HPCC Debate candidate final information

Right guys with the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner debate only 3 days away, As asked by Brian heres is a brief profile on each candidate and a link to their website.

Michael Mates-Conservative (www.michaelmates.org): Michael Mates is a former MP for East Hampshire for East Hampshire for 36 years between 1974 and 2010. He is coming from a previously military background and served in the army and was based in Cyprus, Germany and Northern Ireland. He was also Northern Ireland Minister during the first few years of John Major's reign of Prime Minister. He has therefore had previous responsibility with policing matters in Northern Ireland. 

He has been involved with the Asil Nadir case and his close friendship with him and is still under scrutiny for not paying back his share of the Dolphin Square parliamentary housing complex, which has come under pressure from many Labour MP's. 

His main priorities if elected as HPCC are:

My overriding priority will be to ensure that the people of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight get the police service they deserve, and for which they pay. I shall fight for appropriate funds from central government, while acknowledging that these are difficult financial times for us all.  In making decisions about the budget I shall confer with the Chief Constable and the four authorities – Hampshire; Isle of Wight; Portsmouth; Southampton.  I shall strive with the Home Office and the Treasury to ensure that the importance of good and efficient policing is recognised appropriately in the budgets set.

My focus will be on reducing crime, catching criminals, protecting the vulnerable and making our streets safe.  To achieve this in difficult times, there must be more efficient use of scarce resources, with the accent on getting experienced, well trained officers out of offices and in touch with the public.

If I must choose between competing priorities, my choice will be:

• All crimes of violence
• All crimes involving alcohol and drugs
• Rural crime.

In addition to these, I would like to see the fear of crime allayed.  It is this which often causes our citizens to believe that their police service is not doing its best.

Jacqui Rayment-Labour (www.jacquirayment.co.uk): Jacqui is currently the Deputy-Leader of Southampton City Council and was previously the Chair of The Hampshire Police Authority for the last 6 years and member of the authority for the last 15 years. She has overseen the appointments of many leading figures in Hampshire Police including current Chief Constable Alex Marshall (Who is also departing at the end of the year, therefore the new commissioner will be elected a new Chief Constable). 

These are Jacqui Priorities:

"I will engage with different sectors of Hampshire and the IOW, Community and Tenant groups, Hard to reach groups, as well as Local Authority colleagues and Businesses.

My vision for the role would be to put people in the community at the heart of what I do, enabling them to have a voice and an active say in how policing is delivered in their communities across Hampshire and the IOW. I will build on the successes of the past, such as hosting a conference and road shows where people have been invited from across the community to participate and have an active say in how policing is delivered.

I would provide the opportunity for consultation and give people at a local level
the chance to articulate their top priorities and build this into my strategic plan. I would involve key community stakeholders, agencies, individuals and other public sector organisation such as local authorities to ensure that diverse voices had a chance to input into and shape the strategy and once the plan had been developed I would provide regular opportunities throughout the year for progress monitoring and further input from all parties.

The Use of the media will be vital in all forms including tried and tested methods of communication which would combine community newsletters, the press and other media as well as all forms of social media such as Twitter, Face Book, Blogging and LinkedIn to provide up to the minute progress reports as well as inviting stakeholder input on an ongoing basis. This would ensure that local people would have a direct link and input into policing priorities and the delivery of both the strategy and policing plan.  This level of local engagement will ensure the closer involvement of people within communities in the way policing is delivered. The Communication would need to be relevant and timely with the information aimed at the right level and appropriate to the given audience."

David Goodall-Lib Dem (www.davidgoodall.org.uk): David Goodall is currently a councillor at Eastleigh Borough Council and has been the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for Southampton Itchen in the last two general elections. He has family ties in Hampshire Police with his Father a former policeman and his brother currently working a police inspector.

All of the candidates in this election will talk about wishing to reduce all crime and in particular violent crime, alcohol and drug related crime and sexual assaults. All of us will agree that offenders need to be caught and punished for the criminal acts they have done. The difference between the candidates will come on:-

• how best to catch offenders?
• how best to punish offenders?
• how best the offender is re-integrated back into society once the punishment is complete?

