There have been a few changes to the policy, which can be found at
http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm

A new rule has been added to deal with signatures (lines of text which some 
posters like to add to the end of everything they post).  Also, we no longer 
undertake to email rejected posts to sender. The usual place to look if you 
want to see why your post has been rejected will always be: 
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3displayulm.php

There was a time when our modbot would automatically email a poster with a 
copy of the reject reason but this facility is not working at the moment and 
I assume it is not likely to be made to work in the future. Apologies for 
any inconvenience.

There is a newsgroup where moderation decisions and moderation policy can be 
queried and debated, with other posters and with moderators. I am sure no 
moderator will be offended if his decisions are queried. That newsgroup is 
uk.net.news.moderation and at the moment it seems to be monopolised by users 
of the new cycling moderated group who seem to have a great deal to debate 
and argue about.

QUOTE

Moderation Policy

a) Contributors are permitted to express strong disagreement using whatever 
language they wish, but if they post offensive personal remarks about 
another contributor the post will normally be rejected. (NB - posts will 
normally be rejected if they imply that another contributor who is likely to 
see the post is stupid or dishonest, regardless of whether such observations 
contain any truth)
b) Humorous, frivolous or off-topic posts will sometimes be permissible if 
they are followups to an on-topic discussion, at the discretion of the 
moderators.
c) Postings will be rejected if they supply gratuitous or clearly 
objectionable infringement of privacy of any individual. This would include 
information about the individual's address, job or posting history.
d) Postings will be rejected if it appears to a moderator that there would 
be an appreciable risk that a court would find the article to be defamatory. 
If postings contain a link to a website where potentially defamatory 
allegations are made, or a website which the moderators have reason to 
believe may somewhere contain defamatory material, the moderators may at 
their discretion reject the posting.
e) Repetitive postings of broadly the same point will be disallowed at the 
discretion of the moderator, especially if the aim of such postings appears 
to be to have the last word in an argument or to upset other contributors. 
If the postings are helpful (eg another contributor wishes to confirm that 
he has had a similar experience or holds similar views) they will usually be 
allowed.
f) The moderators may at their discretion ban contributors who try to 
disrupt the group by wasting the moderators time. The moderators should 
confirm the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all moderators 
within 72 hours and should attempt to inform such contributors of their 
action.
g) The moderators will not edit posts to make them suitable for publication. 
Each post is either accepted without changes, or rejected.
h) Posts which appear to quote copyright material (such as articles from 
online newspapers or journals) may be rejected at the discretion of the 
moderators and are more likely to be acceptable if they quote as little 
copyright text as possible and add some original commentary and on-topic 
observations.
i) The moderators may reject posts which appear to encourage criminal 
activity (example: using violence as a way of solving a dispute).
j) If a contributor knowingly evades moderation by posting his message other 
than through the usual channels and/or with headers that are designed to 
divert the post away from moderation, he will be banned from the group by 
blacklisting or otherwise, and the moderators reserve the right to reject 
follow up posts to any posts from such a banned contributor.
k) The moderators may at their discretion reject posts on the topic of 
whether moderators might be legally liable in respect of decisions they have 
made as moderators. Such posts might encourage mischievous litigation and 
disrupt the group.
l) Signatures (sigs) at the end of posts must also comply with the 
moderation policy and in particular must not be abusive or defamatory or 
contain commercial advertising.  The moderators may also at their discretion 
reject a signature which contains political slogans or solicits votes or 
support in respect of any election or campaign.

In the interests of making the moderators task simpler, articles that fail 
some simple technical requirements may be rejected automatically without 
direct human intervention. The moderators *MAY* return the following kinds 
of articles to their senders, without posting them: articles with an empty 
or missing a Subject: field, or a From: field; articles cross-posted to 
other groups (currently rejected automatically), articles with a content 
type other than text/plain; articles which are excessively long, articles in 
threads that the moderators have said are closed.  The moderators will apply 
their own judgement on all other matters,  though the automatic system may 
assist them by drawing their attention  to particular issues that may affect 
their decision. The moderators may if they choose operate a list of trusted 
posters. The moderators will try to return any rejected message to the 
sender via email, except in the case of spam and articles without a valid 
return address, but this will depend on whether the process of returning the 
messages can be automated as it will be excessively burdensome to return 
them manually. The email includes the reason for the rejection and the the 
email address to which any subsequent discussion can be directed. The 
moderators will on request try to assist posters in rephrasing articles so 
that they can be approved. However, they do not make any commitment to 
entering into extended correspondence with anybody.

UNQUOTE