Moderation Policy

We welcome lively discussion on this site, but ask you to please bear in mind our guidelines when submitting comments.

Moderation guidelines

We pre-moderate all comments submitted to this site.

This means that comments will not be published instantly; they will first be checked by moderators. Moderators will be monitoring the site every day between 8am and 10pm, and aim to process comments as quickly as possible

This is not about censoring your views. The aim is to ensure the discussion is fair, inclusive, relevant and constructive. Moderation will not be used to suppress legitimate, reasoned discussion about the issues in the online document.

We will normally approve comments for publication as long as they:

● respect other people. Comments should not be malicious or offensive in nature, and should not constitute a personal attack on a person’s character

● don’t incite hatred on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality or sexuality or other personal characteristic

● don’t include swearing, hate-speech or obscenity

● don’t reveal personal details, such as private addresses, phone numbers, email addresses or other online contact details

● don’t break the law – this includes libel, condoning illegal activity, and breaking copyright

● are reasonably concise, and don’t constitute spamming of the site

● don’t advertise commercial products and services – you can mention relevant products and services as long as they support your comment

● don’t impersonate or falsely claim to represent a person or organisation

● don’t make reference to any cases that may be currently before the courts or a matter that is under criminal investigation

● are in English – unfortunately, we do not currently have the resource to moderate comments in other languages

● are on-topic. Please don’t post messages that are unrelated to this channel

● are not party political in nature. This site is about gathering feedback on policies, not party political point-scoring. This is a Government website and comments used for party political purposes cannot be published for propriety reasons.

If you are aged 16 or under, please get your parent/guardian’s permission before submitting a comment. Users without this consent are not allowed to participate or provide us with personal information.

The role of the facilitator, whether they are a government official or the independent sector champion, is to encourage and stimulate discussion on this website. Participation in any particular line of argument or comment should not be taken to reflect their personal views, government policy or indicate support for any particular outcome.

We are no longer accepting comments on this page, please submit your comments on the relevant legislation pages.

31 responses to Moderation Policy

  • user_id){ ?>

    Tina Knight said on May 10, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    Once again we go down the route of lowering standards to the lowest denominator, English silver is valued and trusted world wide. It protects the consumer, it prevents forgeries and helps trade.English hallmarked silver is always in great demand. It reeks of quality and tradition, is that why the Government wants to scap hallmarks?!!

  • user_id){ ?>

    Andy Limbrick said on May 5, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    I see that you will launch a focus on regulations in the energy and utilities sectors on 21 July. When will the time window for comments close?

  • user_id){ ?>

    Chris Uttley said on May 4, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    The idea that laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, the animals and plants we rely for our very existence are “red tape” to be dispensed with demonstrates a lack of basic understanding of how our economy functions and what motivates people to live good and productive lives. These laws exist to protect our quality of life and the economy. The economy is a small part of the ecosystem and all our economic activity is dependent upon maintaining a functioning ecosystem that can provide food, fibre, water, materials and culture. Cutting these laws as though they were red tape would be equivalent to cutting off one of your limbs to lose weight. Effective? Yes. Wise? No. Most of these laws are currently not implemented or utilised to anywhere near the extent that they might be, as demonstrated by our inability to halt the loss of biodiversity. As a country we currently seem to spend more on Government promotion of media and sport (DCMS) than we do on protecting our water, managing our national parks, protecting wildlife, flood defences, protecting air quality, safeguarding food production and maintaining footpaths. We already undervalue the benefits from wildlife and the environment so lets not undervalue it even further by removing the legal protection we already begrudgingly provide it with. I am strongly against including environmental/wildlife and countryside legislation within this red tape challenge.

  • user_id){ ?>

    Tim Dodes said on May 4, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    I am particularly concerned by the number of ‘product safety’ based pieces of legislation included in your various lists. Many of these pieces of legislation have evolved to address the risks presented by new products as they reach the public and they are generally drafted to combat identified and specific risks. Therefore to consider removing this protection on the whim of people who may not understand the full ramifications of their decisions is very dangerous.

  • user_id){ ?>

    Rob Joynson said on May 3, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    I am concerned that this site only invites comments on the regulations it has specified. As a Retailer I am affected by the red tape associated with “Horticultural Marketing Inspection” and the Performing rights association which it appears I cannot comment on in this “challenge?

    • user_id){ ?>

      contenteditor said on May 3, 2011 at 7:18 pm

      Rob, please feel free to comment on any regulations that affect you as a retailer.

Bookmark and Share