https://parkfarmneighbourhoodwatch.blogspot.com

Making it happen. Holding officialdom to account. Frank, fearless and free. THE DIGITAL NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH BLOG. Join our conversation https://parkfarmneighbourhoodwatch.blogspot.com YOU MAY NOW VIEW PETERBOROUGH TRIBUNE OVER A SECURE WEB LINK: https://parkfarmneighbourhoodwatch.blogspot.com PASS IT ON!

PBROtrib PAGEview COUNTER excludes casual browsers scrolling through a selection of posts

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Why you'll be seeing fewer MOBILITY leased cars around.....









@theyoungjane

The PIP 20 metre rule remains intact

Jane Young writes:


Despite hundreds of consultation responses explaining the devastating impact on people with significant walking difficulties of using 20 metres [important to stress the words WITHOUT PAIN!] as the benchmark distance for eligibility for the enhanced mobility component of PIP* and therefore the Motability scheme, the Government has decided, as we suspected they would, to keep the assessment criteria the same.


Whilst this is obviously a disappointment, there are several interesting features of the Government’s response to the consultation worth highlighting (although it’s impossible to unpack the whole document in one article).

Representation of respondents’ predictions of the impact of the 20 metre rule

I find it quite striking that the Government’s response goes to great lengths (paragraphs 3.4-3.26) to describe what individuals and organisations predict will be the negative impacts on disabled people of using a 20-metre benchmark distance (as opposed to the 50-metre distance more commonly used to determine significant mobility difficulty).




 For example, many respondents, including those likely to be affected by the tighter criteria, expressed serious concern that the loss of a Motability vehicle or money to run a private car will cause many disabled people to be more isolated, and/or find it harder to attend medical appointments, to the detriment of their physical and mental health.









The Government’s response also lists in detail (paragraphs 3.27-3.29) the impact respondents predict the 20-metre distance will have on the demand for other public services. For example, many pointed out there are likely to be greater demands on hospital transport if disabled people can’t use their Motability vehicle or their higher rate benefit to make the journey independently.




Of course, it’s reported that cross-Government discussions have not predicted significant impacts on other budgets or departments, but I’m not convinced how realistic this assessment has been. In particular, and consistently with its position on other aspects of welfare reform, the Government has virtually no understanding of the financial difficulties faced by the vast majority of DLA claimants, which will significantly limit their ability to find other ways to remain independent.




 The Government does not appear to understand that claimants can’t just use other money for necessary journeys, because what little other money they have is committed for essentials, such as food, clothing, heating, council tax and that part of their rent not covered by housing benefit.
The Government’s response is also helpfully explicit about how many respondents to the consultation supported the Government position and how many didn’t:
3.2 Out of 1142 respondents, 914 [more than 80%] indicated a clear preference for changing the Moving around criteria. Of these, 122 responses were on behalf of organisations and 792 from individuals. Many of these respondents were in favour of extending the qualifying distance for the enhanced rate of the Mobility component from 20 metres to 50 metres.

3.3 Five individual respondents were supportive of retaining the current criteria. Two organisations responded positively on the criteria being more objective and easier to apply consistently but did not express a view on the distances used. 221 respondents commented without expressing a firm view on the Moving around activity. Many of these addressed other aspects of the PIP assessment criteria or other elements of PIP.

Note: emphasis and insertion of percentage are mine; no organisations are reported as being in favour of the Government’s position.


We can’t be sure of the reason the Government has decided to give so much detail about the vast majority of responses that disagree with their position, but in this respect the tone and content of the document seems quite different from other consultation responses they’ve published – especially, for example, their response to the original consultation on DLA reform.


I firmly believe that research and analysis published by campaigners, including the Spartacus report – Responsible Reform, which analysed the 500+ organisational responses to the initial consultation on DLA reform, along with the statistical and factual background, has demonstrated that it is just not acceptable for the Government to totally dismiss, or effectively misrepresent, the views of the majority of respondents to a consultation.

Measures to be taken in recognition of the consultation responses

The response explains the measures the Government plans to take in recognition of the concern expressed by respondents a benchmark distance of only 20 metres for enhanced rate mobility PIP under the Moving Around activity.


