Dacre was the editor of a highly partisan newspaper for decades.
Attempting to appoint him as a regulator is a naked attempt to impose political interference in regulation.
To continue to do so after his rejection in the process is an abuse of process.
That you see nothing wrong with this is a great exemplification of how our democracy is in peril.
Were there any other candidates?
If so, why not appoint one of those?
If all were unsuitable, readvertising the position and starting again is standard practice.
Sometimes that's on a previous applicants need not reapply basis, but it doesn't have to be.
What are the qualifications for the job?
I doubt there are many communications regulation specialists, so it's probably one those roles where senior management experience in other fields is deemed to be transferable.
Dacre has a stellar record in media, particularly new media, so his field might be deemed to have at least some relevance to the job.
It's just as likely the members of the of the panel are scared Dacre might upset their cosy public service culture of keep your head down and look forward to the pension.
Some of his antics at the Mail are the stuff of legend.
He could probably spark an industrial tribunal every day of the week and twice on Sunday in a less, shall we say, robust environment than a newsroom.