There will also be differences on how we plan to operate as Police and Crime Commissioner and engage with the public, in particular:-

• how best to involve the public in creating the Police and Crime Plan?
• how best to involve the public in checking that the Police and Crime Plan is working?

These and other questions are addressed in my Manifesto published today

Stephen West-UKIP (www.vote4stephen.com): Stephen has defected from Conservatives from UKIP where has currently stands as a councillor on Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council. He is a former Special Constable and is the only candidate with front line policing experience:

His priorities are: 

The pledge that I make to you is simple and straight forward.  There is no fudge or minced words that you are used to from politicians of the mainstream political parties.  I want us to have a police force and not a police service and I want the criminals in our neighbourhoods to be frightened and not the victims.  I have listed below what I have committed to do, the details of why I must do this and how it will be done will come in my manifesto.

My pledges to you

• No reduction in numbers of front line police
• No real terms increase in your Council Tax police contribution
• Zero tolerance on anti-social behaviour
• Reduce overall crime levels
• Support victims of crime
• Support campaign to tear down speed cameras

I promise to deliver on the above pledges as your Police and Crime Commissioner.  Please print this page and keep it safe so that you can hold me to account against these clear commitments.

Simon Hayes- Independent (www.hayes4pcc.org): Simon is currently the chairman of Hampshire and IOW Crimestoppers and is standing as the only candidate with anyone political association. 

His Priorities include:

• To create sufficient Police Officers and PCSOs, so criminals know that they will be caught, whether they are active in rural or urban areas.
• To proactively combat crime in rural communities.
• To work directly with organisations, such as Victim Support, Neighbourhood Watch and other Charities, to achieve a safer society.
• To ensure a much more efficient and supportive approach to victims/witnesses, to achieve better outcomes for victims.
• To create quick and positive Community Justice - involving local people, to achieve better result for victims and say to criminals “crime doesn’t pay”.
• Take action to prevent constant police call outs about the same families, week in week out.
• To develop better School & College liaison with our young people, as part of the preventing offending campaign and giving confidence to young people that the Police are here to protect them.
• To improve Police response to Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse, to reduce both the number of victims and the unacceptable level of repeat victimisation, and to support vulnerable and elderly victims.
• To liaise with and address concerns of minority ethnic communities across both Hampshire & the Isle of Wight.
• To save Your money by preventing re-offending, so reducing crime and reducing victims.

Don Jerrard- Justice and Anti-Corruption party (www.policeelections.com/candidates/hampshire/don-jerrard): Don Jerrard is a former solicitor and many years of experience in dealing with the police in policing and legal matters. His website link does not work, but his main priorities are on the link I have given.

Two other useful website for the elections are www.policelections.com and www.choosemypcc.org.uk 

Any other questions come find me, but remember people will ask you questions on Thursday and you need to know the answers

WINOL HPCC election Debate special final plan

Right guys and girls after consulting and having various meetings the final preparations have been finalised. We will have a dry run through on Tuesday afternoon between half 3 and 6 to prepare the set for the night and ensure that the production plan can work and if any changes need to be made, we will make them.

On Tuesday it will be me, Graham, Henry and everyone from production to help out and we will do a dummy run, but I will need anyone who is free to pretend to be candidates and sat in the audience so we can every angle we will be filming from. After meeting the technician's and Brian on Friday the final plan for the layout for the debate:

* 2 cameras will be at the front one on a tripod capturing reaction from the audience and one will be on the fig-rig, which will be operated by Lee to get shots of the audience asking their questions and to also help film the chair of the debate.

* the other two cameras will be positioned inside of one of the rows in the auditorium. This will allow better access to film the debate and will also stop any problems with health and safety with cameras positioned in the aisles. These seats will be cornered off, therefore we will have both cameras on this row filming.

* The two cameras at the back will be fed by 2 long BMC cablesinto the tricaster, which will be operated by Henry and there is a possibility of their being a fifth camera, which will be decided after the run-through on Tuesday.

