I have to say I'm delighted that the local elections are over, and it's probably just a coincidence but I've not had a single complaint from any politicians or wannabes since May 1.

Next week I'll be losing one of my reporters.
Will Davison has been with the paper for more than two years, but having qualified as a senior journalist last year he's now going travelling for a while before moving to pastures new.

Will will be sorely missed here, but perhaps not by some of the local councillors or press officers.
He is one of those reporters who displays dogged determination to get to the bottom of things and is not easily fobbed off, nor is he afraid of asking awkward questions.
In an age of spin and misinformation, it's all too easy to buy what the PR Mafia are selling, so this sort of determination is becoming increasingly vital to the role of a journalist.

Will's departure also means the entire sports section of the paper will fall to myself.
We're only a small operation here, and so do not have a proper sports desk, or even a sports reporter or sub, so in some ways the extra work on my already busy schedule is quite daunting.
However, I loved my year as a sports reporter earlier in my career and enjoy reading the many reports we're sent each week. Our sports section is one of the most important services our paper provides as almost 100% of it is submitted by those who take part or watch local sports. It genuinely belongs to our readers.
Hopefully I can continue to provide a good service, and I would like to thank all those people who submit
articles to us, but I would ask for some degree of patience as I try to get into a rhythm.
We can never guarantee to publish anything, but we do our best and I think most people involved in local sports understand that.

Colts football is one of my favourite parts of the whole paper, but it is extremely time consuming so I will have to change the way we do it for next season. I'll probably insist that all colts reports use our online form for next season as it will speed the process up considerably.

Wow, there's certainly a lot of bluster from local politicians flying about at the moment.

I've had a rather high number of complaints from councillors about our 'bias' coverage - apparently the Town Crier is both anti-Lib Dem and anti-Conservative, while being pro-Lib Dem and pro-Conservative at the same time.

I'm now coming in for flak for being biased towards and biased against independent candidates.

Is there an election coming up?

We try our best to be neutral here, but it's impossible to keep everyone happy.
Complaints generally arrive when a pro-active councillor contacts us to highlight a concern or issue and we
carry an article as we believe it to be in the public interest.
This is what newspapers do. If someone has an issue, they approach us, and if there is a story in it,
we'll run it - trying to get views from both sides.

But some politicians would rather we only carry articles from their party and often try and even try to control what we publish.
After getting fed-up of complaints last week, I wrote a letter to the main parties explaining that we try to be balance, but if a rival is getting more publicity, it is because they are being more proactive. So far I have had no response.

Personally I find it a real shame that party politics and individual differences get in the way of doing the right thing.

As a cub reporter, I worked in the historic East Sussex town of Battle (site of the 1066 Battle of Hastings).
The town council there was possibly the most friendly, pro-active and productive I've ever seen.
It was made up of Conservatives, Lib Dems and independents.
They may not have always agreed on everything, but everything was kept civil and everyone always had the interests of the town at heart. Democracy and openess were also highly respected.
Nearby in the equally pretty town of Rye, the town council was constantly bickering and point scoring.
Needless to say Battle got more funding and residents were far happier with what they were doing.

Unfortunately the rivalry between the Lib Dems and Conservatives in Huntingdonshire is more like Rye.
It may make for 'good copy' at times, but I would much prefer to carry stories about councils doing the right thing for the area rather than the petty squabling and political point scoring.

So for this May 1 election, I don't care who you vote for (but it is important to vote).
But I would recommend that you try and see through the politics and find an individual who genuinely seems to want to do some good.

There are some really good candidates out there.
For the rest, can I remind you that you are putting yourself forward to serve the public's interest, and not your own.

Wow, there's certainly a lot of bluster from local politicians flying about at the moment.

I've had a rather high number of complaints from councillors about our 'bias' coverage - apparently the Town Crier is both anti-Lib Dem and anti-Conservative, while being pro-Lib Dem and pro-Conservative at the same time.

I'm now coming in for flak for being biased towards and biased against independent candidates.

