[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I don't think it is junk data though, particularly from a historical view point, just think when you great great grandkids are looking you up

That's sort of my point though, if my great great grandkids look me up they'll say "Ooooh interesting, our great great grandfather was a chef!" and they might as well think I was Batman . It's not an accurate piece of data at all... it's misleading.

Again though it's not that I think it's a problem, just that I don't think there should be any huge issue with altering or updating the format of these documents. I understand people thinking "there's no need to", but also, I don't really understand why there'd be any specific objection to doing so? Is it particularly important for the certificate to say "Mother / Father" and if so... why is it important?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No I don't think it is Junk, I was just asking TS why if "it's all junk" it such a big deal to get parental status changed. its a historical document I don't think it's junk at all. Yes he may not be a chef right now but at that time in his life he was (of sorts )

Oh I get you, yes I think it is important as well

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Bold bit - there is nothing else to say. Except...

The baby has a passport? How'd the baby get passport without a birth certificate?

The baby has a birth certificate. I think the parent is asking for a change?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The baby has a birth certificate. I think the parent is asking for a change?

it doesn't, it says so right at the top of the article.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The baby has a birth certificate. I think the parent is asking for a change?

"He said the child at the centre of the case had not been given a birth certificate because a judge had yet to rule on the man’s challenge."

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Livia

"He said the child at the centre of the case had not been given a birth certificate because a judge had yet to rule on the man’s challenge."

Correct, no birth cert, no child benefit, though I thought a cert was also needed for a passport so that is an odd one

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Correct, no birth cert, no child benefit, though I thought a cert was also needed for a passport so that is an odd one

Well, I know an elderly gentleman who had never had a birth certificate or passport, had never been abroad, had to go abroad for a wedding... Discovered that the place holding the record of his birth (in a tiny village) burned to the ground in the 1950's... So there simply wasn't one.

He did manage to get a passport through other means of establishing British citizenship though. Its just a longer / more involved process.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well, I know an elderly gentleman who had never had a birth certificate or passport, had never been abroad, had to go abroad for a wedding... Discovered that the place holding the record of his birth (in a tiny village) burned to the ground in the 1950's... So there simply wasn't one.

He did manage to get a passport through other means of establishing British citizenship though. Its just a longer / more involved process.

aw right I can only imagine how difficult that was!

Thinking about this case again I think the cert should be left as it is, just the same as the hospital and the time the child was born, the father was the mother at the time so as a record of accuracy that it how it should remain, now the mother is the father and going forward that it how he will be known. Also if he were to change his mind down the line and want to revert to being a woman then this would have to be revisited so maybe better left as it is.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well, I know an elderly gentleman who had never had a birth certificate or passport, had never been abroad, had to go abroad for a wedding... Discovered that the place holding the record of his birth (in a tiny village) burned to the ground in the 1950's... So there simply wasn't one.

He did manage to get a passport through other means of establishing British citizenship though. Its just a longer / more involved process.

I remember a story like this when I worked for an MP... We had an old boy who was struggling to get a passport for the first time, he was going abroad to see an Andre Rieu concert. He'd been adopted... it was very complicated. He got his passport in the end though.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I remember a story like this when I worked for an MP... We had an old boy who was struggling to get a passport for the first time, he was going abroad to see an Andre Rieu concert. He'd been adopted... it was very complicated. He got his passport in the end though.

one of my best friends is adopted and she has no birth cert, it's something that really upsets her actually

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

one of my best friends is adopted and she has no birth cert, it's something that really upsets her actually

There must be a way someone can help her, although I have no idea who. I don't think some people realise what an impact stuff like this has on people.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

There must be a way someone can help her, although I have no idea who. I don't think some people realise what an impact stuff like this has on people.

She does have an adoption document which works like a Birth Cert so it's not that she needs it as such, it just the idea of it I guess

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

She does have an adoption document which works like a Birth Cert so it's not that she needs it as such, it just the idea of it I guess

It's a shame... something that singles her out as different, I suppose. Must be awful not to know where you come from.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's a shame... something that singles her out as different, I suppose. Must be awful not to know where you come from.

Yeah, also there's a radio DJ over here who was also adopted and I've heard him say the same thing a few times when the subject came up so this is another reason why I think it's not junk but an important historical document.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah, also there's a radio DJ over here who was also adopted and I've heard him say the same thing a few times when the subject came up so this is another reason why I think it's not junk but an important historical document.

Yes, I agree. And if he was a woman when he gave birth... which he must have been, right? Then that's what should go on the birth certificate: Mother. Like TS, he was a chef at the time. I think we're agreeing on this, right?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah, also there's a radio DJ over here who was also adopted and I've heard him say the same thing a few times when the subject came up so this is another reason why I think it's not junk but an important historical document.

I'm not saying the document itself is junk or that birth certificates should be scrapped or anything like that, though? I'm just failing to understand why we would be so precious about them that we wouldn't want the format to be altered or modernised to better fit modern circumstances (e.g. I don't personally feel that profession is as relevant as it once was, because people very rarely have a profession or trade "for life" like they did in the past).

There are probably NEW metrics that could be added that are far more relevant in a modern context, and would serve as an even better piece of historical documentation 100 years in the future.

