It's not that simple. The law the BBC article is referring to[1] was a regulation, i.e. secondary legislation, passed by resolution. Had it been primary legislation, the courts wouldn't have been able to overturn it (Parliament is sovereign).

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111112700

> But it illustrates that the UK's law-making is subject to judicial review

This is misleading. Actual primary legislation isn't subject to judicial review. The only exception to that is a Judge can declare legislation incompatible with the ECHR - but even then that doesn't actually nullify the law, it only tells the government/parliament they need to fix it.

The bit that is subject to review is _secondary_ legislation, which is more of an executive action than lawmaking. It's mostly a historical quirk that statutory instruments count as legislation in the UK.

> government cannot make laws or regulations without consulting those affected by them how much of a hardship it constitutes to them

This is at best disingenuous.

There is no general requirement on government to consult. It is often referred to in various Acts, which are binding. There is a common law expectation that if the government has made a clear promise to consult that they have to.

But since the Glorious Revolution, parliament has proved to be supreme. It may have to be explicit in the laws it passes, but it can literally overrule itself as needed. Pesky EU human rights legislation is just a mere vote away from being destroyed.

Ofcom is a government-approved industry regulator, strictly speaking.

It is what in the UK gets called a Quango. A quasi-non-government-organisation.

It is not a government body. It is not under direct ministerial control.

It gets some funds from government (but mostly through fees levied on industry):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c8eec40f0b...

But it operates within industry as the industry's regulator, and its approach has always been to operate that way (just as the other Of- quangos do).

Here is what appears to be their own take on it.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/cons...

This seems pretty consistent with what I said -- it is essentially a self-regulation body, promoting self-regulation but backed by statutory powers/penalties.

Now what else is untrue?

ETA: rate-limited so I am not able to properly respond to the below. Bye for now.

What alternative would you propose? How much additional workload would it create for the court system and how would you manage it considering their existing responsibilities?