Oh, great.... seditious libel next then

All state-authorised organisations including the BBC, can complain to OFCOM about ‘Free Speech’ being used by the public to undermine state-sanctioned narratives. Authorised ‘free expression’ is to become a privilege meted out by the BBC and other approved intermediaries and supporters of government and media authority. Uncontrolled spontaneous and decentralised expression is to be banned in favour of a left-wing regulated approved ‘TRUTH’ authorised by the state, and verified by the BBC. State managed left-wing speech is to be inforced by OFCOM, over the far-right popular populist narratives stated by Trump, Vance, Kennedy and Nigel Farage. As in communist China, right-wing concepts of free speech, free expression and personal freedom are to be banned by OFCOM on behalf of the state authorities

******************************************************************

A draft statutory instrument titled The Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025 has been introduced to the UK Parliament, aiming to operationalize a new “super-complaints” mechanism under the UK’s expansive Online Safety Act.

We obtained a copy of the draft for you here.

This mechanism sets up a process through which select organizations can formally raise concerns about systemic harms or provider conduct across digital platforms. Beneath the language of user protection, however, the framework codifies yet another channel for state-endorsed gatekeeping of online discourse.

Under these regulations, entities such as civil society groups recognized for their expertise in online safety may qualify to file a complaint with Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator.

These “eligible entities” will be permitted to submit complaints no more than once every six months, barring certain exceptions.

The matters they can raise include not just tangible harms, but also content or conduct that appears to pose “a material risk” of causing “significant harm.”

Though framed as a tool for accountability, the structure hinges on a tightly controlled process.

Complaints must meet detailed evidentiary requirements and will be screened for admissibility by Ofcom, which has the discretion to reject submissions it deems repetitive, unfounded, or overlapping with court proceedings or matters under other regulators’ purview.

The eligibility criteria themselves have been loosened slightly after public consultation.

Organizations without a lengthy track record but with subject-matter knowledge can now qualify, and funding links to tech companies are no longer an automatic disqualification.

Despite these concessions, the regime remains exclusionary by design, with barriers that may discourage grassroots or under-resourced entities from engaging at all.

Yet the practical consequence of this entire initiative may be to centralize and bureaucratize concerns about “harm” into a narrow, institutionally filtered channel.

Rather than empowering users or upholding genuine pluralism, it risks sidelining spontaneous and decentralized expression in favor of formalized, regulator-approved pathways, a hallmark of systems that prize managed speech over real freedom.

While officials insist that this framework enhances transparency and responsiveness, its very existence underscores a broader shift: from a presumption of open discourse to a presumption of regulated acceptability. And in that shift, the space for dissent continues to contract.

Key Proposals

1. Eligibility to Submit a Super-Complaint

To qualify as an “eligible entity,” an organization must:

Represent users of online services or the public.

Have independent governance (not unduly influenced by the services it may complain about).

Be an expert contributor to public discussions on online safety.

Be committed to following OFCOM’s published guidance.

2. Evidence Required for Eligibility

Entities must provide:

Proof of their representational role.

Governance details showing independence.

Examples of significant contributions to online safety debates.

For repeat complainants, a simple statement of no changes can replace full re-submission of documentation (valid for 5 years).

3. Contents of a Super-Complaint

A valid complaint must:

Be in writing.

Name a contact person.

Specify which service(s) or provider(s) it targets.

Identify which legal ground(s) it’s based on (harms to users, systemic risks, etc.).

Include objective, current, and verifiable evidence.

Explain relevance, significance, or scope of the harm (especially if it concerns only one service).

4. Grounds for Rejection

OFCOM must or may reject complaints that:

Come from ineligible entities.

Are not based on legal grounds.

Repeat earlier complaints without significant changes.

Are incomplete or lacking evidence.

Involve matters already under court or regulatory review.

Are submitted within 6 months of a prior complaint (with some exceptions).

5. Time Limits and Procedures

OFCOM has 30 days (or 15 if the entity was previously verified) to determine eligibility.

Once verified, OFCOM has 90 days to assess the complaint, extendable if more information is needed.

OFCOM must publicly summarize both the complaint and its response.

6. Complaint Withdrawal

Entities can withdraw a complaint, unless OFCOM has already responded to it.

7. Submission Restrictions

Entities generally must wait 6 months between complaints, unless replacing a withdrawn complaint or if previous rejections were due to external legal processes that have since ended.

Robert

thanks for Eric the Eel reminder - I saw that when it happened :-)

Re Murray.... when smear is being applied it's a broad brush that's usually first reached for... It's usually some fractional wit activist trying to link stuff - looking for a knock-down via a wonky chain of stupidly presumptive conflations - my response these days is usually Foxtrot Oscar and find someone else's leg to hump.

yooneeversitteez

A bargain for taxpayers

Cliff Young - Aussie runner - why is he not better known than Eddied The Eagle?

green slope / black diamond?

Downhill, you say?