* We will have six table microphones used for the debate and one radio mic for Alex Forsyth. Therefore we will still need to possible use the gun-mic's, but I think that the mic's on the cameras will be sufficient with the volume up to maximum, but we will try with both.

* There will be a technician available from 4pm on Thursday 1st, so we will have someone on hand to help us set up all the equipment and there will also be someone on hand throughout the debate and help with the sound and lighting arrangements, which will be controlled by a app on a IPad.

Onto the arrangements everyone knows their roles, but to refresh everyone's memory, here is the final list of roles and the small alteration I have made:

Managing Editor: Louis O'Brien

Tricaster/Producer: Henry Lewin-Titt

Floor Manger: Graham Marshall (I have personally assigned you the role of director for Alex Forsyth as well, because we will not have talk back, so I will need you to be down the front prompting her of timing and if we need to move onto the next question). 

Cameramen: George Berridge, Daniel Mackrell, Ewan Kennerell and Lee Jarvis (fig-rig operator) 

Ushers: Felicity Houston, Faith Thomas and myself. 

Guest Reception: (checking off guests name to ensure they have been invited): Sophie Webb,  and Nicole Collas

Photographer: Kate Drummond 

Audience runners: Christina Michaels, Kirsty Phillips, Amy Moore and Karina Sleiman. (you will be mainly going round with the microphone so people can ask their questions as the majority of the debate is a Q and A session with the candidates.

Runners: Nadine Forshaw, Georgia Spears and Ben Hatton (I think we will have more production roles, but for the time being I will need you guys on hands to get things if we have any technical problems or issues with candidate etc)

Online/graphics: Liam Garraham and Jason French (this is one of the most important jobs as we will need you to watch the stream throughout to ensure it is working and to have a graphics made ready to use if the stream goes down)

Post-debate interviewers: George Berridge, Spence Spencer, Tom Morgan and Thomas Baxter. This will depend on if we have any MP's attend. We have the Chief Constable of Hampshire Police and the Chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation and we will hopefully interview both, therefore I will still need the four of your to help if that is ok. 

The debate will have three parts:

* All six candidates will have a 90 second opening statement to begin.

* Then we will go for a hour Q and A session with the selected questions with a five minute time-limit on each question (we may go longer on some if the debate gets heated).

* All candidates will then have a 90 second closing statement to finish. 

I imagine that the debate will finish just before 10, but we will need to move equipment to the room upstairs above the stripe auditorium to store equipment until the morning when it will be moved by myself and the production team. 

I think that will sort everything. We will have a meeting tomorrow where I will go through all of the major points and answer any questions, but with the run-through on Tuesday hopefully we will sort any issues and will be prepared for next Thursday night for the 2nd of our big projects this semester. 

Media Law Lecture 3: Copyright 2.0 and this time it is time to not use enough fair dealing to make it personal

Week 3 of advanced media law and we privileged to be have a guest lecture from Peter Hodges. Peter has been in a variety of different industries over the last 35 years from music to television, but he is a expert in what today's lecture subject was about: copyright. Peter used to be the head of copyright at the BBC, therefore he has had to deal with almost everything you can think of when it comes from copyright to using the latest number 1 hit in Eastenders to the lighting arrangements in a BBC 2 play on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

Before we start lets have a small history lesson into copyright, which started with John Wilton and his verses of poem titled Paradise Lost first published in 1667 and was the first example of copyright. Copyright has then gone onto cover every aspect of the media and the arts including:

* Performing rights
* Dramatic performances including sound, lighting, stage and set designs etc.
* Television.
* Typography E.G. fonts
* Databases
* And even the Internet.


This brought into place the Copyright, Designs and Patents act 1988, which means everyone that has something published needs to ensure that their rights are protected and none of their work is copied or used without their permission. Therefore, if we wish to use someone else works for review, production or just as a name for their blog we need the person's permission (prior to contrary belief Has Lou got News for You does not sound anything like a topic BBC panel show). Once the work is published by any means or in any format (written, spoke, broadcasted) it can then be protected.