Is there an election coming up?

We try our best to be neutral here, but it's impossible to keep everyone happy.
Complaints generally arrive when a pro-active councillor contacts us to highlight a concern or issue and we
carry an article as we believe it to be in the public interest.
This is what newspapers do. If someone has an issue, they approach us, and if there is a story in it,
we'll run it - trying to get views from both sides.

But some politicians would rather we only carry articles from their party and often try and even try to control what we publish.
After getting fed-up of complaints last week, I wrote a letter to the main parties explaining that we try to be balance, but if a rival is getting more publicity, it is because they are being more proactive. So far I have had no response.

Personally I find it a real shame that party politics and individual differences get in the way of doing the right thing.

As a cub reporter, I worked in the historic East Sussex town of Battle (site of the 1066 Battle of Hastings).
The town council there was possibly the most friendly, pro-active and productive I've ever seen.
It was made up of Conservatives, Lib Dems and independents.
They may not have always agreed on everything, but everything was kept civil and everyone always had the interests of the town at heart. Democracy and openess were also highly respected.
Nearby in the equally pretty town of Rye, the town council was constantly bickering and point scoring.
Needless to say Battle got more funding and residents were far happier with what they were doing.

Unfortunately the rivalry between the Lib Dems and Conservatives in Huntingdonshire is more like Rye.
It may make for 'good copy' at times, but I would much prefer to carry stories about councils doing the right thing for the area rather than the petty squabling and political point scoring.

So for this May 1 election, I don't care who you vote for (but it is important to vote).
But I would recommend that you try and see through the politics and find an individual who genuinely seems to want to do some good.

There are some really good candidates out there.
For the rest, can I remind you that you are putting yourself forward to serve the public's interest, and not your own.

The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act was introduced "to promote a culture of openness and accountability among public sector bodies, and give a better public understanding of how public authorities carry out their duties, why they make the decisions they do, and how they spend public money." (holdthefrontpage.co.uk)

In the past few months, staff at the Town Crier have put in a number of FOI requests to a variety of authorities in an attempt to uncover items we believe are in the public interest.

I now believe Cambridgeshire County Council to be a professional body, whose staff generally understand the nature and purpose of the FOI Act.
However, nearly every other authority we've contacted have been obstructive, elusive and just downright secretive about information we believe should be available to the public. Most have broken the government's FOI guidelines.

Many public sector workers seem to think they have the right to do everything behind closed doors, and that the public should just trust everything they are doing without question.
They're wrong. They are spending our money, providing our services, so should be open to our scrutiny.

My wife, who is also a journalist in another county, asked a perfectly sensible question about how many council workers were currently suspended on full pay. The request was made after a tip-off that it was an alarming amount.
The repsonse was: "To identify, locate and provide you with the detail of information you have asked for is excessive, and will take our staff off high priority work."

At the very least, public authorities have to let people know whether they hold the information, and if so, they have to release it unless there is a valid reason why the information is exempt.
And there are actually very few absolute exemptions.

Most of the requests we've put in instantly come back with (often within minutes) an excuse saying that it will cost too much to provide, or they'll have to charge to provide such information. Usually with no indication as to their calculations.

When it introduced the FOI Act, the Government was very mindful that charging would put people off using the act, and therefore defeat its purpose of promoting openess.
So it placed a limit that FOI requests which took less than 24 hours worth of work, or cost less than £450, should be provided free (with charges for photocopying or other admin costs where appropriate).

So we've challenged a few of these financial rejections as most of our requests probably require less than an hours worth of work and the information should be kept by the authority anyway.

As part of one request this week, regarding a high profile matter which is very clearly in the public interest, we were first met with one of these off-the-bat, "we're going to charge you" responses, and an accusation that we were going on "a fishing trip".
We explained that the request was a serious attempt to clarify a number of claims and counter-claims from politicians, and as it involved public money, the public had a right to know what was going on.
Following the FOI guidelines set down by the Government, we also asked him to advise us on how much information we could get below the £450 ceiling, or how we could phrase the information in a different way so they could provide information without charging.

