And this is what the PCC actually does. It starts at the “Graham Dudman plays the man”:

http://www.bloggerheads.com/

And these people are supposed to be competent?

What concerns me is that someone is in position of authority and doesn’t understand how the thing she’s in charge of actually works.

*Some of those were points in the previous letter, which could be put more directly ….

Does PCC chair agree that principles X, Y and Z which this group of bloggers all think important in their own work would be good practice for newspapers and magazines regulated by PCC? If so, will she join us in pressing those outlets who do not to do so, and will the PCC contact members directly to ask whether they will, or find out why not.

* But there is also their sense of high public confidence, in the reply, against the frustrations cited in the letter. It would be interesting to press for a clear answer on one key issue here.

- What number and proportion of PCC complaints have not been adjudicated because they are third party in each of the last few years?

What is the rationale for not adjudicating complaints against the code (which doesn’t mention any bar on 3rd party complaints), given that they state that public and the press should share an interest in accuracy and ethical standards?

And, specifically, what distinction or reason lies behind the PCC expressing some willingness (albeit rarely) to play a role in some rare third party complaints (such as Gately/Moir; perhaps also Malone’s free cars for illegal immigrants) while routinely refusing others as their established policy? This strikes many civic society voices as arbitrary, and leaves unclear whether or not the pcc does offer newspaper readers and the public an opportunity to challenge articles which breach its code, without needing to be the subject of them.

The response in the Moir/Gately case was a positive half-step forward, but I can see no reason why would the volume of complaints make a difference to the principle/policy?

This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: :: The PCC still want to regulate blogs (the Baroness responds) http://bit.ly/olGiy...

Even to accept a voluntary code is to legitimise the right to the State’s interference.

The response by the PCC chair demonstrates several unfortunate misconceptions about how this interweb thingy operates. Even if they do seek to regulate it will fail. The world has moved on.

We write what we think because we like thinking and we like writing. Maybe that’s what scares them.

The key point is number 2.

The modus operandi for the introduction of illiberal legislation is always the same.

Faux outrage- self regulation- legislation.

The resistance has to be early and absolutely unflinching. There is nothing to self- regulate except our freedom of speech.