 It accepts how important it is that the PIP assessment takes account of whether a claimant can undertake an activity reliably, ie “safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and within an acceptable time period”, as enshrined in the PIP amendment regulations.


The Government therefore makes a commitment to take further steps to ensure the assessment process, including the assessments by Atos and Capita, takes proper account of these factors (paragraphs 5.2-5.3). Indeed, the Government even goes so far as to point out that the 20 metre distance is not the only factor that determines eligibility for the enhanced mobility component solely on the basis of the Moving Around activity:
4.14 It must be remembered that the 20 metres distance is not the only factor considered when applying a descriptor for the Moving around activity. A key factor when considering the operation of the Mobility criteria is the impact of taking reliability into account. Specific legislation recognises that determining the distance an individual can stand and then move is rarely cut and dried and that individuals are unlikely to only be able to walk a certain distance every time.  
The reliability criteria ensure that decisions taken on benefit are based on what individuals can actually achieve on a regular, reliable basis, not on what they can do when at their best but are not able to repeat. This means that the enhanced rate of the Mobility component will be awarded to those people who cannot walk beyond 20 metres and those who can walk beyond 20 metres but cannot do so reliably.
The response also restates its commitment to undertake two independent reviews of PIP in operation, with the report on the first review being published by the end of 2014, but I’m not aware that this constitutes any change to the existing plans.

Transitional support from Motability

The Government’s response also makes a rather strange statement about the transitional provisions Motability has decided to implement for its own customers:
5.4 The Government recognises that some Motability Scheme users will no longer be able to access this support as a result of reassessment for PIP. We recognise that this transition may be challenging for these individuals. The Government has therefore worked with Motability to put in place a financial package of support that will be made available to Motability users who no longer have access to the Scheme through PIP, to allow them to put in place alternative arrangements.
This statement is misleading and disingenuous, as it implies that DWP has contributed in some way to the transitional support package Motability has put in place for its own customers, when the reality is rather different. Motability is implementing the package independently and funding it out of its own reserves, having consulted with many organisations and individuals, including both DWP and myself as well as, for example, Disabled Motoring UK and several impairment-specific charities.


Full details of Motability’s transitional provision are explained in Lord Sterling’s statement published in September 2013 and the accompanying FAQ’s, and a Motability spokesman made it clear in a report by the Disability News Service that the package will be funded from Motability’s capital reserves.


I have to say that as someone who has worked closely with Motability as it has developed its transitional support, I have a problem with the way in which the wording of this part of the response implies the Government has been in some way instrumental in putting together the transitional package and/or has contributed to its funding. Indeed, if this were the case, one would have to wonder why the Government only deemed it necessary to provide transitional protection to those claimants who have chosen to use the Motability scheme, rather than those who currently use their higher rate mobility component to fund their independent mobility in other ways, such as by private car or taxis!


 Neither the truth nor the document’s spin allow the Government to claim that such transitional protection constitutes its own provision to mitigate the difficulties faced by those who lose their higher level mobility benefit when they’re reassessed for PIP. The transitional support DWP is offering is to pay DLA for 4 weeks following a decision on PIP entitlement (regardless of which rate or component of DLA the claimant currently receives).

Government’s justification for retaining the 20 metre rule

The Government appears to use two main justifications for failing to capitulate in face of the vast majority of responses saying that the 20-metre distance should be replaced by a distance of at least 50 metres (paragraphs 4.1-4.3), although both justifications are based on the standard political mantra that “there is no money”. The first justification is clearly in keeping with previous pronouncements in relation to DLA reform, that limited resources need to be spent on those with the greatest difficulties or barriers to participation. But are they really saying that as the seventh richest country in the world, Britain is unable to ensure dignity and participation for disabled people with such significant mobility difficulties that they are unable to walk more than 50 metres?


