192.com

[piccadilly]

I can't understand it, i looked up someone on the electoral roll last year and i found their address, then i come to look it up yesterday and for love nor money, it keeps coming up saying can't be found. i've spelt it right and checked and double checked, and i've ticked the box for last years electoral roll, why on earth can't i find it?

[sara3]

the person may have requested that their details are removed from the site.

I know I did...

[piccadilly]

can they do that, and what about last years roll, wouldn't it still show? Also why would a person want to do that?

[Velvetee]

Did you login?

[cazzz1975]

I have had a similar problem in looking for people, why are they not findable any more???

[boogieboogie]

I've removed myself also, I can't vote, but I can't be found either.. Mwhaahahaha..

Did you have to pay to search on that register?

[cazzz1975]

how do you remove yourself?

[boogieboogie]

I never returned the voting forms and was warned I'd be removed if I didn't, so I didn't.. I think it may affect credit if you're not on the register also, but I don't use credit and already have a mortgage so it's not a prob for me but may be for others.

[piccadilly]

no i never logged in, what would be the point, if it says can't be found, or would it make a difference?

[Velvetee]

Well I thought maybe you were a subscriber. I am and if I am not logged in and try to search, then I don't get same info as when I am logged in.

[sara3]

cazzz, you can click on "help and support" at the top of the page, and it's no. 2 on the list.

[Ethel]

Losing your right to vote is a bit extreme, and not returning the form is an offence.

I tick the box and my details aren't shown on any sites. Hurrah!


This is all because another site was sued for giving a high ranking officer's details without his details. That site has now closed down, and all other such sites are much more stringent about adhering to the rules.

[Buenchico]

(2-part post):

There are two versions of the electoral roll. The full version (which contains the name and address of every adult who has complied with their legal obligation to register to vote) is only available in electronic form (whether on CD or online) to authorised users, such as the police, security services and credit reference agencies. All searches by these users must be recorded and are subject to audit. (Anyone who uses the database for unauthorised purposes faces a possible prison sentence).

The only way that 'Joe Public' can access the full electoral roll is to study the printed version at the local council office for the relevant area. This is listed in street order, not alphabetical street order. So, to look for 'Fred Smith' you have to look through every individual street listing, rather than just looking under 'S'.

The other version of the electoral roll is the 'edited' one. This is available to anyone who's prepared to pay a large amount of money to buy it. Typical users are junk mailing organisations and, of course, firms like 192.com. When people comply with their legal obligation to register to vote, they're invited to mark the box which removes their name from the edited roll. Over half of voters now mark this box (to reduce junk mail?), so the version of the electoral roll on 192.com now only contains a minority of the adult population.

[Buenchico]

192.com used to make older (unamended) versions of the edited electoral roll available online but privacy campaigners have now forced them to delete the records of people who're not included in the current edited roll. (it's similar to the phone book, where over 70% of residential numbers are now ex-directory)

Proposals are currently being considered which would prevent local authorities from selling any version of the electoral roll. (Privacy campaigners claim that this infringes people's human rights to privacy. Personally, I can't see why, as long as people know that their information might be made public, the current system shouldn't remain). If these proposals are accepted, sites like 192.com simply won't exist.

Chris

[Buenchico]

Oops! Minor typo:
"alphabetical street order" should have simply read "alphabetical order".

Chris