Julian Bray is delighted to have his biographical entry included in the latest annual edition of Debretts People of Today .... ... PETERBOROUGH TRIBUNE Holding officialdom to account. THE DIGITAL NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH BLOG. Over 3/4 of a million page hits, and 3,400 blogposts. We have over 1,680 supporters in the Stanground, Park Farm, Fletton, Cardea (South Stanground) area alone. Our reach covers the whole of the former Unitary Authority. Our resourceful supporters send through reports and pictures, over 50 minimotos / motorcycles have been taken off footpaths and the Green Wheel thanks to their unstinting efforts. We aim to expose or detect crime; expose significantly anti-social behaviour; expose fraud, corruption or injustice; disclosing significant incompetence or negligence; protect people's health and safety; prevent people from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation, and disclosing information that assists people to better comprehend or make decisions on matters of public importance. In short, these elements (and other factors) help to make up what is known as the public interest Join our conversation Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch is independent and not connected with the Cambridgeshire Neighbourhood Watch which at January 2018 can only show since Feb 2011 45,000 hits! whereas our hit rate (or pageview counter ) records a current (Jan 2018) total of 750,329. YOU MAY NOW VIEW PETERBOROUGH TRIBUNE OVER A SECURE WEB LINK: PASS IT ON!

Thursday, June 02, 2016

Its a dead 'ringer' folks as Annette strips the Willow ..of its venue..but Mr Ringer bounces back...


QUOTE:  "We have the finance for 2016,
we have all the legal documentation,
we are successful at what we do,
we have the public supporting us,
but what we don’t have is a coherent and supportive council.


"We believe councillors are being mislead by their officers

 and we will happily defend any accusation laid against us."


Julian Bray writes: There has been much said about the political and financial machinations behind the decision to stop the Willow Festival being held on Council land. But all is not what it seems, the playing field isn't level.

The decidedly working class Labour leaning aspirations of the Willow Festival just doesn't fit in with the sole surviving Conservative controlled council ethos. The language used by the council in its 'legally open' exchanges is somewhat alarmist too, as is the sophisticated 'no copy' software used to protect the correspondence by Annette Joyce from wider circulation and public scrutiny.  

There is much reliance by the council on qualifications viz employ a competent noise consultant which was his responsibility (he actually employed a DJ with no experience or qualifications in this field). One might also ask on the same basis, in the public interest, what are the professional experience or qualifications in the field of Ms Annette Joyce, who seems to  have had a meteoric career rise over the past few years... from being the Race Director of the Perkins Run (working exceptionally closely throughout her PCC career with committed family man Cllr Gavin Elsey).

Interestingly Cllr Gavin Elsey does not feature in any of the exchanges, mentioned by Annette Joyce.

Don't get me wrong but Ms Joyce seems to feature strongly in all these exchanges, wearing many professional hats, so its only right that her professional qualifications are clearly demonstrated, to support her highly attractive public sector salary and expenses package. We've looked in most of the professional directories, no luck so far.... give us clue Annette!

Its ironic that the 'Council' has a pop at a DJ, when several ex- DJs' have just been elected councillors, ( they already had a resident joker 'Cllr Turnip' not to mention 'Cllr Spanker' ) and as any promotor knows the legal noise requirement can be met with the purchase or hire of a simple noise measurement unit, but a function normally carried out by the supplier and installer of the event public address system (such as Pearce Hire, do for the Beer Festival where live music is also played).

For what its worth I don't see any reference to the Corporate Manslaughter Act which is currently top of all event organisers in-trays...

Where financial details of events and contractual arrangements has been requested in the past, the council routinely falls back on grounds of commercial confidentiality. Fletton Quays is a classic recent case, the promotors even resorted to a barrage of Google takedowns on this blog and others, over a highly critical but well researched item on the distinctly rocky financial background of one of the key personalities involved.

