The furor over the expenses claimed by Members of Parliament in England continues to rumble with several more resignations and the news that the police are to investigate a number of Members for possible fraud.

The original leaked information that ignited the issue was obtained (possibly illegally) by a well respected newspaper, which was bad enough for the reputation of the Houses of Parliament. But now, under the veil of the government's own long-planned attempt to be more open, the publication of those very expenses have been made available, but in heavily redacted form!

Unfortunately for the government and the reputation of MP's, this has now only served to highlight how censored the "˜official' records prove to be, with not just names and addresses removed (an understandable safety precaution) but whole swathes of detail about what was claimed redacted out by black over-printing.

Before the government released their version of the expenses, there were numerous revelations made by the Daily Telegraph of claims for mortgage payments (on properties that were in fact already fully paid for), dog food, toilet seats and even, in the case of one senior conservative member, moat cleaning. Yes, he lived in a house with a moat around it! These actions have greatly infuriated the British public and of course, to see those same claims released by the government, only instead with the damning information blacked out, has only added fuel to the flames.

What is the underlying lesson here?

Even if your organization keeps good records, really well, and have the resources and facilities to redact out information released under a Freedom of Information request, your Policy and the application of redaction needs to be realistic and acceptable to the regulating body "“ in this case, the British public "“ who are as near to revolution as the British will ever get!