Forum Topic

HM Magazine called into question again

Does anybody have any views on this news item, taken from this site?:"Conservative councillors on Hounslow Council are crying 'foul' after their attempt to raise the issue of an overspend on the borough magazine was blocked."Cllr. Mark Bowen tried to table an urgent question on the matter at a recent meeting of the Council. The Conservative group had only received information the previous afternoon that the department responsible for education had been asked to contribute £53,000 to cover an overspend on HM Magazine. The chair of the meeting, Darshan Grewal, said that he did not consider the question urgent and declined to allow it to be raised at the meeting. "Councillor Bowen said the issue raised serious concerns and that an objective person would have allowed the question to be addressed. It is not known if other departments of the Council have been asked to contribute further sums to the shortfall at the magazine. "Councillors were told when the magazine was started that it would be self funding with advertising revenue covering costs. The majority of ads in the magazine are from other units of the council with little commercial advertising featured. Private sector businesses are reluctant to use official publications such as HM Magazine due to the belief that the vast majority of those published are discarded unread. "Many local government organisations have set up their own publications recently citing falling circulation in local newspapers. Mayor Ken Livingstone has spent over £4 million on 'The Londoner' magazine with money being taken out of the transport and tourism budget to pay for it. Councils argue that these magazines are essential to keep the public informed but opponents of these magazines have described them as propaganda paid for by the tax-payer." January 29, 2006

Phil Andrews ● 7051d28 Comments

A friend of mine works for another Council who also have one of these borough magazines. She says that the Council were considering ditching it because it was too expensive but then they were given huge grant funding to promote recycling. This meant that they could put ads in the mag and take the money. The insanity of all this is the result of spending money on promoting recycling is the printing of stuff that ends up in the bin much of which isn't recycled.

Andy Jones ● 7040d

"""Rebecca was the editor of hm since it started in its present form nearly two years ago. She left in January for pastures new, and has been replaced by Catrin Rogers""" PhilipThank you for that information about Rebecca having left in January and for the other details. We had corresponded on occasions and I'd like to wish her well.Just checking..but the 9th February issue of the HM Magazinelists Rebecca as still being the Editor!On the question of advertisements in the Magazine by outside organisations, it strikes me that some of them are screaming for attention from key pages..thus diverting readers away from Hounslow Borough matters!For example, the inside back page should..in my view..be used for Civic Centre information...not the publisher's own advertisements for executive jobs for their offices near Euston Station!If the adverts cost £1200 per page..and your readership is stated as 212,000..that only a 1/2 pence income....poor reward for hogging such a good information back page position!

Jim Lawes ● 7042d

Rebecca was the editor of hm since it started in its present form nearly two years ago. She left in January for pastures new, and has been replaced by Catrin Rogers. If anyone is not receiving their copy of hm, you can get in touch with the her by calling 020 8583 2183, or by email to hm@hounslow.gov.uk, ideally including:* your address;* when you last received a copy;* if you know whether any of your neighbours have the same problem; and * if there are any possible reasons that it is not being delivered (obscured door to flat etc.)That should, hopefully, get the matter sorted.

Philip Sutcliffe ● 7042d

thanks jim it was rebecca who i was in contact with before . she was fantastic and totally went out of her way to rectify it.

M Dowling ● 7045d

Hello Mary and Andrew:Sorry to hear that you haven't been receiving the HM magazine.Corinna Smart, the Syon Ward Councillor, was certainly involved last year in collecting names and addresses of those residents not safely receiving the Magazine.e-mail:  corinna.smart@hounslow.gov.ukOr you could e-mail the Editor direct, Rebecca Holmes at...hm@hounslow.gov.uk

Jim Lawes ● 7046d

sorry if i am duplicating thread as have not read it all.jim - a while ago when the Hm mag was not being delivered someone from there got involved and started to make things happen - can you remember her name - i have not had it delivered since before christmas. thanks mary

M Dowling ● 7046d

Jim,The HM magazine is meant to be a fortnightly publication and delivered to all of the housholds in the LBH. Well I havn,t seen one for ages. If the council insist on using public funds to continue with it's publication are there any guarantees that I will receive it when I should?

