Quatloos!

I think George is now considered as vexatious by some parts of TPTB (my bold):

Dear Mr Tsigarides

Thank you for your further e-mail of 15 June, which has again been passed to HM Courts & Tribunals Service for reply. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

Ms Watson at the Ministry of Justice's Data Access and Compliance Unit has explained that the questions you pose are not considered requests for information held that can be provided under the Freedom of Information Act. It stands that you have not received a formal response under the Act, and we are unable to conduct an internal review under the Act in the way you request.

I note the conclusions you have drawn in your e-mail of 3 June and I can only suggest that if you have further concerns or wish to discuss statutory law and the requirement to pay court ordered fines in detail then you may wish to seek independent legal advice.

There is nothing further that I can usefully add on the subjects you continue to raise. I must ensure that tax payers' money is used effectively. For this reason and in line with HMCTS' procedures, I will not be replying again unless you raise new issues. This will also apply to any letters sent to the Ministry of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act, which deemed to not fall under the Act are passed to this department for official response. Any correspondence which raise new issues will of course be answered in the normal way.

Yours sincerely

Neville Collins
Customer Investigations Manager | HM Courts & Tribunals Service Customer Service Directorate
Email: ComplaintsCorres&[email address]

They're still dribbling through, not sure this is actually, physically possible to be born in England and on another foreign land!

Dear Office for National Statistics,

I will be grateful if you would kindly confirm from your records how I may obtain a live birth record if I was born in England, and if I was born on another foreign land.

Thank You.

Kind Regards.

Yours faithfully,

George Tsigarides

This is obviously another one of his cunning 'trick questions' and whatever answer they give will be the wrong one because he's 'awake' and privy to all of the soopa-seekrit information us mere sheeple don't know.

To be fair to George (which doesn't come easily), I think he is asking two questions: (a) How can I get a live birth record if I was born in England? (b) How can I get a live birth record if I was born outside England?

George: the answer to both questions is the same. Take a piece of paper and write the following words: "I was born alive." Now you have a live birth record. If you ever forget you were born alive, you can refer to your record. If anyone needs you to confirm that you were born alive, you can show them that piece of paper. Or a notorised copy, obviously.

In any event George has, not for the first time, got the wrong organisation. The ONS doesn't deal with birth records he needs The General Register Office... Or could have just Googled it like I did.

longdog wrote:In any event George has, not for the first time, got the wrong organisation. The ONS doesn't deal with birth records he needs The General Register Office... Or could have just Googled it like I did.

Were it that simple. George doesn't want a Birth Certificate, he wants a Certificate of Live Birth. It's a US sovcit thing (eg - http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Ther ... /5634-4049 )

It was a hot topic on TPUC's old forum. From memory, the theory was that the birth certificate relates only to the legal fiction person thingy that is created and enables the government to nick your birth bond. (I never understood where that birth bond originated.) But a live birth record proves you are actually flesh and blood, and if you've got one of those you can get your birth bond back. Naturally, TPTB hide these live birth records away, even claiming they don't exist. (Why don't TPTB destroy the record? I dunno.)

According to Google, the "Certificate of live birth" is a record of the birth (i.e., the event), while the "Birth Certificate" is a record of the individual. The documents serve different purposes, and contain different types of information. As the U.S. goes, the particulars will vary by locality, but here's one example of what a CoLB is used for (emphasis mine):

There are many questions on the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ form (filed by the hospital) that will not appear on the birth certificate of your child. Your information is combined with records of other births in Oregon. The combined information tells us which health services were used, what problems women are having during their pregnancies, and what health outcomes occur in Oregon.

This information helps agencies decide what services to offer and the levels of need among groups of women. This is why we ask for information about race, ethnicity, education, number of prenatal visits, and many other detailed questions. Although not used on the birth certificate of your baby, this information is used to improve the health of women and babies in the future. The information is used to improve programs and to continue funding successful programs. Oregon law requires collection of this information.

This information might also be used to identify infants who need services due to a medical condition. Any research of this type has strict requirements for contacting people and for telling people of their rights under the project, including the right to refuse to participate.

United States immigration law recognizes this distinction, and says that the CoLB may or may not fulfill the role of a Birth Certificate:

A Certificate of Live Birth may qualify as a birth certificate (No. 4 on List C of the Lists of Acceptable Documents) if it is an original or a certified copy that is issued by a state, county, municipal authority, or outlying possession of the United States and bears an official seal. Versions of birth certificates can vary greatly based on the issuing authority and year of birth.

Anyone who wants their Certificate of Live Birth can probably get it just by asking their birth hospital, if prevailing law allows it to be released. Others will have no Certificate of Live Birth at all, especially if they weren't born in a hospital.

Oh no... .George seems to have withdrawn a bunch of requests, did he finally figure out he was never going to get the answer he wanted? Is he finally ready to stop wasting peoples time with silly irrelevant questions, time will tell...

TheNewSaint wrote:According to Google, the "Certificate of live birth" is a record of the birth (i.e., the event), while the "Birth Certificate" is a record of the individual. The documents serve different purposes, and contain different types of information. As the U.S. goes, the particulars will vary by locality, but here's one example of what a CoLB is used for (emphasis mine):

There are many questions on the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ form (filed by the hospital) that will not appear on the birth certificate of your child. Your information is combined with records of other births in Oregon. The combined information tells us which health services were used, what problems women are having during their pregnancies, and what health outcomes occur in Oregon.

