Re: Petition to have Open Access to Some BMD's


"Charles Ellson" <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ehbfo4tgiju23mua7a55q52o78l58clu7v@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 22:47:00 -0000, "Don Moody"
<dpmoody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Barry" <barry.shaun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lDAhl.19561$875.7754@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have been sent an email asking me to sign this Petition.

I thought I would pass it on but no doubt some posters on here
will
pass there Usual Comments.
However I will not be answering any of them as its up to you to
read
and sign if you want to.

The point of it has not affected me nor have I come across it yet

Barry



There is a 10 Downing Street e-petition looking for support to
have
open access to
the registers of Births, Marriages and Deaths from 1837 to 1908.

This one act would enable all family historians and genealogists
to
find the right
family certificate without having to purchase a copy certificate
which turns out to be
incorrect. Support will make family history just that little bit
easier, after all these
registrations are over 100 years old. The link is:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/OpenBMDrecords/

All petitions which say 'we want' get the knee-jerk Treasury
response
'who pays?'. In this instance they would add 'who replaces the
revenue
raised by the existing scheme?' No answer to those two questions in
the petition means its a dead duck.

Revenue ? Are you saying the politicians have been lying to us when
thet say the charges are merely to cover the costs ?

Is there any sentient being who believes politicians don't lie?

The civil servants who do the work have job protection rights and
would be expensive to get rid of. They'd be an ongoing expense in
benefits since many would be unemployable in their locality. From the
Treasury point of view there would be a large loss to cover, There
isn't the cash in the kitty to cover it. So it has to be covered from
revenue.

It takes a lot of time to rejig employment systems to take full
advantage of modern technology in the most cost-efficient way.
Governments are particularly bad at it. Commerce is marginally better
because those clinging to old methods rapidly go bust when a new
start-up with new methods gets going. The start-up doesn't have the
burden of what to do with the folk made redundant in the old
companies. That's a Government problem.

This is all true regardless of the insane antics of the present
Government which believes that the answer to insane levels of past
over-borrowing is to have even more insane levels of over-borrowing,
and use that additional over-borrowing to produce, say, cars which
people don't want and won't buy. The system is bound to collapse, and
is going to have genealogical consequences. One of which will not be
the mass migrations of the Victorian era. There are no more empty
spaces to receive such migrations.

Don


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: House Budget Chairman Paul Ryans Goal Is to Shrink Government, Not the Deficit
    ... Wouldn't it be much easier to pay for government programs, if the size of government were smaller? ... House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's Goal Is to ... and unrealistic spending cuts and actually reduces revenue. ... The plan is motivated not by a desire to balance the budget but rather ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: If I Were The Devil......{NDC}
    ... revenue. ... mind of every family member for my agenda. ... effectively running the government. ... and for freeborn informed adults to have control over their own ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: There you go again
    ... yet the state government says they still need more ... Republicans was that the state issued bonds legally and ran huge ... revenue sources for this reason, ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: For the deficit hawks among us
    ... The Bush tax cuts did not cost the government revenue. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)