A 'personality' paid an astonishing eye watering fee by the Council out of public funds, simply for an offshore introduction.  Luckily we spotted the Google takedown but not before the council got into bed with the offshore outfit currently promoting the large and deep empty space next to the town bridge. I also find it curious as justification, some of the events listed below are included ( the Olympic Torch - cost the council a six figure sum) debacle- the torch arrived so late it missed its TV Look East slot, and all local businesses along the route were LEGALLY barred from 'cashing in' on the Olympics event). 

The tardiness of the Council events team ( under Ms Joyces' stewardship ) nearly caused the premature closure of the Peterborough Beer Festival when the drains collapsed and Beer festival mobile toilets effluent output backed up and out of commission.

It also cites the ongoing perennial financial disaster of Vivacity which like blotting paper is constantly mopping up public money when it was supposed to be totally self financing.  Level playing field?  

Talking of prudent finance, Janet you recall in her last spell as a councillor spent some £11,000 on those corporation green plastic planters, the ones  looking like scaled up chocolate fountains.  But enjoy the exchange of correspondence, and perhaps the many local and regional bands now cruelly denied a crucial first public performance could have an extra tent at the Beer Festival? That is if Ms Joyce whilst digging out her qualification certificates, can be torn away from 'affairs of state' to make it all happen.   

Response from Councillor Janet Goodwin, ( good to see you  back Janet and in the old job too. Nudge, Nudge)!  Cabinet Member for City Centre Management, Culture, Tourism [and wacky planters], to questions and comments about the decision not to allow the Embankment to be used for the Willow Festival 2016: 

The events team in Peterborough City Council has been responsible, for many years, for a number of successful events which include the following:
  • Great Eastern Run, which is regarded as a premier gold standard running event in the country.
  • Community Festivals, such as Diwali.
  • Tour Series which is a national and televised bike race in the city centre.
  • Olly Murs concert, working with a national promoter.
  • Bryan Adams concert, on 5th August 2016 working with a national promoter. (Clearly clairvoyant - as it hasn't happened yet!)
  • Olympic Torch event working with Lord Coe and Government.
  • Numerous festival events working with Vivacity.
  • Beer Festival in a facilitation role. (Facilitate: Mine's a Pint)
For each of these events the relationship between the organisers, participants and the council team have been constructive, trusting and respectful which has been a major factor in the success of these events. This success can also be attributed to the organisers submitting competent and detailed event plans and health and safety plans in a timely fashion. This has enabled the council team, police and other relevant authorities to scrutinise and approve those plans in plenty of time for the event to take place.

The council supports the overall concept of a musical festival in the format of a Willow Festival. The council championed its return in 2012 and financially supported it to the tune of £100,000 for the years 2012/2013. Having said this, the experience of working with the organiser, Mark Ringer, has been in stark contrast to the events set out above. I have found, in my review of this decision, the following difficulties which have been experienced not only by this council, but by the police in dealing with Mr Ringer. They are as follows:-
  • In 2012, it was discovered, an hour before the event was due to open that, the security cover was inadequate. The police objected to the opening of the event with this inadequate coverage. The council immediately stepped in and arranged for more security cover at the council’s expense to ensure the event opened safely.
  • In 2012, Mr Ringer failed to employ a competent noise consultant which was his responsibility (he actually employed a DJ with no experience or qualifications in this field) so the council, at its own expense, stepped in at the last minute and employed a noise consultant to ensure the event could open on time.

  • In 2013 on the day before the event was due to open, the police threatened to demand a review of the licence due to insufficient security cover for the event which was in conflict with the numbers promised in the plan submitted by Mr Ringer to the Safety Advisory Group who oversee the safety of the event. At this point Mr Ringer irresponsibly walked off site and said he had cancelled the event, leaving the businesses and concessions uncertain about their position. The Chief Executive, Annette Joyce, Mr Ringer and Mr Ringer’s business partner met the next day, as a matter of urgency, and the council agreed to pay £10,000 to employ extra security cover.

