“We would propose considering splitting off the commercial activities of the BBC from its public sector broadcasting duties and responsibilities more clearly than at present, and wish to ensure that the financing of such activities is entirely within the private sector, with no recourse to licence payers’ money in the event of mistakes being made. The BBC should not be allowed to advertise its commercial services on public service channels that do not take adverts from other commercial concerns.”

I don’t think it’s ‘knowledge’ they are worried about.

I also respect that anything said on this site may be interpreted as “approved by John Redwood” which Mr Cameron might not be pleased with. I have been a party spokesman and been smacked for going off message.

I don’t know if you have a web-site linking policy, so I am attaching the following to test it. Just to cheer up Redwoodians in these dark days:- (press delete here if not allowed)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIDxNoibAGg

Have you thought about doing a “YouTube”. Good one on BOM this morning about the “carry trade”:- http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/

Reply: I do not stick to agreed Conservative policy. This is not an official Conservative site. I am just trying to prevent contributors getting into hot water, and wasting my time with rows over allegations that might be difficult to prove.

It more than the BBC can achieve and is far better than most other places.

Frank Field?

The comments are an integral part of the blog as a reality check and a sounding board for a general consensus on the posts you make. It would be a much poorer blog with comments reduced and/or over-censored.

Surely, though, editing out coarse posts (which I have to admit to finding very funny in the right place) isn’t a good use of your own time? Is there not part of your parliamentary allowance which can go towards it? Maybe on a job share with say three or four others in the same position?

I’m sure you know all this without my saying so so I’m sorry if this comment has added unnecessarily to the workload!

Reply: I pay all the costs of this blog and do not think I could charge it to the taxpayer.

There must be some software that will allow you to block individuals or specific IDs also, which would discourage poor behaviour.

we enjoy your blog

Of course you have every right to delete as you see fit. I think many contributors on other blogs, and some here, sometimes forget those simple truths – and I include myself.

But better by far that you should decide rather than some loony apparatchik in Westminster or Cheltenham or, worse, Brussels.

Having said that, if the work load becomes too onerous, then there should be some help given, for it would be a tragedy if the thing succumbed as a victim of its own success. The important thing is for the quality of the articles to be maintained, so secretarial help might be necessary to edit comments.

I relish the debate and content and enjoy reading the various views.

As an experiment?

If I called the leader of our socialist disaster of a country and his prime henchman with the eyebrows – xxxxx; would this bit be edited? ( !!! -ed)

reply: I am trying to protect some of my contributors from themselves – if you make an allegation against someone – or a company – you need to be able to stand it up for legal reasons.

I would hate to see the contributions ended like a fellow MP of yours and I also stopped visiting when she ended the readers right to reply.

I would also agree that this blog is very interesting and educational so please continue.