Andrew Sibley ● 7046d

If the HM Magazine was discontinued..that would be a crazy shame.  The Local Authority needs to keep all residents as well informed as possible on its local activities, new happenings, new initiatives, and giving direction to those who want to know what is going on...and as a reference to further research.  Some may feel that the Magazine content is pure propaganda..or overstates the performance of the ruling Party.  Whatever, the £500M (?) spending Council needs to transmit NEWS and INFORMATION to its residents otherwise most of us would still be in the dark.One cannot rely on the local press to publish TOTALLY CORRECT information about Council matters..they the Council need to publish it themselves.  We all have experience of picking holes in newspaper reports of events and subjects about which we have more expert knowledge. I suggest that irrelevant advertisements are omitted from the Magazine and that it concentrates on its main purpose...at whatever modest cost.The Community Forums,newspaper columns and newspaper letters pages can then chew and discuss the issues. A £53,000 shortfall amounts to just £1 per household does it not?  That's about one/ten thousandth of the Council's spending.My doormat sees the HM Magazine regularly, but never The Informer, The Guardian, Mrs Keen's Parliamentary newsletters, or local Conservative or Labour Party newsletters.  So is the BC&I Times and the Chronicle to be relied on as our regular font of knowledge. As good as they are..I would like the HMM and more.

Jim Lawes ● 7046d

Paul, please don't urge the Council to get involved in setting up businesses. They simply aren't very good at it which is the main lesson of the HM fiasco. It isn't a Hounslow thing, it is just that the priorities and methodology of the public sector don't suit an operation that aims to make a profit. HM represents the Council going into competition with two major media companies. It doesn't matter that the magazine itself is better put together than the competition. If it is not covering its costs it is a failure. It is a big leap therefore to say that the Council could set up a profitably trading web site particularly as the guaranteed revenue that they give to HM would not be available and the rules of business are so much less well established than for print media. I would advocate leaving the running of local media to people like Newsquest or Trinity Mirror not out of any great love of these businesses or because they are doing a particularly good job but in recognition that if trading conditions are difficult for them, then it is unlikely that a Council venture would be able to operate more successfully.

Justin Harris ● 7047d

Some very interesting points raised Phil about a Council Forum to discuss all local matters.As long as it was moderated in a fair well balanced way,then the benefits would far outweigh the small costs involved in setting up and running the site.Indeed,if we are to believe that potential advertisers have been beating on the door of the Civic Centre to use the HM magazine then the relatively low costs involved in setting up such a website should in fact make a decent profit which of course could be used to actually increase the education budget and others rather then dipping into them.The idea of "ongoing dialogue and debate" in the Chamber online would surely increase the webcast figures which in turn would make more of the community aware of where and how our Council Tax is allocated and give a far better picture of how our elected Cllrs actually represent them once the polling booths close for another four years.I am constantly amazed how most of us put up with the secret going ons and the double standards applied by some Cllrs,so the more open and transparent we can make their conduct,can in my humble opinion only be a good thing.

Paul Fisher ● 7048d

JustinI agree that the local authority would be wary of the stick it would get.  I'm saying that it ought not to be.  It is only through criticism that we get to understand the things we are doing wrong.  Gratuitous plaudits are of no use to anybody.As well as giving the public the chance to air their opinions, political debate could also be conducted via a forum between members.Just thinks of the implications for local democracy if, instead of meeting every six weeks at the Council Chamber to discuss one or two motions and a few questions of which advance notice has been given, we were able to conduct ongoing dialogue and debate online in full view of the general public.Members would be able to engage each other spontaneously and from time to time debate would inevitably break out from the straitjacket of rigid organisational discipline and the Official Party Line as individual members felt passionately enough about an issue to respond to issues raised by other members without first having check what they are or are not supposed to say.  Why should we not take advantage of all this wonderful technology in such a way?  It would completely transform the political process in the borough and would probably signal the end of the obselete and anti-democratic whipping system in favour of honest engagement and debate.Oops, I guess I've just answered my own question...