  • In 2014, on the Sunday there was an issue with the safety of one of the stages. The Chief Executive and Annette Joyce were called by the police to the site because Mr Ringer’s safety officer could not be found and Mr Ringer declined to give the police the safety officer’s telephone number. The Chief Executive and Annette Joyce refused to leave the site until a proper evaluation of the structural integrity of the stage was completed by the stage crew and the stage was therefore deemed to be safe.
  • Later on the same Sunday in 2014, the police called the Chief Executive and Annette Joyce back to the site. In addition the Silver Police Commander from Bedfordshire Police also attended the site as the security team were threatening to leave the event as they had not been paid. A decision was required as to whether to close the event. After some negotiation it is understood that a partial payment was made to the security firm and the security cover continued.
  • In 2015 the Leader of the Council asked two leading opposition councillors to work with Mr Ringer to enable the event to take place in the summer of that year. After attempting to work with Mr Ringer and agreeing deadlines for paperwork and plans to be submitted, he failed to achieve this and also failed to attract the necessary funding for the event. The knock on effect for the council was that, at very short notice, an alternative venue for the Skills Fair, which runs alongside the Willow Festival, had to be found.
  • In 2016, the events team was approached to run the event again and I attach a letter from Annette Joyce dated 26 May which sets out the basis for the council’s decision not to proceed to allow use of the Embankment. I have read this letter and checked the facts contained therein and confirm that they are correct.

Letter from Annette Joyce on 26 May 2016

Size: 102.21 KB File format: pdf

In addition to the above I have noted that the events team, in order to facilitate the Willow Festival, has applied only minimum safety and other requirements to the running of the event whereas other organisers often exceed those minimum requirements. As can be seen from the above, Mr Ringer has failed to maintain even these minimum requirements.

Having reviewed the above, including reading many of the emails sent by Mr Ringer, I have concluded that the decision not to allow use of the Embankment is wholly justified. Aside from the safety concerns and the considerable efforts made by the council to secure this event with a considerable financial contribution, Mr Ringer’s abusive behaviour has not created the kind of trusting and respectful relationship that make events such as these a success as well as safe for families and children to attend. Further the decisions made by the council were also designed to protect Mr Ringer and his potential liabilities.

I would conclude by saying that those who are questioning the council should better address their questions to Mr Ringer and no doubt with the facts in their possession they will now do so.

Previous response on 27 May 2016:

In order to hire the Embankment to host this festival the council requested Health & Safety and Financial Information from the organisers by stipulated dates so we could be sure the event would be hosted both safely and financially successfully. This was done to protect those attending and protect those who may decide to do business with the Festival's organising company.

Despite repeated requests and extended deadlines this information has not been provided to a suitable standard.

The council also set a deadline for receipt of a discounted hire fee required in order to hire the land. This discounted hire fee was not paid by the deadline set or in fact extended deadlines.
This festival is not taking place on The Embankment because the organisers have failed to provide information requested, that meet our conditions of hire, and pay the hire fee in full.

The council cannot answer any questions on behalf of the organisers as to why they have decided not to do this and residents will need to readdress these enquiries to the Festival organiser(s) at and ask why they didn't pay the hire fee or provide information by requested dates.

It's a great shame this event isn't happening but this is solely in the hands of the organisers.
- See more at:

Mr Ringer takes up the Gauntlet....

Please accept this letter in response to Cllr Janet Goodwin’s letter to the press, public and ourselves dated 1st June 2016.

Part 1:

Janet states that her letter is based on facts which informed the council’s decision, but then goes on to ignore the facts behind each situation and fails to elaborate or give any background to each accusation.

So I intend to supply that background for clarity and balance.

But let’s start with Janet’s [Goodwin] opening comments, that claim the council’s events team has been responsible for many successful events.

Back in 1995 when I perceived The Willow Festival, the city was void of any major arts events. The Peterborough Festival was at that time based around classical themed events held within the Cathedral and there were no large popular arts events in the city at all.

So I decided to develop them. Not the city council team, but myself. So I approached PCC for help and very kindly Colin Wise of the city council offered to help me do just that.

