Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Census 2021

If you don't want to deal with arms manufacturers, you'd need to stop using postal services in the UK (Lockheed Martin manage and run sorting office machines).
Thanks for the advice, but I'll do what I want, thanks.
 
Nah, reduced expenditure in poorer areas is not the result of deficiencies in spatial demographic data sets; it's the inevitable outcome of neoliberal, consolidator state policies.

I'm aware of the reasons that the state offers for the census; it's just that they're unbelievable.
Sorry but you are just posting generic 'the state is bad so everything it does is necessarily bad' tosh. The state decides general parameters - badly - and then uses the data to apply them. Refusing to take part will simply compound their failures and deliberate strategies. You are playing into their hands.

And it is not just 'the state' (which doesn't have an actual consciousness to decide these things) who offer these reasons, they are supported by workers in a vast range of industries.

Danny Dorling says:

Both the 1991 and 2001 census revealed that our admin records were including a million people who were not actually here anymore. The 2011 census found half a million extra people that were not here according to the official estimates. The census corrects and finds faults in admin records. Admin records are not a safe replacement for it.

Censuses have always been used to address the key problems of the day. The 1911 census asked women how many of their babies had died. Infant mortality at the time took up to 1 in 10 of the richest of peoples’ new-born infants. The 1971 census asked for details about housing quality, hot running water and toilets. Slums were still being cleared then and the authorities needed to know what was left that was still in poor condition. The 2011 census asked, for the first time ever, how many bedrooms were in every home. It revealed that there were more bedrooms in central London than people. It showed us that we have enough bedrooms to go round, but that we are increasingly sharing out space badly. In short the 2011 census reveals that the rich have been taking too much of our most limited resource: space.
 
Am I likely to actually get trouble if I don't do this census? Don't like the idea of giving my info to nosey capitalist organisations.
 
Sorry but you are just posting generic 'the state is bad so everything it does is necessarily bad' tosh. The state decides general parameters - badly - and then uses the data to apply them. Refusing to take part will simply compound their failures and deliberate strategies. You are playing into their hands.

And it is not just 'the state' (which doesn't have an actual consciousness to decide these things) who offer these reasons, they are supported by workers in a vast range of industries.

Danny Dorling says:

Both the 1991 and 2001 census revealed that our admin records were including a million people who were not actually here anymore. The 2011 census found half a million extra people that were not here according to the official estimates. The census corrects and finds faults in admin records. Admin records are not a safe replacement for it.

Censuses have always been used to address the key problems of the day. The 1911 census asked women how many of their babies had died. Infant mortality at the time took up to 1 in 10 of the richest of peoples’ new-born infants. The 1971 census asked for details about housing quality, hot running water and toilets. Slums were still being cleared then and the authorities needed to know what was left that was still in poor condition. The 2011 census asked, for the first time ever, how many bedrooms were in every home. It revealed that there were more bedrooms in central London than people. It showed us that we have enough bedrooms to go round, but that we are increasingly sharing out space badly. In short the 2011 census reveals that the rich have been taking too much of our most limited resource: space.
I have a respect for Dorling and appreciate that his work using censal data has real integrity but focussing on how the welfare state used censal data is only of academic interest 35 years beyond the demise of the welfare state.
 
I have a respect for Dorling and appreciate that his work using censal data has real integrity but focussing on how the welfare state used censal data is only of academic interest 35 years beyond the demise of the welfare state.
Utter drivel, it was used immediately to inform a host of decisions.

you are just plain wrong about all this.
 
I hope you haven’t got a store card or a phone then.

it’s a legal requirement, up to £1000 fine for non compliance, tho the average last time was about £250.
Based on 270 convictions.
Vanishingly small chance.
 
Am I likely to actually get trouble if I don't do this census? Don't like the idea of giving my info to nosey capitalist organisations.

My mum has never done it and never had trouble other than having to ignore some door knockers.

It‘s far more risky to avoid the TV license, although that’s not too bad either as I’ve never bought one and never had trouble other than having to ignore some door knockers.
 
According to Wiki there are only a few changes to the 2011 questions, but those added look capable of generating some 'debate':

View attachment 254395
This is ambiguous, because I think the guidance will say, in the question about sex, that trans people can put the sex they identify as, regardless of any GRC. I think that might be different.
 
Still no ducking excuse. In most cases there wouldn’t be a prosecution cos they wouldn’t have been able to identify who to prosecute. Those who explicitly refuse put themselves in the firing line.

more from DD in the uses the census is immediately put to:
 
This is ambiguous, because I think the guidance will say, in the question about sex, that trans people can put the sex they identify as, regardless of any GRC. I think that might be different.
The question is: “What is your sex?
A question about gender identity will follow later on in the questionnaire”

followed by


Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?
This question is voluntary
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
(Enter gender identity)

There is nothing to stop people answering the first one however they like
 
Still no ducking excuse. In most cases there wouldn’t be a prosecution cos they wouldn’t have been able to identify who to prosecute. Those who explicitly refuse put themselves in the firing line.
Exactly; unless you're the sort that would willingly open the door to these Lockheed-Martin employees and blurt out your full name & details, there's no sanction for rejecting the exercise.
 
I'll actually probably do the census if theres a chance of conviction. I live in a building with other residents who I don't trust not to inform door knockers of who I am.

I'm not impressed though, that doing it online is not yet an option.
 
Last edited:
You’ve already said you’re happy for them to have your info.

and they are not Lockheed-martin employees, they are members of the civil service.
Have I?

Ah, yes...those "temporary ONS workers" all recruited, trained and paid by Adecco.
 
I'll actually probably do the census fi theres a chance of conviction. Plus, I live in a building with other residents who I don't trust not to inform door knockers of who I am.

I'm not impressed though, that doing it online is not yet an option.
If you don't trust yourself to withhold info if the Adecco goons come a knocking you're best off complying...otherwise, don't do it you don't feel comfortable engaging with the neoliberal state and their military industrial complex pals.
 
Back
Top Bottom