@glynmoody I think with this bill, that was kind of obvious political babble.

What matters is the *text* of the bill, especially their insistence in keeping particular text in the bill (which really says a lot), not what an official says (they have a long history of playing down practical implications of bills, and playing up theoretical benefits).

Even if they don't use it, they could *threaten* to use it.

Also, a requirement for someone to write a "report" justifying it's use is useless, if they can just put one of their friends in the role.

Also, this bill looks like a train-wreck. It conjures up corpses of decrepit obscenity laws and other arcane parts of Britain's legal system. It also invokes vague language which will chill free expression.

A structure like this is probably also uniquely amenable to moral panic, especially with how vague the language is. Even if it's a relatively neutral official, who is to say they won't panic over something.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/19/paul-dacre-pulls-out-of-running-next-ofcom-chair
At one point, they considered putting the editor of the most right wing populist paper in Britain in-charge of the "regulator".