The Government’s other main justification for refusing to increase the 20-metre benchmark to a more practical distance is to argue that PIP as a whole is designed to be more equitable for people who have difficulties planning and following a journey, who were disadvantaged under DLA compared with those with physical difficulty moving around:
4.3 When developing the Mobility criteria, we were aware that although DLA includes deeming provisions which award the higher rate Mobility component to claimants who are deafblind, severely visually impaired and severely mentally impaired, the higher rate Mobility component is predominantly awarded to claimants with physical mobility difficulties only. The DLA lower rate Mobility component has been awarded to those individuals who require guidance or supervision outdoors.
This means that many claimants with mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments do not receive DLA higher rate Mobility, despite facing significant barriers to mobility and therefore to independent living. The PIP Mobility component has been designed to reflect the impact of impairments on an individual’s ability to get around, regardless of whether it has a physical or non-physical root cause.
The Government was aware that this approach would mean a reprioritisation of finite resources and those individuals with a physical health condition or impairment would be more likely to see a reduction in the mobility support they receive relative to those with non-physical impairments requiring support for moving around.

Using this arguable drawback of DLA as a justification for taking away support from physically disabled people with significant walking difficulties represents a strange approach to “equality” – more of a “race to the bottom” – and again reflects the Government’s constant insistence that there must be losers among claimants who are genuinely eligible for DLA because we can’t afford to support everyone who needs significant support to live independently.

Delayed reassessment

Whilst this is not explicitly mentioned in the Government’s response to the latest PIP consultation, regulations were laid today which provide for the natural reassessment of current DLA claimants to proceed more slowly than previously planned. However, there are no details yet of exactly how the delay will play out.


 I know, from a letter from a senior DWP official, that one reason for this delay is that the PIP claim process is taking longer than expected. This fits with what advisers and others have been reporting back, that it is taking a very long time for DWP to send out the PIP2 form after the first stage of the claim has been completed by phone. It also appears to be taking a long time for the assessment providers, Atos and Capita, to undertake face to face assessments after the earlier stages of the claim process have been completed. It is worrying to see such long delays in a process which is currently only dealing with new claims, before any reassessments of existing DLA claimants have even started, and does not inspire confidence in the progressive roll-out of the PIP programme.

Closing thoughts

There are several issues raised in the Government’s response on the Moving Around consultation that I have been unable to explore here; I may revise this article in due course as the dust settles. However, I should just say that at this stage the lawyers involved in the application for judicial review of the 20 metre benchmark distance are still considering how to advise their client on the next steps.


Looking back over the last few days, and specifically the weekend, it was incredibly depressing, but unfortunately predictable, to read the Daily Mail’s interview with Mike Penning, the new Minister for Disabled People. As is standard for the Mail, the article was based on half-truths and partial facts at best.


For those brave enough to read the article, I should direct you to up to date DLA statistics, which are quoted partially and out of context in the article: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251288/dla-evidence-and-awards.pdf  From this document, it can be seen that only 10% of claims are decided on the DLA form alone (which may well have been completed by a social care practitioner or similar professional anyway, on behalf of the claimant), 40% are decided on a GP report, 45% on evidence from another source (could be a social worker/care manager, support worker, physiotherapist, for example) and, as the Daily Mail is at pains to point out, 6% on a medical examination requested by DWP.


 Call me simplistic, but that sounds fairly robust for a benefit that was deliberately designed in 1992 to put the emphasis on self-assessment by the claimant, given that the claimant is best placed to know how their impairment or health condition affects them. If DWP wanted to request more independent assessments, or make shorter awards with more frequent reviews, it could have done so. There is no-one else particularly worthy of criticism for the way DLA has been operated.


There are other aspects of the Daily Mail article which are inaccurate, misleading and depressing, but Mike Penning has given other interviews, including to the Disability News Service. The headline of this article is, to my mind, uncontroversial – the Government has said all along that fewer claimants will receive PIP – but Mike Penning’s admission that he’s “passionate” about disability but that he “hasn’t heard of the social model” – the model developed by disabled people several decades ago and used extensively in policy-making by central Government, local Government, other public bodies and charities etc – was utterly frustrating.


Please, quick, someone give Mr Penning some disability equality training – urgently! If you put me in touch, I’ll do it myself – after all, I used to deliver such training when I worked in both the voluntary and statutory sectors.

