Disruptive Proactivity

So far, TheGovernmentSays.com has had two (informal) requests to take items down.

Neither of these were from the Government, but for items in other related data sources (one from the bailii feed, one from the petitions feed). Of course, we don’t store whole articles, just an extract of these items (the cache is only for GNN sourced articles).

In general, my principle is, if there are legal issues involved, follow those. Where there aren’t, I don’t take it down.

While anyone has the opportunity to speak, and can later extend or revise their remarks, should people get the opportunity to hide the fact that they said anything?

Should we have multiple standards, and if so, for whom?

Comments and discussion on the above are very welcome. While the TGS issues are trivial, it may become a future issue with iQuango.org/news.

I’ve previously taken a look at who writes to their MP, looking at the deprivation of the place in which they live, after an MPs comments about internet availability.

I’ve now rerun the process for MEPs and Councillors, and got some different results.

While the deprivation of the area in which you live makes very little difference to whether you write to your MP, it does make a difference over whether you write to your MEP or your local Councillor.

For more, see the writeup and graphs.