After another baffling response, which failed to address anything we've asked, his response was an email saying "I don't have time to play these games".
I can assure him that scrutiny and openess are not 'games' to us.

We are a very small but dedicated team here, and while we try our best to get to the bottom of things, be balanced and accurate, the lack of openess in local government is proving to be a massive barrier.
And it is one that has gotten increasingly worse during my time in journalism. 
The rise of the press officer and the culture of spin are just two reasons for this. 

It would be all too easy for us to let these matters lie, particularly as we are extremely busy and have other stories to write.

But I believe strongly in the freedom of the press and the right for the public to know what is being done in their name and with their money. So we'll continue to get push (and get frustrated by) by these obstructive individuals who do not seem to realise that accountability and openess should be part of their jobs.

Fortunately there is an FOI commissioner to whom we can address complaints (and we will).

But it's a damning indication of how secretive some of our public 'servants' are that the Information Commissioner's Office has received so many complaints, only 60% are dealt with within 180 days, and only 79% within 365 days.

If you have the determination and patience to use the FOI Act, here are some handy websites:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4143657.stm

http://www.foi.gov.uk/reference/imprep/codepafunc.htm

http://www.freedomofinformation.co.uk/

http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom_of_information.aspx

Matt Cornish
Editor
Town Crier Series
matt.cornish@towncrierseries.co.uk

I spent part of this morning being quizzed by primary school children about journalists and I have to say it was rather fun.

I had to justify what I do, why I do it and answer several tough questions ranging from mistakes I've made to celebrities I've met and my most embarrasing moment.
The questions were intelligent and wide-ranging, and I had to be quick on my toes to come up with interesting and honest answers.

So now I know how what it feels like to be an interviewee rather than interviewer.

I'm pleased to say our Young Carers appeal is going well. We've had a few generous donations, some people organised a coffee morning and we're now trying to organise a 50s and 60s night.
We're extremely grateful to Fiona McLean for volunteering her services, and have already had a few offers of free venues to use. We'll probably organise a raffle to go with it and hopefully it will bolster the funds.

I still find it incredible that the Young Carers Project is struggling for money. It's an invaluable lifeline for vulnerable children so why is it not being funded properly? 
We'd all probably support a family member in need, make sacrifices and put ourselves out for love ones.
But I can't imagine doing that as a child. I remember how tough it was growing up - trying to fit in and coping with all the changes, school work and all the things kids get up to. 
To be that age and regularly sacrifice my needs for someone elses, something which is a very grown-up thing to do. Yes I could probably cope, but without support it would be extremely difficult.
The least we can do is give these children our support and the odd well-deserved break.

I'm a bit worried at the moment as we've just launched our new campaign - The Town Crier We Care Appeal.

We ran a story a few months ago about the Young Carers Project, and it really touched us.
The charity helps children who act as carers for sick or disabled family members, or those with drug or alcohol problems.  It's something most of us would do if a family member needed it, but anyone who has ever cared for a family member will know just how draining a task it can be.
And for a child to take on that burden, well in my eyes it's simply heroic.

I found myself feeling rather angry when I heard one of their only lifelines, the Young Carers Project, was struggling to make ends meet. A loss of a lottery grant meant they had to cut how many kids they give support to.
So me and my staff decided we wanted to do something.
And now we have.
But as I mentioned, it's making me worried.

I'm worried we won't reach our £10,000 target, I'm worried that my paper won't do the worthy cause justice, I'm worried that my inexperience in overseeing something like this will mean I make a mistake somewhere.
But mostly I'm worried that people won't show enough interest. Not for the sake of the paper, but for what sort of message it would send to these kids.
That the public just don't care about how hard their lives can be? That we don't care about their stress levels, their mental and physical health? That we don't care how it might be affecting their school work and disadvantaging their future careers?

The Town Crier is doing this appeal because we genuinely care. The staff have put their hands in their pockets and we'll almost certainly have to do some extra fundraising ourselves.
But we're pleased that we can maybe do some good.