*Personal Independence Payment, which is replacing Disability Living Allowance for working age disabled people






E&OE google.com/+JulianBray Tel:++44(0)1733 345581 (Option: Reportophone enhanced) ISDN COOBE LINK: ++44(0)1733 345020 [G722 & ATX Codecs] IPHONE 0743 303145 . > PETERBOROUGH TRIB NEWSREEL . http://feeds.feedburner.com/BraysDuckhouseBlog
Post a Comment

P'BORO TRIB. SEARCH ENGINE

LONDON EVENING STANDARD NEWSREEL

google83466ac7cb7103b1.html]

JULIAN BRAY AVIATION SECURITY NEWS 01733 345581 UK ISDN 01733 345020


UPDATES: Post are transmitted from a variety of remote sources, immediately published on servers in the USA, additions, updates and any corrections added later on the blog version only.


Editorial policy: WE DON'T CENSOR NEWS, we will however come down hard on lawbreakers, all forms of ASB - Anti Social Behaviour, and anyone or group who seek to disturb or disrupt our neighbourhoods and communities, or in anyway abuse, take unfair advantage or financially disadvantage our citizens. We support the Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch and digitally carry the messages from this independent Neighbourhood Watch Scheme.


We are openly but constructively critical of all political parties (actual and sham), pressure groups, overbearing 'jobsworths' and those who seek to waste public funds, abuse public office, ramp up expenses, BUY VOTES and/or engage in any form of directed or robotic voting.

Whilst accepting that many in Public Office perform a valuable service and make a worthwhile contribution, there are others who are frankly rubbish. Although Julian Bray is the editor, there are several Blog administrators / correspondents who actively contribute by remote transmission to this blog.

So it could be some days before the copy (content) is seen by the Editor and properly formatted. We consider all representations and correct any facts that are clearly deficient.




OUR HUMAN RIGHT TO LAMPOON AND CRITICISE POLITICIANS

THE HIGH COURT has ruled....People have a right to lampoon and criticise politicians and public officials under the Human Rights Act, the High Court has ruled.

We have the full High Court judgment, saved as a page on here. l

ampoon (lampoon) Pronunciation: /lamˈpuːn/ verb [with object] publicly criticize (someone or something) by using ridicule, irony, or sarcasm: the actor was lampooned by the press noun a speech or text lampooning someone or something: the magazine fired at God, Royalty, and politicians, using cartoons and lampoons.

Derivatives: lampooner noun lampoonery noun lampoonist noun Origin: mid 17th century: from French lampon, said to be from lampons 'let us drink' (used as a refrain), from lamper 'gulp down', nasalized form of laper 'to lap (liquid).

NUJ CODE OF CONDUCT

NUJ Code of Conduct

The NUJ's Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936.

The code is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to the it.


Members of the National Union of Journalists are expected to abide by the following professional principles:

A journalist:

1 At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed

2 Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair

3 Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies

4 Differentiates between fact and opinion

5 Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means

6 Does nothing to intrude into anybody's private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest

7 Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work

8 Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge

9 Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation

10 Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed

11 A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare

12 Avoids plagiarism The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code.

The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code

The NUJ logo is always a link to the home page.

(As modified at Delegate Meeting 2011)

PBROTRIB CHARTER


Rights Holder Charter
Version: January 2009 v.3
Introduction
This Rights Holder Charter (“Charter”) sets out the terms and conditions governing the relationship between Julian Bray, Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch blog entitled Peterborough Tribune (PBROTRIB) on the Blogger and other platforms, and an individual or company making a Contribution to PBROTRIB (“Rights Holder”). The purpose of this document is to ensure that the Charter terms are
incorporated into to all Contracts with each Rights Holder, so both parties areclear as to how PBROTRIB may use content. This Charter does not apply to content submitted:
· using a feature or interactive service that allows
the individual to upload to and display content on any of PBROTRIB websites
(including social sites), apps, WAP sites or any web address owned or operated
by PBROTRIB as may link to the terms accessible at
(User-Generated Content (“UGC”)); or
·
This Charter applies to all Rights Holder Contributions, except where the Rights Holder is already subject to a separate
written agreement with PBROTRIB in relation to Contributions, or where PBROTRIB
has agreed in writing to vary or amend the Charter due to exceptional circumstances. Formation of the Contract