At that time, the Embankment was almost unused, except for the circus and fledgling beer festival. The country music festival was a distant memory and the car shows hadn’t been held there for over 15 years.

So it was my idea to re-invigorate the Embankment and city centre arts programme starting with a music festival that was inclusive for all locally. The Willow Festival.

A year later I was instrumental along with a small team of council employees in bringing together over 80 arts groups to formulate what would become the most successful festival of the arts the city has ever seen.

The Peterborough Festival came of age and eventually became a three week extravaganza with The Willow Festival as it’s centre piece.

I then set up further shows on the embankment and the town square and ran the first ever organised city centre New Year’s eve celebrations with a small PCC arts team, complete with live bands and attractions.

We also ran the national BBC music live event from the town square and started the first ever local live music venue that booked original songwriters and artists.

So I was instrumental in making the city a place where other promoters may wish to stage events, and that is what happened.

The concerts on the Embankment that followed, were as a direct result of our successes in making Peterborough and the embankment site an attraction for promoters.

Indeed the very promoters that staged most of these shows wanted to buy The Willow Festival from me back in 2003 and turn it in to a commercial event, but I refused to sell it to them on the grounds that it was here for the city, not for anybody’s personal financial gain.

So it was much to do with my efforts that brought the city the opportunities it now has regarding commercial exploitation of large scale music events on the Embankment, not the current council team’s.

The Willow Festival put the venue on the map as it were and the current council team are now reaping the benefits of that, so I have succeeded in my goals.

I have also supported Peterborough Beer Festival and supplied it’s music programme in the recent past on a volunteer basis and free use of infrastructure I own.

I have produced events and worked with many organisations over many years and still do cordially. I have vast experience of events management and have presided over all manner of productions without ever finding myself in court or facing any type of legal action.

Part 2:

With regard to our security situation, in 2012, Cllr Janet Goodwin suggests that in the eyes of the police we would have been woefully under staffed security wise in 2012 without the sudden intervention of the council.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We had made depositions to the Police for some time that what was being asked of us was overkill and totally unnecessary regarding our security presence. Our very experienced security company set the levels of security cover they felt was more than adequate and they agreed with us and supported our depositions.

We were under the impression that all was fine until a late demand for more security by the police was brought to us. This wasn’t in the last hour, but the day previously. We again tried make our case and so did our security firm, but to no avail.

The council did indeed step in and pay for more security, but as far as I am aware, this came out of our allocated budget and I wasn’t privy to how the council spent the funds allocated to us.

In the end, we were right. The additional security was indeed overkill and not required. And as they were not the very competent security company I hired, we had no idea of the quality of them, and we did discover some of them standing behind the beer marquee having a pint and generally disengaged with the event.

It’s interesting to note that we were commended by the police force after the event for how little trouble the event had caused and how well it had been managed. To paraphrase a senior officer, he said, “we gave you enough rope to hang yourself”, but of course all was fine. One police officer told me in 2012 the event had made the city centre a much calmer place over the weekend.

Part 3:

With regard to the noise consultant I hired to cover the 2012 event he was indeed more than competent and had completed work satisfactorily in this field for other councils on many occasions. He was very experienced at noise monitoring and of determining safe and legal sound levels at many events in the past.

It was the council who overstepped their remit in insisting on having a qualified noise person to monitor sound levels. UK law does not state this is necessary and neither does the Purple Guide.

And even as late as 2015, when the inexperienced and new to the job Stuart Saunders was employed as a licensing officer for PCC, I demonstrated in front of Cllr Bella Saltmarsh, Cllr Adrian Miners and Cllr Kieth Sharp using the council’s own Purple Guide that this was indeed the case.

In effect the council was making up it’s own rules over and above UK legal requirements.

To date, The Willow Festival has never exceeded UK laws regarding noise pollution and has never received a complaint that could be upheld, as it has always acted within the law. Indeed, In the entire history of The Willow Festival, I can only recall three noise complaints, and two of those were from the same person over a two year period, and when sound levels were measured by “qualified” engineers, it was found that the festival was just under half of it’s legally and council agreed limits.

