More Prying

The next census may ask how much we earn.

The next census could ask for details about earnings for the first time.

A prototype 24-page form has been drawn up for the 2010 exercise containing 40 questions. It is to be trialled in more than 100,000 homes in six areas.

Previous attempts to ask about income and its sources have foundered because people have objected, fearing the information will be passed on to the Inland Revenue.

Hmm. In any question relating to my earnings, the response will be a simple one; “mind your own business”. Oh, look, they’ve thought about that one…

Parliament blocked the idea as it thought such a question would discourage completion of the forms.

Yes, quite. Nothing has changed.

A spokesman for the Office for National Statistics, which oversees the census, said: “If we find it affects the response rate we will have to make a judgment on whether it is appropriate to ask”.

It isn’t.

Knowing this already, why is the Office for National Statistics even discussing it? I suspect that the more intrusive the questioning becomes, the greater the level of non-compliance. It’s not a difficult equation to work out. It’s a bit like those equal opportunities monitoring forms that so irritatingly appeared alongside job application forms about fifteen years or so ago. Initially, I tolerated them and, although they are not compulsory, I completed them. Now, I don’t bother. Once they decided that my religious belief was their business, I decided that it isn’t and the form goes in the bin. If a company cannot work out my gender from my name and my ethnicity at the interview, they don’t need any more help from me with their equal opportunities monitoring and I fail to see why I should disclose any information to a potential employer about my religious beliefs. My earnings are equally no concern of the Office for National Statistics. They might think differently and the law may agree with them, but it is my information and I will decide with whom I will share it – and the Office for National Statistics is not on my list of suitable recipients.

“The question on income was tested ahead of the 2001 census but afterwards it was decided not to go ahead with it. But there has been a lot of demand from users of census information that it should be tested again.”

Too bad; you ain’t having it. Just because you want it, is not good enough. As I said, it is my information and I am not going to share it. I will, therefore, not be completing my census. Frankly, the whole exercise is a waste of time and money anyway.

The 2010 census, which is expected to cost £300 million – £100 million more than in 2001 – will also seek information about second-home ownership, national identity and preferred language.

Fuck you! Fuck you! Fuck you! None of this is any business of yours. I am definitely not filling it in. I wonder if that counts as preferred language?

It ran into controversy for being too intrusive by asking a question about religion for the first time and because a million people failed to return their forms.

And still the bastards don’t get the message. A million people refused to comply because it was too intrusive, so what do the nosy bastards do? Make it more intrusive. Now there’s logical for you.

The trial census will also include a question designed to find out how many gay couples are in civil partnerships.

And this is their business because?

Welcome to the surveillance society.