By sending PBROTRIB a Contribution you are making
an offer to PBROTRIB to use the Contribution.’ PBROTRIB’s use of the
Contribution is acceptance of your offer and creates a Contract on the terms of this Charter. Submission of a Contribution by you is an acknowledgement that
you agree to the terms of this Charter. If you do not agree to the Charter you must email us as soon as possible to raise your objection and withdraw your
submitted Contribution, otherwise you will be deemed to have accepted the Charter terms.
Definitions
Contract: the agreement between PBROTRIB and the Rights Holder relating to the Contribution incorporating this Charter and the Special Terms (where applicable);
Contribution: material (written, audio, visual, video or audiovisual) created by the Rights Holder and will be
classified as either Material You Send Us or Material We Request From You;
Credit: for Material You Send Us “© [insert name of Rights Holder and Year]”;
Publication: means one or more publications owned or operated by PBROTRIB. Licence: the licence granted by the Rights Holder to PBROTRIB
as set out in the Licence sections of this Charter;
Personal Data: has the same meaning as provided in section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998;
Material You Send Us: a Contribution as set out under the Material You Send Us paragraph;
Material We Request From You: A Contribution as set out under the Material We Request From You paragraph; Rights Holder: name of the of the individual or company which has created the relevant Contribution; Special Terms: written terms between PBROTRIB and the Rights Holder relating to the Contribution that are not set out in this Charter and/or vary this Charter; and User-Generated Content: content submitted by an individual through a feature that allows the individual to upload material to any of PBROTRIB websites or social sites.
Conflict with other Agreements: If there is any inconsistency between any of the provisions of this Charter and the Special Terms, the Special Terms shall prevail. To be clear, where no Special Terms are agreed in writing, the Charter will apply without variation. Sending us a Contribution –
The information Rights Holders please provide To PBROTRIB When sending us a Contribution, please provide the following information:
·
Your Full Name;
Your Full Address; and Your Contact Telephone Number and Email Address.

We will not be able to provide Credits where a
Rights Holder has not provided the relevant information.

Material You Send Us

Material You Send Us is a Contribution that is
received by PBROTRIB from a Rights Holder. The Contribution may be solicited or unsolicited. The following are examples of Material You Send Us:
PBROTRIB has seen the Rights Holders’ photograph on a third party website. PBROTRIB contacts the
Rights Holder and asks to use the photograph. (Solicited). A Rights Holder speculatively submits a range of photographs to and for PBROTRIB’s use. The Editor may or may not decide to use one or more of the photographs. (Unsolicited) Material You Send Us does not include UGC, Material We Request You To Send Us or material that is governed under any
other relationship between the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to accept any Material You Send Us for review and if accepted for review is under no obligation to offer a Contract. Should PBROTRIB decide that it wishes to use the Contribution, it will be governed by the terms of this Charter. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to use the Contribution. If you wish to submit a speculative Contribution to us, please
contact the appropriate PBROTRIB title. Please note that PBROTRIB will not be able to acknowledge receipt of your Contribution and any submission is at the Rights Holder’s own risk.
Material You Send Us – Licence Terms
PBROTRIB believes that Material You Send Us is the
Rights Holder’s property and that the Rights Holder should not need to give up all its rights for the Contribution to be used by PBROTRIB. Therefore, by
sending us a Contribution, the Rights Holder grants the following irrevocable licence in perpetuity to PBROTRIB: The right to publish, reproduce, licence and sell the Contribution as part of the Publication throughout the world in the following formats:
-- the physical printed Publication;
-- in a replica layout in any electronic format of
the Publication;
-- on the website version of the Publication;
-- in any PBROTRIB apps delivering the Publication
to a reader; and
-- on any PBROTRIB social media pages.
-- The right to publish extracts or the whole of
the Publication (which may or may not include the Contribution) when promoting PBROTRIB’s business or subscriptions in media advertisement, show cards and other promotional aids. The Right to authorise The Newspaper Licensing Agency and similar reprographic rights organisations in other jurisdictions (“RROs”) to distribute or license the distribution of your Contribution throughout the world in any language(s) for RROs’ licensed acts and purposes as amended from time to time, and to keep available your Contribution through such RROs. The unlimited right to amend, edit, select, crop, retouch, add to or delete any part of the Contribution, in any format, whether electronic or otherwise, including the right to remove or amend any meta data associated with the Contribution.