Part 4:

With regard to 2013 security, again we raised security staffing over and above the previous year’s numbers, even though these numbers were proven not to be needed in 2012. However, a portion of those security staff were booked on an on call only basis, so that if we did need them, we could call them in on standby.

We didn’t need a repeat of the previous year where we had far too many security than was required and they were standing around without anything to do.

This was the plan presented at the SAG [ Safety Advisory Group] meeting that year by our security company.

However, the police insisted at a very late date that we have all of these extra security staff available much of the time or they would not permit the event to run. So I told them if they pursued this that I may have to cancel the event and I went off to the council in an immediate attempt to gain their support with our security plans and seek a solution.

They did not support my sensible and reasonable arguments, but instead paid for extra security.

Even though the council decided to pay for £10k’s worth of extra security, this was not out of any extra budget, as it had been agreed that a ceiling of 60K would be set aside for The Willow Festival that year, so no extra funds other than what was promised was spent.

It is also stated that myself, Annette Joyce and my business partner met on that day, but my business partner was not present and has never been present at a council meeting.

Part 5:

With regard to the stage tear incident in 2014, I did not refuse to give the telephone number of our Health & Safety officer to the police or anybody else for that matter.

It is not a requirement under law that the event health and safety officer has to be on site at any time at all, other than to oversee construction events, sign the site off as safe when we are ready to run the event and then oversee the breakdown. However he was on site most of the weekend and on call if we needed him.

During the Sunday a tear appeared in one of the canvas sides of a stage cover, which is similar to a marquee. It happened due to a freak gust of wind pushing a tower light into the canvas and tearing it.

Wind measurements are recorded at all times on the stage structures, and it was not a windy day.

A pole came loose and needed securing from swaying about. However, as alarming as this was, none of this was anything to do with the structural integrity of the stage or the safety of the stage to be used.

Performances were halted on the stage, the staging company’s representative checked it over as did our very experienced stage crew, and after they assured us there were no safety issues, the show continued.

We telephoned our highly qualified health and safety officer to attend the site and give us his opinion, he appeared and also gave clearance that all was indeed safe.

During this whole process we had a police sergeant, Annette Joyce and CEO Gillian Beasley interfering in our organisational processes for managing this type of incident.

None of these people are qualified or experienced in stage building or structural engineering and they were all told on site by highly qualified and experienced people that everything was safe and that there were no safety issues, which of course there were not.

Part 6:

With regard to payment for the security organisation for The Willow Festival 2014, the security company were paid in full prior to the event and any suggestion that they were not is frankly libellous. Indeed, they would not have attended if the £28,000 payment had not been made.

The security company have on several occasions offered to support me where my financial integrity is concerned and the council have been told this on many occasions by both myself and the company in question.

I still do business with them today and have done for many years.

There were issues with payments due to them by other parties, but they could not have (due to contractual agreements) and would not have walked off site over this.

Part 7:

With regard to the leader of the council asking two opposition councillors to work with us to enable the event to take place in 2015, if he did, we never saw them and the reason for cancellation of the event was because of last minute unreasonable demands that were being made of us by a new and inexperienced licensing officer employed by PCC.

We were threatened by this new and inexperienced licensing officer that if we didn’t comply with his demands that the festival would not go ahead.

But his demands included that the council have access to all of our business contacts and sponsors. This was clearly a conflict of interests, as the council is a commercial entity and except for having access to our accounts and our financial / budget plans they have no right to be talking to our contacts about us.

I’m sure if we wanted to talk to all of the council’s contacts about them, that we would be blocked from doing so too.
This all happened during the period that we had no leader of the council and over the election battle, and no councillor was in overall control.

Because of this, it took us about eight days to get a meeting with the licensing officer and councillors, and these eight days were at a crucial period of our organisational year, just a couple of weeks before the festival and we could not finalise all of our infrastructure bookings because of the uncertainty of getting a license.

