Terms and Conditions

Using our website

The Red Tape Challenge website is maintained for your personal use and viewing. Access and use by you of this site constitutes your acceptance of these Terms and Conditions. This takes effect from the date on which you first use this website.

Hyperlinking to the Red Tape Challenge website
We do not object to you linking directly to pages on this site and you do not need to ask permission to do so. However, we do not permit our pages to be loaded into frames on your site. The Red Tape Challenge pages must be displayed in the user‘s entire browser window.

Hyperlinking from the Red Tape Challenge website

We are not responsible for the content or reliability of the websites we link to and do not necessarily endorse the views expressed within them.

We aim to replace broken links to other sites but cannot guarantee that these links will always work as we have no control over the availability of other sites.

Virus protection

We make every effort to check and test material at all stages of production. It is always wise for you to run an anti-virus program on all material downloaded from the Internet. We cannot accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or your computer system which may occur whilst using material derived from this website.


The Red Tape Challenge website and material relating to government information, products and services (or to third party information, products and services), is provided ‘as is’, without any representation or endorsement made and without warranty of any kind whether express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of satisfactory quality, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, compatibility, security and accuracy.

We do not warrant that the functions contained in the material contained in this site will be uninterrupted or error free, that defects will be corrected, or that this site or the server that makes it available are free of viruses or represent the full functionality, accuracy, reliability of the materials. In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including, without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damages whatsoever arising from use or loss of use of, data or profits arising out of or in connection with the use of the Red Tape Challenge website.

These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales. Any dispute arising under these Terms and Conditions shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.

4 responses to Terms and Conditions

  • user_id){ ?>

    Andrew Yool said on June 18, 2011 at 11:16 am

    The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997

    The need to control the increasing numbers of wild deer in the UK by culling is not helped by the quite unnecessary red tape restricting the acquisition and possession of the particular type of ammunition that must be used to ensure that deer are killed as humanely as possible.

    Under current legislation only expanding bullets [i.e. The Deer Act 1991 – “soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullets”, and The Deer (Firearms etc.)(Scotland) Order1985 – “bullets of an expanding type designed to deform in a predictable manner”] may be used to kill deer. However, following the Dunblane tragedy, there was a move to introduce legislation that initially attempted to ban outright the possession of all such bullets. Subsequently, when this clear conflict with existing Deer legislation was brought to the attention of the legislators, an attempt to remedy the situation was made in The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 which, although prohibiting the possession, purchase or acquisition of “any ammunition which incorporates a missile designed or adapted to expand on impact”, offers a limited number of exemptions from this general prohibition, and in certain circumstances permits expanding ammunition to be used, but only in connection with:
    (i) the lawful shooting of deer;
    (ii) the shooting of vermin or, in the course of carrying on activities in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife;
    (iii) the humane killing of animals;
    (iv) the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans.”

    For many of those actively involved in culling deer and controlling vermin, the increasing cost of such specialist ammunition, which can amount to more than £2 a round, is proving a significant deterrent to the use of sufficient quantities for practice and zeroing, which is an essential requirement under industry Best Practice in maintaining the standards of accuracy necessary to ensure a humane one shot kill. This, combined with the fact that such ammunition may not be readily available to those living in remote rural areas and it can only be delivered by specially licensed carrier at prohibitive additional expense, leaves many with the only other reasonable and more economic alternative of re-loading their own ammunition in the home, using bullets and other components purchased either from their nearest gun dealer or by mail order.

    Home re-loading is common practice among the target shooting fraternity, using bullets designed for super-accuracy purely for shooting at paper targets. Not being specifically designed to expand on impact, such bullets do not fall within the legal prohibitions governing possession, purchase or acquisition, and so may be sent through the ordinary post. Expanding bullets, on the other hand, like factory loaded ammunition, may only be legally transported by specially licensed carrier, at considerable additional expense, thus negating the cost advantage of home re-loading for deerstalkers.

    In practice, expanding bullets are in many cases superficially indistinguishable from target bullets, since both types may be constructed with hollow points or plastic tips, whereas bullets having an exposed lead tip are the only variety that are immediately recognisable as being designed to expand on impact. However, despite the fact that target bullets are not specifically designed to expand, the majority will undoubtedly expand to varying degrees when striking an object more solid than a sheet of paper.

    The recorded incidence of the criminal misuse of the kind of expanding rifle ammunition used on deer that results in death or injury to humans is negligible, and the perception that someone who is shot, either accidentally or deliberately, with a bullet designed to be used on targets is likely to suffer a less severe injury that someone shot with a bullet designed to be used on deer, is open to question.

    In light of the above, there is no justification in maintaining the legal distinction between expanding and non-expanding bullets, and therefore the current illogical and unnecessary restrictions on their possession, purchase or acquisition should be rescinded.

  • user_id){ ?>

    Karen Goodwin said on June 3, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Please , Please do not get rid of the British hallmarking system. It is crucial to consumer protection as well as promoting the arts. It is an integral part of your history and needs to be continued! I am from the USand rely heavily on your hallmarking system both in my business and for my own personal enjoyment. Please keep the Hallmark System; the entire world is watching !

  • user_id){ ?>

    Rona Seelhoff said on May 19, 2011 at 10:09 am

    Hall marking should be left alone. It is for our protection and we have very little of that when it comes to consumer protection in this country. We have gone from a reasonable and fair country to a rip off country. Instead of getting rid of protection we need more laws that have powers to protect us as consumers from rogues.
    Stop knee jerk or quick and easy reactions and look properly at the problem, then work out how to improve and get rid off red tape that way

  • user_id){ ?>

    Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs said on May 5, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    Conclusions published in the QinetiQ report ‘Assessing compatibility of fuel systems with bio-ethanol and the risk of carburettor icing, Final Report’ commissioned by DfT show that approx 8.6 million vehicles in the UK are unable to run on E10 petrol. It is estimated that half of these vehicles will be in use in 2013 when the proposed phase out of E5 will take place, and certainly many of these vehicles will be in use in 2015 when DfT estimate that E5 will actually be phased out. All historic vehicles fall into this category and it is vital that owners of these vehicles are able to identify and purchase fuel suitable for their vehicles for as long as possible. Owners of diesel vehicles are also disadvantaged but to a lesser extent. It is therefore necessary to maintain the labelling regulations.

    The DfT’s own stakeholder meeting group have also indicated that the supply-chain for fuel is so random that it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to choose a fuel which is compatible with an historic vehicle on a consistent basis. This is far from an ideal situation and makes the labelling regulations more important for users of older vehicles: petrol should be clearly marked with the ethanol content, be it 5% or 10%, and owners of older diesel vehicles must also be informed of the bio-content of diesel fuel at the point of purchase.

Bookmark and Share