As a journalist working on WINOL I come across copyright almost every day. In particular in a recent story I covered on Barton Farm I used pictures of the development, but I needed permission from the developed, Cala Homes to use them and I also had to accredit them with their permission to use the pictures during the news package. The package in question if you want to view is shown below (plugging to get more views is necessary in any topic even copyright).



Peter Hodges then gave us a example of copyright, which you would not think of. The Eiffel Tower in Paris, France is one of the most iconic monuments in the world, but when it is illuminated at night would you think it is copyright? You would probably think no, but yes in fact it is copyright because it has been designed for use, therefore you would need to get the permission of the owners of the rights to take a photo or use it for any purpose.

 Another topic came up was the chanting of songs at Football matches. Every team has their own series or songs that are usually about players, but are sung to the tune of a certain famous song. For example I am a season ticket holder at Southampton and one of the songs we use is When The Saints Go Marching In, which was originally a Belgian christian hymn. Now you cannot stop a team singing the song, but television and radio stations are usually skeptical of letting the viewer or listener hear the song, so unless the crowd is very loud (the away Southampton following) then they will not let the song be heard because of copyright laws. But, generally sometimes this is out of their control and clubs that use the song (nearly 40 across all sports worldwide) have not come to face any criminal law suit against them for using this song, so the likeliness of copyright issues in this case are rare, but you still need to be aware.

Copyright can last for literacy work in particular for the life of the author and another 70 years after they have died, therefore J.K Rowling and the works of Harry Potter will be labeled with copyright during my generation and beyond. This is the same for a movie, which will include the director/, the composers music and the even the cinematographer. For music it is a little different with songs have copyright for 50 years.

As a owner of a work you have the right to prevent copies and performances of this work taking place. It costs money to have works used E.G. music played or used. For example in the UK in 2009 the PRS (Performing Rights Society) started a legal battle against YouTube for the illegal use of music videos on it's site without any royalties being paid to the artists. This resulted in the pulling of music videos being unavailable to view in the UK during the summer of 2009. The dispute was settled towards the end of the year, which meant Google (the parent owners of YouTube) have paid a subscription fees for the use of these vidoes. The major dispute now is the battle between the PRS and illegal file sharing sites, which is allowing the broadcast and use of music artist's singles and albums for free as they are being downloaded illegally and are not being paid for.

If a copyright owner's rights are infringed then they have the right to put forward a injunction to stop the work being used and can even file for damages caused by the use of their work. In McNae's Essential Law for Journalist 21st edition it explains a key example of this. In 1997 the Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown stepped down and decided to publish his private diary, but before this was published The Sunday Telegraph published some of these diary entries. Mr Ashdown sued the paper for breach of copyright, but The Sunday Telegraph claimed it was being used as "fair dealing", but this judgement was quashed as the judge felt it was not being used for reviews purpose and that they had sensationalised the entries and was also a breach of confidence.

This brings me onto the subject of fair dealing. Fair dealing is the fair practice of using a small amount of a person work for various purposes that can include:

* For research of private study for dramatic or art works.
* For criticism and review for all works.
* Reporting currents events.
* Parliamentary procedures
* Royal commission.

However, photos can not be used without obtained consent from the owner.  This is particular in news as if one reporter's photos from ITV were used by every major news outlet in the world, then this photographer would not make a living by selling these pictures.

A owner has the moral rights of copyright and have the right to be credited for any use of their work, the right to not have their work subject to derogatory treatment and the right to have privacy of their work being used at all.