When we finally got the meeting, we explained our reasoning behind not wishing to supply this information to the council in front of Cllr Keith Sharp, Cllr Bella Saltmarsh, Cllr Adrian Miners and the licensing officer, and it was agreed that in future a basic one page financial plan was all we would need to provide. Which is what we supplied this year on Jan 25th.

We were also being asked to provide a different type of management plan than we had ever been required to produce in the past.

What we had was indeed legal and perfectly acceptable in law and we had never had a history of our paperwork not being satisfactory or incomplete.

We were also being asked to do things which were beyond any legal requirement, and again we proved this in the same meeting with Cllr Adrian Miners, Cllr Keith Sharp, Cllr Bella Sltmarsh and the licensing officer.

By the time we were in a position of agreement to run the festival, it was too late to secure the infrastructure needed to do so and this was the reason we had to postpone the event in 2015.

It is true we were struggling for finances too, but we were in 2014 and we still produced a very successful and safe event.

Part 8

On to 2016. It was agreed in a meeting in 2015 with Cllr Keith Sharp, Cllr Adrian Miners, Cllr Bella Saltmarsh and Stuart Saunders that we would supply a financial plan and appropriate paperwork as per the new licensing officers wishes.
The management plan is working document and is altered and added to right up to the first day of the festival. This was requested and supplied to the licensing officer at the end of 2015 and he was very pleased with it and recommended our plans be approved by Annette Joyce.

An updated version was taken to the SAG ( Safety Advisory Group) meeting in 2016 an no complaints or further requests were made about it there. The licensing officer wasn’t present. An updated version was sent to the licensing officer also. We did say we would send a monthly update, but we admit this was not done.

However, the document is available and always is and there is no legal requirement for us to send a monthly update as such.

We would submit an update upon request, but were never requested to do so. We would also naturally take this document to meetings and have it looked over much closer to the festival dates, when it nears completion.

The suggestion by Cllr Janet Goodwin that we only apply minimum safety requirements to our events compared to other organisers, is frankly insulting.

We have achieved a fantastic record of safety with very high consideration for public health and safety issues, as is borne out by the fact that the council have even adopted our own security firm and approach for their own events now. This was a ridiculous statement by Cllr Janet Goodwin and ill informed.

I have also been accused of being abusive? It’s true I have lost my cool on occasion, but that was also borne of frustration at being treated like an idiot at times and by the continual lack of proper input and support from Peterborough Council.

The financial support for two years was simply fantastic, but the officer support was dreadful.

I even ended up getting a summons for £1,000.00 per poster for putting posters up where the council told me I could do so! I had to fight the case against the council and it was dropped! Should I not get annoyed at this type of incompetence and abuse?

We have the finance for 2016, we have all the legal documentation, we are successful at what we do, we have the public supporting us, but what we don’t have is a coherent and supportive council.

We believe councillors are being mislead by their officers and we will happily defend any accusation laid against us.


E&OE Tel:+44 (0) 1733 345581 > PETERBOROUGH TRIB NEWSREEL .
Post a Comment




The Peterborough Tribune supports:

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) an international non-profit organisation working to defend the freedom to be informed and to inform others throughout the world.

Today, 30 years since its creation, RSF has enough experience and on-the-ground support to defend press freedom on a global scale. RSF accomplishes its work through its wide network of correspondents established in 130 countries, its 12 offices (Vienna, Brussels, Rio de Janeiro, Helsinki, Berlin, Madrid, Stockholm, Geneva, Tunis, Washington DC, London, and Paris) and its consultative status at the United Nations, UNESCO, and the Council of Europe.

As a leading defender of press freedom and freedom of information, RSF alternates public interventions and effective behind-the-scenes actions.

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).

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 independently resourced Neighbourhood Watch Scheme. A scheme operated following written guidelines to us directly from the Home Office.

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.


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)


Rights Holder Charter
Version: January 2009 v.3
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.
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