Monthly Archives: March 2013

Student Radio Awards – Judges feedback on my entries

Last year I entered the Student Radio Association Student Radio Awards, for Best Male, Interview and live outside event. I thought I’d blog the feedback I got from the judges. Some interesting points and things to work on for 2013!

  • Good radio presentation style. Natural flow to links and conversation. Rich tone to the voice – sounds older and more authoritative than lots of student radio entries.  Nice rapport with other members of the team but would benefit with more listener interaction.
  • Great voice, great technically. You’ve got a lovely tone and nice style and manner. You sound relaxed and unpretentious but friendly and upbeat without being cheesy. The sound quality of the demo is excellent too. The entry has all the nuts and bolts – teasing ahead, good with music, all that stuff. But, it perhaps took a while to really get much personality – a lot of the links are relatively standard and nice and good, but not exceptional or stand-out. It didn’t grab my attention and hook me in. The latter part of the demo is actually probably the better half – the cup across studio, oatcakes, the lecturer and so on. There was a lot of telling people to text and get in touch, not sure I heard a single text read out. Once mention of you doing this is enough if you’re going to include it. Your written entry is really nice – you’ve got the balance just right in explaining some detail of what you’ve done, why you love it and how you go about it. Overall it’s great, but you’re competing in a field where the winner’s going to have some really stand-out moments in their demo – you’ve nailed the basics, now focus on content, anecdotes and so on to bring it to life.
  • This entry sounds slick, well produced, the presenter has a good voice and style and it seemed to have been packed with interesting content. Well done on all of those fronts.
  • Presenter has a nice voice and tone.
  • Peter has a great broadcasting voice and this is a great example of a local radio news interview. Peter’s journalistic skills are evident as he asked pertinent and engaging questions to the local butcher. … overall, professional and informative news and human interest story.
  • Very resourceful, went the extra mile to secure the interview which was impressive.
  • Very clear interviewing style, with the broadcaster staying firmly in control. Asked very insightful questions – very professional interview. Drew out an interesting debate from the interviewee, allowed his time to talk – with a solid conclusion.
  • An engaging listen with two very distinct voices -[the interviewee is] an absolute catch, so well done for getting him on.
  • … Peter was confident, in cotrol[sic.] and asked the right questions.

DWP retrospective law change following court defeat

From JonnyVoid’s Blog:

In a shocking abuse of state power – which could have a chilling impact on the independence of the courts – Iain Duncan Smith is attempting to reverse the impact of a recent Appeal Court judgement by re-writing history.

In the recent workfare case brought by Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, the DWP were found to have unlawfully sanctioned thousands of benefit claims[1].  The court ruled that the legislation upon which forced unpaid work was based was not legal and the information given to claimants did not fully inform them of what would happen it they failed to attend workfare.  Which was that benefits could be stopped, for up to six months.

In other words, the DWP’s bodged information meant many claimants lost significant sums of money through no fault of their own.  The Court of Appeal  ruling meant that unemployed people who had benefit claims stopped or reduced illegally by the DWP could claim that money back.

Or at least it did mean that.  Now the DWP is basically saying tough shit, we’re keeping your money.

In its arguments to justify withholding social security people are due – an average of about £500 per person, £130 million pounds in total – the DWP has stated that:

“If the Department cannot make these retrospective changes, then further reductions in benefits might be required in order to find the money to repay the sanctions”

In short, if the government is made to obey the high court’s ruling, it will inflict collective punishment on those who can least afford it by finding £130 million pounds more in new cuts from the welfare budget.

In response, this is my latest email to my MP:

I am disturbed to hear that the Secretary of State DWP is proposing legislation in response to the Work Programme court ruling that is retrospective in its attempt to avoid breaking the law for which it may have to compensate those sanctioned unlawfully.

It appears that the DWP have decided they are no longer accountable to the laws of the land. What will be the point of taking the Government to court if they can simply change the law on a whim to avoid facing any legal consequences retrospectively? It makes a mockery of our judicial system and democratic accountability.

I am further dismayed by reports the Liam Byrne seems to be backing this retrograde and cynical move. According to the Guardian[2], Labour are looking set support the government in legislating to avoid paying back money ruled legally due to claimants who have had benefits sanctioned.

I find this possibility of this offensive with the disregard to the judicial system that the Government feel they are above law and I do not want you to vote for this undemocratic precedent.