We learn from Peter that £500,000 is a relatively small amount to be paid out in any breach of copyright case. Winol has covered a key example of copyright issues, which involved The Hobbit Pub in Southampton being sued by the Saul Zaentz production company earlier this year. The case involved the use of the films name without accreditation to the production company and a payment of royalties for the use of the film name and it's characters and trademarks. The dispute is interesting as the pub was running under this name for 20 years before any lawsuit came to light and this only occurred because The Hobbit is being made into a third-part feature length film and has now renewed publicity. The pub are still trying to negotiation for restricted rights. This was the story WINOL covered when the dispute came to light earlier this year:




What you have to remember is every time you hear a piece of music on the radio, the radio station are also paying part of the copyright out of their advertising payments to the published and even the BBC will used up to 55,000 clips of music a week ranging from a 1 second jingle on BBC Radio Solent to 3 hours of a opera on BBC Radio 3.

Copyright will always changes because people always push for changes, but as a journalist I will be more careful next time I edit a package to ensure that there is no music in the background during a interview grab or that a label is not visible when filming my GV's.

Until next time I remind you to watch out for those signs of copyright and do not be a plagiariser or you will be caught!

Media Law Lecutre 2: Confidentiality and Privacy... The battle between Articles 8 and 10 of the European Human Rights Act

Well we are back for the next dosage of Media Lawology (that will never be a word). This week I will be focusing on two words that when you think of keeping a secret you better and that is the battle between Confidentiality and Privacy.

Confidentiality came to pass through the disturbing and vicious legislation, which is The Official Secrets act of 1989. This piece of legislation would destroy what we know as the public interest. This was done mainly in protection to national defence and security. Journalists were no longer allowed to publish any military and national defences secret in order to protect the country who were in the midsts of the first Gulf War. Therefore, the only loophole you had would be under article 10 of the European Human's right act where you could suggest that the information is vital as it has damaged national security and every member of the British population should be made aware.

A DA notice could be served at any time, which acted as a self-restraint on publications of any national security information or secrets. A recent example of this was during the recent phone hacking scandal in October 2011 the London Metropolitan police order The Guardian newspaper to provide them with evidence of potential phone hackers. However, the British press stood up and attacked the Met who in turn backed down and did not press ahead with their pursuit of the information from The Guardian.

Now secrets are something we all have and it can be anything from who we have a crush on (I am not saying, but we all know who it is) to who was responsible for putting the black hole in the most recent WINOL bulletin (that could be seen as a defamatory statement, but that again will have to wait for a later time). However, there are common law secrets that as Journalists we must all be aware of.

People have the right to have secrets and as long as it is not against the public interest, secrets can be passed on. However, if they are revealed then a breach of confidence has been reached and as a journalist you are liable to both criminal and civil action against not just yourself, but the media organisation you work for as well.

If you reveal secrets to a journalist then this has the potential to be a third party breach of confidence. Therefore, you must ensure that you always protect your sources, even if it means you face a spell in prison because as journalists there are hidden rules we must abide to and one of the most important is to always protect your source at any cost.

 A prime example of this is the case of the Journalist; Bill Godwinn who in 1989 faced prison, but decided to protect his sources as he felt that if he did oblige by this is would be a break of trust and would show that journalists could not be trusted with keeping information private and who gave them the information. In 1993 the European Court of Human Rights order that the British government came to an agreement that protect sources was important and should not be breached unless severe public interest is common ground for the source to be revealed.

But, what actually constitutes a breach of confidence. In Mcnae's Essential Law for Journalists edition 21 they state for their to be a breach of confidence four things must first be established:

* The information must have "the necessary quality of confidence" E.G must not be made up or is just "hear-say." 
* The information must have been imparted in circumstance imposing a obligation of confidence E.G. The person who has told you the information has asked for you to keep the information private and must not be passed on.
* There must be a unauthorised use of the information to the detriment of the party communicating it E.G. The information could personally affect the person involved and caused their reputation to be affected or even destroyed.

An example of this could be if I was to walk into the doctors and said that I had a rash on my hand. You telling them this information means that as a doctor they must keep this information secret as their duty with their patient to respect their wishes. However, if the doctor over the PA then ask the next patient to room 4 and says at the same time "Louis O'Brien has a rash on his hand", this is a breach of confidence as the information may be detrimental to myself.