So I get why people would have a problem IF I was saying "let's not bother with birth certificates"... but why the aversion to even the suggestion that they might have their format altered? If anyone can offer a solid argument for keeping the format sacrosanct, I'm all ears, but as it stands I'm a bit confused.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yes, I agree. And if he was a woman when he gave birth... which he must have been, right? Then that's what should go on the birth certificate: Mother. Like TS, he was a chef at the time. I think we're agreeing on this, right?

Also, I mean... not to be flippant but... I think we also have to take the point of "it must be historically accurate!" with a pinch of salt. They put "chef" because I said "Err... cook or chef, I guess?". No one actually CHECKS, they just write it down.

If I'd said I was a lighthouse keeper, or a sheep pedicurist, they'd have put that on there .

In fact, I'm right now deeply regretting this missed opportunity.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Also, I mean... not to be flippant but... I think we also have to take the point of "it must be historically accurate!" with a pinch of salt. They put "chef" because I said "Err... cook or chef, I guess?". No one actually CHECKS, they just write it down.

If I'd said I was a lighthouse keeper, or a sheep pedicurist, they'd have put that on there .

In fact, I'm right now deeply regretting this missed opportunity.

I really don't think the job part is that important TS, you seem very focused on that part

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I really don't think the job part is that important TS, you seem very focused on that part

I'm focussed on the whole idea that the form be set in stone and not open to alteration. It just seems like an odd sort of dogma... and fairly realistic to say that as times / society chances, it makes sense for the data gathered on birth certificates to be reviewed from time to time to see if it is adequate or reflective of the times. I'm not saying that past records should be poured over and altered... just that new registrations using a different form doesn't seem like it should be a major issue?

I guess my question would be, what is actually important about the document saying "Mother" and "Father" rather than "Parent 1" and "Parent 2". If the reason is purely tradition / sentiment, then it's got nothing to do with the historical accuracy or usefulness of the document, and is purely down to personal preference that it retains the traditional terms.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm focussed on the whole idea that the form be set in stone and not open to alteration. It just seems like an odd sort of dogma... and fairly realistic to say that as times / society chances, it makes sense for the data gathered on birth certificates to be reviewed from time to time to see if it is adequate or reflective of the times. I'm not saying that past records should be poured over and altered... just that new registrations using a different form doesn't seem like it should be a major issue?

I guess my question would be, what is actually important about the document saying "Mother" and "Father" rather than "Parent 1" and "Parent 2". If the reason is purely tradition / sentiment, then it's got nothing to do with the historical accuracy or usefulness of the document, and is purely down to personal preference that it retains the traditional terms.

Because every child born has to have a mother and a father......that's biology. They may end up with 2 dads or 2 moms or whatever raising them but from a factual, biological and historically accurate point of view, it's always a mother and father

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Also, I mean... not to be flippant but... I think we also have to take the point of "it must be historically accurate!" with a pinch of salt. They put "chef" because I said "Err... cook or chef, I guess?". No one actually CHECKS, they just write it down.

If I'd said I was a lighthouse keeper, or a sheep pedicurist, they'd have put that on there .

In fact, I'm right now deeply regretting this missed opportunity.

Them describing you as a chef when you're flipping burgers (flippant, I see what you did there...) isn't the same as naming a parent. I mean, there're only two choices: mother or father. The fact that he now considers himself to be a man doesn't alter the fact that at the time she was giving birth, she was female, surely no one could argue with that.

And yes, definitely a missed opportunity.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Because every child born has to have a mother and a father......that's biology. They may end up with 2 dads or 2 moms or whatever raising them but from a factual, biological and historically accurate point of view, it's always a mother and father

Yes but... So what? Where is the actual PROBLEM in naming the fields differently, as parent 1 and parent 2? It doesn't change the fact that one is the mother and one is the father, and in most cases, its going to be obvious which is which, or it could even just be made standard that the person giving birth is always "Parent 1", or whatever. It really makes no difference to the form at all... It would be a simple change in the terminology that wouldn't affect the document in any way at all.

The statement that "There has to be a mother and a father!" is sort of irrelevant. Like I said, it seems like a dogma, like it "must" remain as it is "on principle" (or else the world has "gone mad" or whatever)? But logically and in terms of accurate record keeping, there's just no legitimate argument for why the form "must" remain the same.

In fact... In the digital age there's really no reason that there couldn't simply be a "parent 1/2" option and a "mother/father" option with a "what do you want printed on the certificate" checkbox .

[Niamh.]

A birth cert is a historical document for the child not the parent, it should have accurate information on it for the child regarding their parents. What's bizarre is that you're trying to convince me that I'm weird for thinking this

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

A birth cert is a historical document for the child not the parent, it should have accurate information on it for the child regarding their parents. What's bizarre is that you're trying to convince me that I'm weird for thinking this

I can't argue with this.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

A birth cert is a historical document for the child not the parent, it should have accurate information on it for the child regarding their parents. What's bizarre is that you're trying to convince me that I'm weird for thinking this

But then what about the mothers who register their babies with no name for the father given?

People are insisting accuracy (although I don't see what's inaccurate about labelling Betty and Len "Parents" rather than "Mother and Father") but there doesn't seem to be a lot of insistency on gathering all of the relevant and accurate information on them anyway. The mother can literally take any boyfriend and claim he is the father.