£500 million - wow

This is perhaps why they are suggesting this will be the last census conducted as the costs are too much.

Makes me question why it went ahead this decade. £500 million would have gone a long way to providing services to our most vulnerable citizens.

Whilst the huge numbers being made redundant in the private sector is sad, what's even sadder is an 86 year old gentleman who has been told there is no funding for his wife to be afforded 24 hour nursing care so he must continue to provide this care himself. Completely off topic and I apologise :)

>That is a statute. Its is NOT common law.

Statute is A law established by legislative enactment.. It's a law, which must be obeyed.

A Statute is a rule created by a representative governing body of a society designed to create common goals, which carries the force of law by the consent of the governed.
Hold on to the thought "... by the consent of the governed", because that is a crucial thought. The long explanation (given below) can be crystalised into this definition.

Are you the Government? No. Therefore you must be 'the governed'.
A Statute only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it. If you do not give your consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever

Just adding on the end, not replying to any one poster. We have filled ours in both because it is required by law and because I have nothing in my life to be ashamed of telling anyone (except perhaps my weight, haha!).

A statute is a written law (as opposed to oral or customary law), which has been passed by the parliament of the day and entered into the statute book.

> the wave of redundancies coming in now is not at all comparable to the usual flow--that's why it's important to monitor it. The labour market is experiencing movement that is completely off the scale--

Agree to this one.  I'm in an area of work that I had always believed was safe as houses.  We are being decimated day by day.  And, should anyone leave of their own accord, there is no vacancy.

We already know that there is far more to come, and we will be losing jobs in droves.  I just wait with bated breath, thanking my lucky stars each month that the morgage can be payed.  But I know it cannot go on for much longer.  And I thought that I was in an area of work that was important to the country. 

Obviously not.

In an economic recession no individual job is guaranteed; these are undoubtedly hard times, especially when compared to how good things have generally been for such a long time. But that's not connected to the census; the census only records what's happening, and it's only when the results are compared to previous ones that the trends become more apparent.

On the law, do you know why the law we have is legitimate and why we should obey it? I bet you don't - much of recent law is, in any case, in conflict with our written Constitution and therefore unlawful. Parliament's powers are limited by the requirment to obey the law, which includes Constitutional law (which according to Lord Laws judgement in the Metric Martyrs case is above statute law

(just to add not my words, as i am unable to put it as succintly as this)

Ok, so they want to know how many people to cater for.  What business is it of theirs whether you own, rent or mortgage your house and what type of house it is?

I do think there were some questions that were completely unnecessary.

>much of recent law is, in any case, in conflict with our written Constitution and therefore unlawful.

The only written 'Constitution' we have (or had, before our national lawmaking powers were abnegated to Brussells) is Magna Carta.

>What business is it of theirs whether you own, rent or mortgage your house and what type of house it is?

It will be of interest in the future, when historians can see how society has evolved, for better or worse. You can't know if you're moving forward without knowing where you're coming from! Just think, we're all helping to give our great-grandchildren an accurate account of our lives - I think it's fascinating! :-)

Which is COMMON LAW, which statutes adhere to. so as long as you adhere to common law we are law abiding

>What business is it of theirs whether you own, rent or mortgage your house and what type of house it is

absolutely. if people dont mind giving these details out thats fine, but many do not want to but are threatened and intimidated by the threat of a fine.

Common Law.

As it says, " Unlike statutory provisions, which are laws that are codified as Acts of Parliament, the common law is constantly changing."

Statutory provisions, such as the requirement to complete the census, are Acts of Parliament, and are no less binding than Common Law.

from your site...

English law works on a common law system, as opposed to a civil law system, which relies on statute and certain texts

Also from that site

"Although the English legal system is founded on common law, that is not to say that statutes are any less binding. In fact, statute law codifies certain rules whereas the common law provides interpretations, and clarification when facts of instant cases are applied to the codified law. As a result, the common law and statute law complement each other well: common law keeps statute law up to date and in keeping with modern problems and solutions"

It seems that Statute Law is "the rules" (the Breed Standard, if you like) and Common Law is the interpretation of that (the judge's decision).

I think the point is jeangenie, as i fear we will keep going round in circles about this. Is this, the law is not clear, it is open to interpretation.