Until the year 2000, confidentiality laws were used mainly to protect themselves from the threat of the media. But, the case involving the wedding photographs of Michael Douglas and Catherine Yeta-Jones and OK! magazine Hello! Magazine sued for breach of confidence. This was because Douglas has already agreed withe OK! Magazine that they would have exclusive right to the photos and had signed a contact with the financial agreement. However, it was established that a Hello! Magazine photographer had breach confidence by intruding (privacy) the wedding reception and was not a guest (breach of confidence).

The Judge justice Lindsay ruled in favours of the Douglas's and stated that "Privacy is a fundamental value and personal autotomy." 

This brings me on nicely onto the second part of the lecture that focused on privacy. Privacy is centred around the Humans Right Act 1998 and the constant conflict that has continued ever since between Article 8 and Article 10. But, before we explain the conflict let's remind you and myself of what each Article entails

*Article 8 says that everyone has the right to respect got their private, family life. There must be no public interference by anyone unless their is a right in accordance with the law where there is a key public interest.
* Article 10 explains how everyone has their own right towards "Freedom of expression."

Privacy can also be described as "personal secrets". A breach of privacy can be established when it involve publication of someone personal or family life. It is very easy as a journalist to obtain photos, but do we have the right to broadcast or publish them?

Yes if we have the consent or if it is in the public interest, not just "in the interest of the public." 

We do not have permission to use them if there has been no consent from the parties involved. Also do not assume that you can film someone because they are simply in a public place. This is very important to us on WINOL as we strive to be as careful as possible to who we film and where we film them. It is ok to film someone in the street, but do not film children in a school or have a extreme close up on someone on the street unless you are talking to them or they are directly affected by the story.

If we are looking for a example of a court case involving privacy then the case in 2004 of Princess Caroline of Monaco is ideal. The case revolved around the fact that pictures were taken of the Princess who was sat in a cafe, but at the very back away from sight of the general public, but no the cameras of the paparazzi who took pictures and published them. This led to Princess Caroline suing the publication under Article 8 and this case was taken to the European court. The ECHR ruled in favour of Princess Caroline as they felt that even under Article 8 she should be able to "enjoy social interaction with people."

This ruling meant that even famous people are allowed to have a private life even if it is in a public place. But, this was the first chapter in the story as this year the case was referred back to the ECHR who overruled the decision and felt that "newspapers should be able to publish stories about well-known people."

The judgement said that "They (Prince Caroline and her husband) were walking in a public place. therefore, the magazine had not infringed her privacy under Article 8."

This ruling is important as it means that we are not imposing as journalists if we take photos of celebrities and famous people in public places, but we have to be careful under what circumstances and what situation they are in when we taken them or decide to publish them.

If a person is not happy about a photo or some information that is about to published then they can take out a Injunction, which will put a pause in the publication. Injunction does not just stop the publication who was going to publish the information from using it, it stop all publications from broadcasting the information anywhere to anyone. Celebrities with deep pockets are prime examples of people who will file injunctions as they know they have the ability to deter journalists and media publications from broadcasting or publishing their information to a wide audience.

If you breach a injunction you are liable for Contempt of Court and may face a prison sentence, as well as a heavy fine for your and your employer.

Super-Injunctions is a injunction to stop another injunction being released a prime example of this is the case of the affair of Manchester United Footballer; Ryan Giggs. Giggs was having a affair, but took out a super-injunction to the stop this information being released. However, Member's of Parliament have the right to break a super-injunction using parliamentary privilege, which gives them to right to say things if they are in the public interest. This resulted in the follow newspaper front page:

The case involving former president of the F.I.A Max Mosley is significant. Mosley was involved in a sexual group act involving prostitutes taking part in Nazi-based sex acts, which even included the prostitutes being dressed as people from Concentration Camps. The News of the World published the story, comparing Mosley to his father; Oswald Mosley who was a fascist leader and had close ties to Adolf Hitler in the 1930's.