This information helps agencies decide what services to offer and the levels of need among groups of women. This is why we ask for information about race, ethnicity, education, number of prenatal visits, and many other detailed questions. Although not used on the birth certificate of your baby, this information is used to improve the health of women and babies in the future. The information is used to improve programs and to continue funding successful programs. Oregon law requires collection of this information.

This information might also be used to identify infants who need services due to a medical condition. Any research of this type has strict requirements for contacting people and for telling people of their rights under the project, including the right to refuse to participate.

What they (the state of Oregon) appear to be describing here is the difference between the birth registration form and the birth certificate that's later issued.

I can't speak to how Oregon actually does it, but the way they do it around here (or did it about 20 years ago, anyway), they're both the same form. The top part is the basic identifying information: infant's name, parents' names, birth date and location, etc., with the attendant's signature certifying that the baby described was, in fact, born alive as described. Before the records were computerized, and possibly still, a birth certificate issued by Vital Records consisted of a photostat of that part onto security paper. The bottom part contains a lot of statistical questions relating to the parents' health and so on, pretty much what's described above. The two parts are separated by a perforation: it's the job of the registrar to separate the parts, send the bottom one off to the Department of Public Health for statistical analysis, and file the top one for later use. As a result, you cannot get a copy of the bottom part. It's not kept on file in a way that's individually identifiable, and that's deliberate, since the questions on the bottom get kind of personal and embarrassing. Anyway, when you're applying for a passport, it's not normally necessary for the passport clerk to determine whether your mother ever had chlamydia.

Upshot is, for most purposes beyond about a month after birth, there is no distinction between a Certificate of Live Birth and a birth certificate. At most, the one is the original form that's signed by the birth attendant and the other is the officially certified copy of (the important part of) that form.

United States immigration law recognizes this distinction, and says that the CoLB may or may not fulfill the role of a Birth Certificate:

A Certificate of Live Birth may qualify as a birth certificate (No. 4 on List C of the Lists of Acceptable Documents) if it is an original or a certified copy that is issued by a state, county, municipal authority, or outlying possession of the United States and bears an official seal. Versions of birth certificates can vary greatly based on the issuing authority and year of birth.

Anyone who wants their Certificate of Live Birth can probably get it just by asking their birth hospital, if prevailing law allows it to be released. Others will have no Certificate of Live Birth at all, especially if they weren't born in a hospital.

What I think CIS is describing is that they will not accept a "certificate of live birth" other than an officially certified birth certificate. In other words, just having a fancy piece of paper with a foil seal, saying "So Ann Soh was born this day in the city of Dubuque, etc.," isn't allowable for the purpose of applying for a citizenship document. Quite a few hospitals (and others) will issue this sort of thing, as a sort of ceremonial document more than anything (I had one somewhere amongst my own birth paraphernalia, marked with my foot prints, if I remember rightly), but it's got no official weight. Or, at the least, none on its own, not in that context. Because of course that sort of thing is considered to be too easy to fake up. Something that was filed with the appropriate registrar, at the appropriate time, is considered to be much more reliable.

For our purpose, it's enough to say that it is all just another sovcit thing.

NYGman wrote:Oh no... .George seems to have withdrawn a bunch of requests, did he finally figure out he was never going to get the answer he wanted? Is he finally ready to stop wasting peoples time with silly irrelevant questions, time will tell...

Oh no, could it be thought of impending vexatious statue rattling his nerves?

A fine balance between entertaining us and not getting banned. It's a knife edge for some people....

morrand wrote:Upshot is, for most purposes beyond about a month after birth, there is no distinction between a Certificate of Live Birth and a birth certificate.

The distinction is whether or not the CoLB has official seals and other details that would make it acceptable as an identity document. In some locales it will; in others it won't; some people might not even have a CoLB. The two documents aren't 100% interchangeable. That is the only point I wish to make here; that is there is a real, albeit very minor, difference between the two. (At least in the U.S., from which this sovcit idea is borrowed; I suspect most other countries handle citizen registration documents at the national level, and are thus far more standardized.)

notorial dissent wrote:Question for the UK crew, just how is a birth registered these days? I know in the bad old days, that one parent or another just toddled down to the local registrar and gave them the information and that was it. I would assume that is not the procedure today?

That's it. That's what we do.

guilty wrote:

notorial dissent wrote:Question for the UK crew, just how is a birth registered these days? I know in the bad old days, that one parent or another just toddled down to the local registrar and gave them the information and that was it. I would assume that is not the procedure today?

That's it. That's what we do.

Only restriction is that if you aren't married, the father has to be present to attest to his fatherhood. Mother can't name anyone they like as the father (for obvious reasons).

Baby usually has to go too, plus your paperwork from the hospital.

A genius request, not from George, but a corker .




https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... on_the_lan

FatGambit wrote:Baby usually has to go too, plus your paperwork from the hospital.

Not in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/register-birth/overview