I can't seem to understand why anybody should have an issue with filling the census out. There is noohing I would consider probing or an invasion of ones privacy as in one form or another the information is captured elsewhere . This just brings it together in one moment of time . The only reason I think anybody would be wary is if they think or feel they may have something to hide:-)

We filled ours out and can't say it caused us concern or brought us out in sweat :-)

As for loosing jobs we all have to take the pain whether it be in the Private or Public sector. Nobody should be treated any differently . I have been made redundant three times in twenty five years and have got up,dusted myself off and went out and got myself another job  :-)

>the law is not clear, it is open to interpretation.

The fact remains that some people were prosecuted and fined for not returning the census last time, so there's no reason to presume the same won't happen this time - after all, there's precedent ... which is Common Law! :-D

>There is noohing I would consider probing or an invasion of ones privacy as in one form or another the information is captured elsewhere . This just brings it together in one moment of time . The only reason I think anybody would be wary is if they think or feel they may have something to hide.

I couldn't see anything remotely intrusive in it either.

less than 50 people were fined, from thousands that did  not fill it in.

>less than 50 people were fined, from thousands that did  not fill it in.

Proving the point that the fines referred to can be applied legally.

or they didnt fight?

why would only 38 (i found the number) only be fined when thousands of others were not?

> why would only 38 (i found the number) only be fined when thousands of others were not

Doesn't matter - if 38 were fined (and this number only applies to the last census not previous) then the law has been upheld, as JG has said.

As for 'giving consent' - you don't have to, individually. We live in a democracy which means that those elected by democratic means make the law. It is a citizen's duty to abide by those laws - otherwise, if we only pick and choose which laws we like, the whole democratic system breaks down. It also means that the majority who abide by the laws ensure that we live in a 'relatively' peaceful and lawful society which benefits those who choose not to abide by the law. It could be said that those who don't like living in a democracy should go and live elsewhere where the system suits them better :) :) Unless one buys an island somewhere which is an independant state, it would be difficult to find another country which allows it's citizens to choose entirely which laws they obey :)

This is excellent! A rational debate which hasn't become heated and personal! :-)

But these people were fined unlawfully.

Ok here is an example.

I am not obliged to give my details to these people. The only time i am obliged to do so is if i have been cautioned and read my rights.
In which case i will be then arrested (for what? the right to remain silent and not giving my own personal details)
I would be very surprised if any court upheld the statute which FORCES me to reveal personal details. It would not be in the publics interest to do so plus again it would be a breach of my human rights.

>But these people were fined unlawfully.

No, they were fined because the written statute made provision for this, and this was upheld and has therefore (under your interpretation) become Common Law.

> No, they were fined because the written statute made provision for this, and this was upheld and has therefore (under your interpretation) become Common Law.

this is subjecture as neither of us know if these people went to court to appeal this. I am guessing and yes we can all guess, but my guess for what its worth is these 38 people paid the fine and did not fight.

>What business is it of theirs whether you own, rent or mortgage your house and what type of house it is?

As someone involved in social housing and the strategic planning of it, I can tell you that this information is important to the planning of services.

For example, historically, there were fewer home owners than there are today. People tended to rent their home and therefore found it easier to downsize as they aged as there was no asset to sell. Hence the relatively large number of sheltered housing developed over the past 3 decades or so.

However, now that the rate of homeowners had increased, the models of housing for older people are no longer relevant for the majority. People want to stay in the home that they own (generally owning it outright by the time that they retire) and do not want to leave their home/garden/community to live in sheltered type accommodation. We, as the people responsible for the strategy in relation to housing need to look at alternatives to help these people to remain in the home of their choice for their lifetime. We also need to plan what to do with all the existing sheltered housing that there is likely to be little or no demand for in the future.

Quite a boring response but just one tiny example of how the census information is used by the public sector to shape services to address the emerging needs of the population.

> this is subjecture as neither of us know if these people went to court to appeal this. I am guessing and yes we can all guess, but my guess for what its worth is these 38 people paid the fine and did not fight

You obviously aren't the first person who has challenged the census law. Since the census has been going since 1841 (apart from a few earlier giving less coverage) precedent must have been set by those, like yourself, not wishing to comply. Although, if you think that you have a new arguement for not completing it, it will be interesting to hear the outcome :)

Ahh thanks for that ShaynLola.  Makes perfect sense when you put it like that.  It's not that we've anything to hide, just felt that it was a bit on the nosey side.  :)

I think I'd object less to giving the information if it was anonymous.