Mosley felt that the newspaper was in breach of his rights to respect his privacy and family life because the media had not been obliged to give away the information or publish it. his lawyer Mr Justice Eady ruled that "the women who was the paper's informant had a duty of confidence to Mr Mosley." 

However in 2011 ECHR ruled against Mr Mosley against journalist having to let subjects know prior notification before a story is published about them.

I think that is enough for this week and I think that I have learnt that all secrets I will be keeping to myself from now on!

Winol Special: Hampshire Police Commissioner Election debate plan

Editorial

Right guys the debate for The Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner election is now confirmed for Thursday 1st November between 7.45pm and 10pm to be held in the Stripe Auditorium. But, we will need to be setting up from as early as possible, therefore we will be moving the equipment from half 3 into the Stripe Auditorium for 4.

We will set up and then start rehearsals to make sure that the Tricaster will work with the cameras in the Stripe and to ensure that the sound is ok, as well as the stream. We will be streaming off the Winol livestream account (www.livestream.com/winol). This will be test prior to the day of the debate. If this does not work we will use the Winol ustream account.

I need you to be aware and know who the candidates are. These are the following candidates and which political party they are representing. I have also put a link to their website so you can have a read of their campaign plans and to ensure that you are in the know to what is going on:

Michael Mates (Conservative) www.michaelmates.org
Jacqui Rayment (Labour) www.jacquirayment.co.uk
David Goodall (Liberal Democrat) www.davidgoodall.org.uk
Stephen West (UKIP) www.vote4stephen.com
Simon Hayes (Independent) www.hayes4pcc.org
Don Jerrard (The Justice and Anti-Corruption party)

Also useful links for the post-debate interviewers to learn up on the elections and the candidates are www.policelections.com and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-19492607

The chair of the debate will no longer be Sally Taylor, but will now be Alex Forsyth who is the Home Affairs correspondent for BBC South. She has a vast knowledge of the upcoming election and has a extensive background in broadcast Journalism covering the stories that we focus on every week on Winol. Here is a link of her doing a preview of the election on this week's Sunday Politics. It is about 45 minutes into the programme.

Roles

I have decided to change the roles up a bit because I need to ensure that this looks really professional and well produced. I am playing people to their strengths for what I know so far, so please do not be offended if I have changed your role, but I do not know everyone strengths yet.

Managing Editor: Louis O'Brien
Tricaster/Producer: Henry Lewin-Titt
Director: Graham Marshall
Cameramen: George Berridge, Daniel Mackrell, Ewan Kennerell, Lee Jarvis plus one more who I need to decide on.
Ushers: Felicity Houston, Sophie Webb and Faith Thomas
Guest Reception: (checking off guests name to ensure they have been invited): Kate Drummond and Nicole Collas
Runners: Christina Michaels, Kirsty Phillips and Amy Moore. (you will be mainly going round with the microphone so people can ask their questions as the majority of the debate is a Q and A session with the candidates.
Online/graphics: Liam Garraham and Jason French (this is one of the most important jobs as we will need you to watch the stream throughout to ensure it is working and to have a graphics made ready to use if the stream goes down)
Post-debate interviewers: George Berridge, Spence Spencer, Tom Morgan, Thomas Baxter, Ali Al-Jamri and myself. I will need a couple of extra people to help with the cameras, as well as it will be two people per interview (one interviewer and one cameraman).



I will be holding a brief meeting with everyone tomorrow afternoon after the news and production conferences. I need to know if anyone else wants to help out as the more people we have helping the less pressure there will be (in particular the production team).

Everyone I know has either a HCJ seminar or Media Law. I will be consulting with Brian and Chris tomorrow to see how this will affect things. I gather that Law may be moved to a earlier time that day or we will be given the notes to catch up on. In regards to HCJ I think it may be working around your seminar time and then coming back after it has finished to continue to help out.

I need all hands on deck with this guys as this will we a test run to see how the American Election goes as this will be streamed live for a hour and a half and the American election show will be four times the length. So, it will be good practice for the following Tuesday/Wednesday.

Hope this all makes sense and if you have any questions then please come see me tomorrow morning.