The right to store the Contribution electronically.
In return for the licence granted in relation to the Material You Send Us, PBROTRIB will endeavour to provide the Credit with the Contribution. The licence granted to PBROTRIB shall survive any termination of the agreement between PBROTRIB and the
Rights Holder. Material We Request From You
Material We Request From You is a Contribution that
has specifically commissioned by PBROTRIB. PBROTRIB will contact a Rights Holder and
commission them to provide a Contribution in relation to a brief. An example of Material We Request From You is: PBROTRIB needs a photograph of a country building. PBROTRIB instructs the Rights Holder to attend the venue and take picture of the building. Material We Request From You does not include UGC, Material You Send Us or material that is governed under any other relationship between the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB . The Rights Holder will provide its own equipment and materials to fulfil its obligation for Material We Request From You. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to use the Contribution. Material We Request From You –
Assignment and Licence
PBROTRIB believes that Material We Request From You should be PBROTRIB ’s property as PBROTRIB has requested the Rights Holder’s services and instructed them to create the Contribution on its behalf. However, PBROTRIB acknowledges that the Right Holder may need a licence from PBROTRIB to
use the Contribution for limited purposes. Therefore, in submitting Material We Request From You to PBROTRIB , the Rights Holder assigns to PBROTRIB with full title, right and interest all existing and future intellectual property rights in the Contribution. In return, PBROTRIB will endeavour to give a Credit to the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB grants the Rights Holder a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence to use the Contribution in its own online and offline portfolio, provided that the following copyright notice is applied to the Contribution “©Peterborough
Tribune, used under limited licence”.
General notes about Rights: Any rights granted to PBROTRIB or the Rights Holder under this Charter shall survive termination of the Contract for any reason. Rights Holder Promises The Rights Holder promises: that it owns the Contribution and / or is (and will continue to be) authorised to grant the rights to PBROTRIB; nothing in the Contribution is blasphemous, discriminatory, defamatory, untrue, misleading or unlawful; that the Contribution complies with the NUJ Code of Professional Conduct and the Independent
Press Standards Organisations Editors’ regulations and Code of Practice; the Contribution does not contain any virus, Trojan horse, hidden computer software or similar; the Contribution does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party; where the Contribution contains Personal Data, all
the necessary consents in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 have been obtained; where the Contribution contains images of children under the age of 16, written parental consent has been obtained and can be provided on request; and maintain and comply with, at all times, the highest ethical standards in the preparation, creation and delivery of the Contribution.
Complaints In the event that a complaint is raised in relation to a Contribution, the Rights Holder agrees to co-operate fully with any internal or external investigation or process. Status. The Rights Holder is an independent contractor and nothing in the Charter shall render the Rights Holder an employee, worker,
agent or partner of PBROTRIB. The Rights Holder is responsible for any taxes/national insurance payable in relation to any services provided under the Charter.
Indemnity The Rights Holder shall keep PBROTRIB indemnified in full against all loss incurred or paid by PBROTRIB as a result of or in connection with any claim made against PBROTRIB by a third party:
arising out of, or in connection with the Contribution, to the extent that such claim arises out of the breach of this or any terms of this Charter (including any Special Terms); and for actual or alleged infringement of a third party's intellectual property rights arising out of, or in connection with the use of the Contribution except in so far as the claim arises as a result of changes made by PBROTRIB or a breach of the Licence by PBROTRIB.
Variation of the Charter No variation of any term of this Charter will be effective, unless it is set out in writing (letter, fax or email) and signed by
a relevant authorised representative of PBROTRIB. If you wish to submit a Contribution and are unable to agree with the terms of this Charter or if you
have any questions regarding this Charter, please contact a relevant authorised representative of the PBROTRIB publication.
Problems & Disputes In the event of a problem or dispute in relation to a Licence and/or in connection with this Charter, in the first instance the Rights Holder and the Editor will look to resolve the dispute amicably. Application of the Charter Unless otherwise agreed, this Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and English courts will have exclusive jurisdiction