Has an interesting background – came into fashion around the time of the investigation into Westminster MPs expenses where claims/documents were “redacted” supposedly to edit them leaving them as there were meant to be – believe that one if you can!

In my case where I insisted I looked at the real thing and not even photocopies would have done – would “redacting” have done the trick? The remarks they made showed the cost of copying or “redacting”. Consider this to be a defence against showing the original meaning. Also, when documents are later “redacted” by an employee of the employer and acting under his (the employer’s) instructions – then of what value can they be?

Better to see the originals and soak up the time and effort yourself.