Good link from Fedup to the Guardian article about Ed Richards telling Lord Justice Levenson how to regulate the free press.
This link works for me, the other one freezes, no idea why
Guardian
Quote:Ofcom chief Ed Richards has hit out at plans put forward by Lord Black to create a new press regulator, arguing that having serving editors involved in adjudications on complaints would be unworkable.
Richards ... said it was completely indefensible to have people involved in the industry in the same room as those making decisions about complaints...
"We would draw a very strong distinction between advice and the presence on decision-making of people actively involved in the industry being present ... I think that is quite the wrong thing to do and makes effective ... decision-making extremely difficult and to be honest in our context would be unimaginable."
...
Richards, who made an unsuccessful application to take over from Mark Thompson as the next director general of the BBC [
], said that the involvement of working editors would not produce an independent and transparent regulator.
"The idea that we could stand up in public and defend decisions made if we had serving broadcasters," he said, before being interrupted by Lord Justice Leveson
, who inquired whether he thought editors should also be excluded from a committee setting up a code of practice.
Richards argued that editors could be involved in an advisory capacity but they should not be involved in setting the code.
"I think, yes, I would say in terms of code-setting, in terms of sanctions, in terms of corrections and in terms of policy-making overall, you need to have a bright line to separate between those who are regulating and making decisions and those that are regulated," said Richards.
He added that anything else "immediately undermines the perception, and in all minds, the actuality of your independence".
...
He explained to Leveson that the equivalent body for setting codes for broadcasting is the content board, which consults with serving broadcasters but remains independent of them.
Ed Richards represents Ofcom, an organisation so independent of broadcasters that not a single member of the content committee or the full board has any in depth experience of producing, directing or acting in prime time drama.
Experience is limited to journalism, animation and, in one case, a short period as a junior researcher.
So far as I am aware no broadcaster has ever been involved in workshops to outline Broadcasting Code options or stress test draft provisions.
However the whole concept of independence flies out of the window when it comes to approaching regulation independent of previous Ofcom decisions.
Fines, banning orders, in breach decisions, drafting the Broadcasting Code and deciding on consultation responses are all handled by the same crowd of people who report to the same managers. Some are on temporary contracts where the basis for renewal is not transparent. Initial case filtering and preliminary decisions are taken by junior staff further down the pecking order but they report to the same people.
Its as if the local police were managed by the local magistrate and the local mayor had the power to renew their contracts or not.
A particularly bad example was provided some years ago when the Kennell Club was pursuing a complaint against the BBC. Kath Worrall was a long standing member of the Content Committtee and the Broadcasting Standards Commission before that.
She basically sat as an appeal judge into a decision she had already been involved with.
Kath will of course be remembered for her time as a Radio Cumbria presenter. (Others include Richard Hammond, now a successful television personality, Richard Madely and Blue Peter presenter Helen Skelton). Kath was also Director of Broadcasting at Border Television and Secretary at BBC Scotland. There is no obvious record of actual involvement in television show production, rather than senior management.
Quote:The BBC had accused the regulator of refusing to accept evidence that would overturn its judgment, and took issue with the fact Ofcom’s Kath Worrall, a former dog show judge, oversaw both the initial investigation and a subsequent appeal.
...
They claim Ofcom is undermining its own authority by allowing a single person to oversee the entire process, despite claims it has already been botched.
...
However, Ofcom has vowed to keep Worrall on the case if it decides on a second appeal, despite plans to change the appeals process for future investigations. ...
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broad...06.article
Ofcom feel they have the right to tell us what we can and cannot watch this is something the ITC left well alone. I mean for goodness sake parents surely no how to be responsible with regards protecting there freeview/Sky adult pin codes from there children? 
This lame argument that Ofcom are trying to portray is bloody ridicules
By hook or by crook Ofcom must be stopped or have its powers taken away, either which way i frankly don't give a shit.