where we live. They know our birthweight and our vaccination history. They know our ages, our genders, our household's composition. They know where we were educated and what our qualifications are. They do not need to be given additional data which may end up being used for purposes other than for which is was gathered.

Which is why I spread misinformation whenever I can get away with it (such as being a Jedi on several censuses) and, preferably, give no information at all.

All well and good GeQu, but it's a different kettle of fish, these are randomised sample surveys used for various purposes, often finding out quite 'soft' data. The data you've described isn't in one single database, but spread across hundreds if not thousands of systems of varying age and often mutually intelligible to each other.
It has cost absolute fortunes to not get very far in combining some of these datasets, which is why government departments and the ONS resort to the much cheaper randomised surveys you've encountered.

Do we get the governments we deserve??