MOD ALREADY TRANSFERRING WW2 SERVICE FILES TO UK NATIONAL ARCHIVES 2021

Seems like they are in a flat spin trying to clarify "free to apply" - this appeared on the Gov.uk page

"When you apply online for a British Army or Home Guard record, the MOD will check if they hold it. If they have it, you’ll be sent a link to pay. If they do not, you’ll be told to check The National Archives."

As with all new systems they have rolled out - needs a test application on or soon after 1st April.

Ross

 

For anyone interested, The National Archives posted this on Twitter this morning:

We’re pleased to announce that we've awarded @AncestryUK the contract to digitise the first tranche off@DefenceHQ (MOD) service personnel records.
Both parties are looking forward to working to make these important records accessible in digital format. Details of the schedule will be announced soon.
More about the records themselves, including answers to the most frequently asked questions about the transfer, here...
MOD service personnel records now available (update) - The National Archives

 

Thanks. This announcement has not been posted on the Kew "News" page as yet.

"Both parties are looking forward to working to make these important records accessible in digital format."

A case of the cart leading the horse.

 

According to the above I should be able to Review my RAF Halton days of 1963 - 65 in 2027. Christ I will be 81, Good job I have a good memory of the events especially all the days doing Jankers.

 

So the government is giving more details of my family to the fucking Mormons ? Nasty proselytising bastards. They should be banned from any civilised country, not encouraged.

 

They don't drink tea, you know.

Mad.

 

Re "Ancestry". "Arches Holdings Inc." is the "indirect parent undertaking and controlling party", principal place of business at "Lehi, UT 84043, U.S.A." for "Ancestry.com UK Limited," according to documents at the UK Companies House.

This report found online discusses the credit rating of the controlling party:

Arches Holdings Inc. -- Moody's assigns B1 to Ancestry's proposed senior secured notes add-on

 

Substitute "Mormons" for a number of other supposed minority groups and you would have been banned from the forum. So which groups are fair game and which aren't?

 

Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses. Any god botherer who knocks on my door or hassles me in the street, but none of the other money-grabbing sects are buying up public records so that they can posthumously baptise into their sick cult, are they...unless you know better ?

 

I spoke to them today 'the person on the end of the phone Didnt know about it'.

 

As an aside, and ignoring religion, I have a major problem with the wobbly handshake brigade too...Basically, cults, secret societies, back patch motorcycle clubs, anyone who pretends to be better than everyone else because of their odd rules and superstitions.

 

The last time the rules about the length of time for keeping records secret were reviewed by an official body was because a Prime Minister ordered a review. There was nothing about personnel service records in the review of the "30 year rule": just very brief references to longer periods of retention.

I cannot find any decision of the UK Parliament which says that service personnel records must be digitised before release.

The ministers of a non-ministerial department could always claim "It wasn't me, guv" but the department is the DCMS and they have bigger fish to fry. The History of Public Records Act at Kew is here:

History of the Public Records Acts - The National Archives

As for service records, It would be much cheaper and quicker to set up an old fashioned front office archive next door to the salt mine in Cheshire where I believe some of the physical records are kept. The annoying thing is that I once saw a reference from about 2015 or 2016 to a scheme to move Kew to Liverpool but I cannot find it now.

Anyway, there now is a body called The National Archives Trust. I was amused to note that the main current trustee ( Sir Anthony Seldon ) gave his views on changing the 30 year rule to a shorter period, and he was against shortening the time from 30 years. I do not necessarily think his view was completely wrong, given that the records I am interested in (UK war crimes investigation files of JAG and AG.3(V/W) in the Far East, which should be in WO 311, where there are about 8% of the total - we have the files index in WO 356 ) might have survived had there been a continuance of the old 50 year rule. The rule was 30 years when the "weeders" at MoD got to work in about 1978 and took a bulldozer to them, rather than a hoe.

Had it been 1998 then the prospect of digitisation might have made the weeders pause the flow of old files to the electricity generator's boiler furnace. ( I still have hopes they linger on somewhere.)

Historians responses to changing from the 30 years are here:

https://www.30yearrulereview.org.uk/written-evidence/professional-historians

 

The records involved and others still to be digitised are already released so are not Closed until digitisation..

Admittedly you need to meet the criteria but once met you can view at TNA or have copied by TNA service.

This process is sorting out the records that meet over 115 years since birth which need no redaction or control over viewing, having then converted to digital format and made available at both TNA and a third party.

So not all records in WO series in this tranche just those with DoB circa 1908 ish or before - eg senior officers/ncos but mostly limited to those new Officers/ORs enrolled in the 1920/30s not 1940s.

This digitisation process is inline with what was done for previous Admiralty, Army and RAF service records from pre 1919 on Find My Past eg ADM 340/WO 363/AIR 79 etc

Ross

 

Thanks.

I've now found another review of the 30 year rule, ordered by the Cabinet Office in 2014, which does actually refer to closure of records beyond 20 or 30 years. Note that the pdf. opens on what appears to be a blank page - 433 KB.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/370930/RECORDS_REVIEW_-_Sir_Allex_Allan.pdf

 

An ITV 1 production yesterday evening showed documents stored at a salt mine near Liverpool, at Winsford, Cheshire. "DNA Journey" with Hugh Bonneville and John Bishop. There is a downloadable file ( free from Kew if "sign-in" ) about the same mine reference PRO 1/558. This deals with proposals to use the salt mine, then owned by I.C.I., for storage by the PRO in 1943, and a map of the underground workings.

This old article from "The Guardian" has some intriguing photographs.

Salted away: Cheshire salt mine to store National Archives

Worth repeating this link:

https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk...ecords-collection-faqs-updated-october-22.pdf

 

The minutes for Kew Directors meetings for January and February have just been published.


https://tna-cdn-live-uk.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/documents/executive-team-minutes-2023-01.pdf

1. " MoD Transfer Project : Compliance & Resilience
   
   1. 2.1. HP and AF joined the meeting. LF introduced the item, explaining that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) had expressed an intention to make a practice recommendation that The National Archives publish an action plan regarding Freedom of Information (FOI) compliance, especially relating to requests concerning Ministry of Defence (MoD) service personnel records.
      
      
   2. 2.2. LF asked the Executive Team (ET) to consider a proposal to expand the MoD Service Access Team to mirror the capacity of the FOI Team and to discuss enhancing the FOI access offer.
      
      
   3. 2.3. ET discussed the paper and proposal, including prior modelling and the mitigations the team had enacted thus far, the possibility of reallocating current staff and external recruitment.
      
      
   4. 2.4. Decision: ET endorsed the FOI Action Plan and approved the proposal to recruit to the MoD Service Access Team 1 x Band G, 2 x Band F, 2 x Band E. "
      

 

Repeated on this thread as similar questioned asked here

Just had an email reply to a question I posed to the team at the TNA on acceptable proof of death to be included on FOI applications.

I asked about proof of death in service and specifically if the link to the CWGC page for an individual would be acceptable.

"Thank you for your email.

We would accept a link to The Commonwealth War Graves Commission as valid proof of death.

We require documentary proof of death. Other formats we would accept include, a death certificate, an entry into an official history, or a published obituary.

I hope this helps to answer your query."

So that clears that issue up - not quite the same as MoD requirement but in my mind the TNA request very workable.

Ross