Too much like big brother for my liking wanting to know every detail of how many rooms in my home, how many cars, what my health is like, etc etc.

Perhaps being brought up by a parent who lived through WW2 under occupation where loose lips often resulted in death or problems, and kids at school were pumped for information.

I have no new argument as such.

My argument with it are as follows..

I feel it a breach of my civil rights that i am being "made" to give information which is mine. Especially when the law states I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.  Also my information will also be available to any company who wishes to use it. So if Asda wishes to do research on their community that information is available. I feel it is open to be abused.

The ONS are using an arms dealer to co-ordinate the census. Lockheed Martin apparantly is not privvy to the information however is subsidiary companies DO.

> I think I'd object less to giving the information if it was anonymous

Yes i agree.

It is also interesting to see what questions were asked in previous years. This in the 1911 census:

The fertility census

The falling birth rate, large numbers of people emigrating and the reportedly poor health of the nation were significant enough to give the government cause for concern in 1911, since a large healthy workforce was needed for Britain to continue to develop as an industrialised nation. These concerns prompted the government to include questions on 'fertility in marriage' in the 1911 census.

In the 1911 census women were asked to state the 'years the present marriage has lasted', the number of children born alive to the present marriage (not just those who were living in the house) and how many had died.

> Especially when the law states I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

Not in this context. Nor in others - I don't think that you would get away with your 'right to be silent' when asked to complete a tax return, for example :)

> I think I'd object less to giving the information if it was anonymous

> Yes i agree

That would be the ideal - but how would you ensure that everybody completes it, if it was anonymous ?

But the tax return is proving what you do or dont owe. I certainly dont owe anyone my personal information.

Thats me bowing out now, its hometime! enjoy the debate! and dont forget to be good law abiding citizens!!!

As it is many don't complete it now. 

I have never completed one before, and have been a householder since 1986. 

My father is in his 70's and has lived here since the early 60's and has always refused to fill one in.

I can't imagine why. Did he refuse to answer the register at school too?

>I am guessing and yes we can all guess, but my guess for what its worth is these 38 people paid the fine and did not fight.

The evidence would disagree with you; the ones who were fined were the ones who took it all the way to court:

"In total some 92 cases were reported to the Solicitor's Office and summonses subsequently issued in 80 of them. In 32 of these the offending householder subsequently complied by making an acceptable return either as a result of the Solicitor's final warning letter or a court summons, or even, in one or two instances, on the day of the court hearing. In these cases the prosecutions were dropped as compliance was ultimately achieved. Ten cases where summonses were issued were subsequently dropped on technicalities."

and " In one case in which a defence based on infringement of human rights was cited, the costs awarded against the defendant amounted to £2,500. In another case, widely reported in the press, the defendant refused to pay his fine and costs and was subsequently imprisoned for contempt of court. "

and as for the human rights bit ... "Despite this legal opinion, the human rights group Liberty offered to defend any person who was to be prosecuted for refusing to complete a census form. The basis of the defence was to be the argument that there had been no precedent which had established in law that the statutory requirement for a person to provide information about his ethnic group was compatible with Article 8(2) of the ECHR as set out in the Human Rights Act, and that also, the criminal penalty for refusing to comply with the Census Act was in contravention to the Human Rights Act in that it was disproportionate to the offence.

However, in the only case in which this defence was tested, the court rejected both of Liberty's arguments and ruled that the provisions of the Census Act were fully compatible with both national and European human rights legislation."

I expect as a 6 to 11 year old under military run school in occupied Poland he didn't say much at all.

Then subsequently under the communist yoke not saying more than anyone needed to know continued.

A fair point. But not one that applies to anyone born and raised in post-war Britain.

For some governments are governments always viewed with suspicion.

Information can be misused.

Sure, information can be misused, but without information you have to rely on guesswork. It'd be like dog-breeding without any health-testing or assessment of ancestry or previous progeny.

> But the tax return is proving what you do or dont owe. I certainly dont owe anyone my personal information.
>
>

So would you be willing to opt out of being a beneficiary of the services that make use of the informaton gathered for future planning?

I believe the "right to silence" is invoked to help prevent one from self incriminating :-)