4 ms·

> it doesn't look like these Ofcom guys are playing with a full deck they're a quango, staffed by those who couldn't make it as civil servants (not a high bar)

> it doesn't look like these Ofcom guys are playing with a full deck they're a quango, staffed by those who couldn't make it as civil servants (not a high bar) I'd be surprised if anyone who works there has ever used the internet similarly useless are ofwat (water) and ofgem (energy), both of which allowed massive scandals to happen on their watch ofwat: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/21/new-powerful-water-regulator-to-replace-failed-ofwat-in-drive-to-reset-sector https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/21/new-powerfu... ofgem: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63805028 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63805028

rob_c 1y ago
it's asif we need to reform the system and find a better way...
- blibble 1y ago
  ofwat is shortly to be abolished (whether or not that will help is another matter)
KaiserPro 1y ago
> staffed by those who couldn't make it as civil servants Still civil service. > I'd be surprised if anyone who works there has ever used the internet They do, but the pricks who created the law are/were reactionary politicians, who couldn’t be bothered to actually draft decent laws. Ofwat and ofgem are different issues, they have suffered regulatory capture. Ofwat has the power to bankrupt the entire water system. Which is great, but then the government would have to bail out the shareholders. which means not only higher taxes, but no private investment for large scale. Oh and ballooning public debt. Which means stagflation, well harder stagflation. There is a ton more to this. Don't get me wrong it needs reform, but that costs money. We need to have the money to hire decent staff. But with the impeding cuts and what ever dipshittery from Reform next, thats not going to happen
- finghin 1y ago
  In the UK and Ireland, a distinction is generally made between public servants, who are paid by government appropriation, and civil servants, who are employed directly by government departments and the organisations they directly control and fund.
- blibble 1y ago
  they're not civil servants, because the the organisations were deliberately created to be separate from whitehall (and ministerial interference)
  - moomin 1y ago
    Looked this up. They’re not part of the civil service transfer scheme so I think you are 100% correct. They also in theory have their own corporate structure but since they literally publish documents explaining how to map it to civil service grades I think it’s fair to say the overall experience isn’t that different. But different tenure, different pension, they’re not civil servants.
  - rockskon 1y ago
    It seems to be a distinction without meaning in this case.

rob_c 1y ago

it's asif we need to reform the system and find a better way...

blibble 1y ago
ofwat is shortly to be abolished (whether or not that will help is another matter)

KaiserPro 1y ago

> staffed by those who couldn't make it as civil servants Still civil service. > I'd be surprised if anyone who works there has ever used the internet They do, but the pricks who created the law are/were reactionary politicians, who couldn’t be bothered to actually draft decent laws. Ofwat and ofgem are different issues, they have suffered regulatory capture. Ofwat has the power to bankrupt the entire water system. Which is great, but then the government would have to bail out the shareholders. which means not only higher taxes, but no private investment for large scale. Oh and ballooning public debt. Which means stagflation, well harder stagflation. There is a ton more to this. Don't get me wrong it needs reform, but that costs money. We need to have the money to hire decent staff. But with the impeding cuts and what ever dipshittery from Reform next, thats not going to happen

finghin 1y ago
In the UK and Ireland, a distinction is generally made between public servants, who are paid by government appropriation, and civil servants, who are employed directly by government departments and the organisations they directly control and fund.
blibble 1y ago
they're not civil servants, because the the organisations were deliberately created to be separate from whitehall (and ministerial interference)
- moomin 1y ago
  Looked this up. They’re not part of the civil service transfer scheme so I think you are 100% correct. They also in theory have their own corporate structure but since they literally publish documents explaining how to map it to civil service grades I think it’s fair to say the overall experience isn’t that different. But different tenure, different pension, they’re not civil servants.
- rockskon 1y ago
  It seems to be a distinction without meaning in this case.