Hopefully enough people will be touched by the appeal that we'll reach our target.
So please, if you are reading this, click on this link and show your support to.

It's been a rather busy time since my last post, and once again apologies for taking so long to update this.

A couple of stories have prickled my news brain recently.

Firstly, I was very impressed with our chief constable's approach to improving her force's budget.
Chief Cons Jule Spence highlighted a very important issue in a way which attracted huge national interest.
She was brave enough to not only stick her head above the parapet, but also to tackle the thorny issue of immigration and the extra pressure it puts on our local services (such as the need for interpreters).
She did it in an intelligent and sensitive manner, but using it to hit home a serious issues.
It was also quite worrying to learn just how out of date the Govt's statistics for Cambridgeshire were - it's estimation of the county's population was tens of thousands of people out.

More locally, another story that's been interesting is the whole St Neots cinema debacle.
What amazes me is the lack of communication and often petty rivalry between differing parties.
There seem to be three different sides - the leading Lib Dem town councillors, the Tories, and the Joint Project Group, not to mention Mr Rowley who his own views. Over the past month, all three of the groups have complained about the Town Crier giving coverage to the others.
But as there seems to be a reluctance for them to work together, what is a local paper supposed to do?
Some are even trying to stop us reporting anything, suggesting it will "scare" developers off. But if we are looking to give someone £1m, surely they, and those looking to organise the project, should be open to public scrutiny.

Indeed, the whole political point scoring on the town council is something I find hugely disappointing.
I used to work for a newspaper in East Sussex in a town called Battle. The town council there were fantastic. Despite having differing political bents, they all had the interests of the town at heart, worked together and treated each other with respect.

Sadly, there are a few individuals in St Neots who see the town council more as a way of getting one over on their perceived rivals.

Personally I'd ban political parties from town councils - these people should be working together for the town and voting on what they believe their constituents would want. Not playing petty political games as if the Priory Centre was some sort of mini-Parliament.

After a superb, relaxing honeymoon in Tuscany, I'm now back to the grind in St Neots and looking after the Town Crier once more.

Today I'd like to express some of my frustration that's been building up since my return regarding issues of democracy and openness.
The main reason I entered journalism, apart from being a very nosey individual, was to find out and keep people informed on what is happening in the world. More specifically, what local authorities were doing in my area.

I've long been a believer in the public having access to as much information as possible, and that information should only be restricted on national security grounds, for something that will negatively affect commerce (ie revealing how much companies are bidding for the purchase of public buildings) or in the interests of someone's right to privacy. (Personally I hate the paparrazzi and would have no problems at all if my papers had no snap-shots of celebs with stretch marks). And usually with commercially sensitive stuff the information should be made available after the fact anyway.

However, too many public servants (the clue is in the name people!) see their job as to marshal which information is put into the public domain and how it is presented.

Since I entered journalism about eight years ago, the amount of spin, deception and downright confusing information from public bodies has increased significantly. And that can only be bad for accountability, openness and ultimately democracy.

Usually a good journalist can get to the bottom of a story, but it's getting harder.

Recently I've had a press officer categorically tell me something isn't true despite us having photographic evidence to the contrary; I've been presented with a vague statement from an NHS body telling me a story was innacurate without an explaination of what was innacurate about it; a letter from another NHS body criticising me for giving a member of the public a platform to criticise service (again, without any detail of what was wrong with that person's point); a letter from another public body so full of jargon that nobody in the office could understand it (although they were clearly unhappy with something); and countless other incidents of people demanding we justify why we want information which should be in the public domain anyway.

So, on the off chance that someone actually reads this, and the even off-er chance that you are a public servant, please remember that as much as you may dislike journalists (and we're not all tabloid hacks who will sell our grandma's for a story), we are vital for keeping an eye on those in power and with their hands on the purse strings. You only have to look at those countries that have no free press to see what life is like without us.

Most of the stories we write are in the public interest, so please consider who's interest is being served by denying us access to information.