Phil Andrews ● 7048d

Phil - the reason why not is that part of the cost of HM Magazine can be covered by using the budget of in-house advertising whereas this would be more difficult for an on-line service of any kind particularly a new launch which would have no traffic. Whether the Council would if they could budget for it is a different question. I'm sure the existence of these sites in Chiswick and Brentford has been a huge net benefit to the Council and residents but the people who I imagine decide these strategies - the Councillors and the senior officers - would be wary given the stick they consistently get on these boards.

Justin Harris ● 7048d

JustinI agree with you that the local authority would be unlikely to want to launch a forum such as this, which would effectively make HM Magazine interactive and available to the majority of the population at a fraction of the current coste, but one is driven to ask why not?Of course it will attract criticism of council conduct and policies but why is that something which it should be afraid of?  There is no shortage of apologists to put across the council viewpoint and if the criticisms are unfounded or frivolous then surely such a facility would be the perfect vehicle through which to expose them as such?

Phil Andrews ● 7048d

The answer to Kevin's questions lies in the non-joined up thinking approach of Government. On the one hand policies are in place to cut waste and encourage recycling plus huge amounts of money are being spent on trying to develop e-government. On the other the law obliges Councils to use paper based means of communications.The only remaining argument for newspapers is the 'little old lady' one which claims that if any organisation communicates exclusively on-line then people without the internet would be excluded. The problem is if the little old lady is not buying a newspaper anyway then you are not really benefiting anyone. The approach should not be to try and use a media that potentially anyone could access but to use the media that the most people use. If Hounslow were free of its statutory obligations to use print it could launch HM Online knowing that if they could get people to use the site then it could easily be funded through the Council advertising budget with no need to take from education.Although I understand this site was launched by members of the Brentford Labour party I can't see the Council wanting to extend a network of independently run sites across the borough as whatever the editorial line, the discussion boards are likely to be outlets for complaints about service and criticism. I'm pretty sure this would outweigh the benefits such as increased community cohesion, greater take-up of e-government initiatives and an improved platform for communicating with residents.

Justin Harris ● 7048d

Why bother with a magazine at all - its enviromentally unfriendly and you can't deliver it to flats which a lot of people particularly in Brentford live in. The internet is the best way to communicate with the public. I get the impression that much more people read this site than the papers or the Council Magazine in the area so why doesn't the Council just set up sites like this for Feltham, Heston, Hounslow and the other areas that don't have them and use them as a way to get their message across?

Andy Jones ● 7049d

JohnYour comments would seem to confirm the suspicions held by some that there was a political motivation included behind the decision to set up HM Magazine.  If the launch of the magazine was a punishment for perceived poor coverage, then the implication is that if coverage were to be "improved" (that is, to become more NuLab-friendly and less critical of the local authority's actions) then the lost revenue might return.The decision to penalise education in order to sustain this propaganda vehicle gives us some indication, in my view, of our current political leadership's priorities.

Phil Andrews ● 7049d

I think you have got it spot on Justin. As I recollect at the time the ruling Labour Group decided to produce a frequent HM at least one Executive member proferred the view that this would punish the local papers financially for the perceived poor coverage given to the council.In my view many of the adverts in HM are a waste of money because they are targeting applicants who, because of shortages of qualified applicants in these areas, are in many cases unlikely to live in the LB of Hounslow. Over the years there is considerable evidence that the Times Educational Supplement is the only sensible place to advertise for many teaching and related education posts. To penalise the education service because of the failure of the HM magazine to be produced within budget is an unjustified attack on provision for local children, and undoubtedly the cuts behind the scenes will harm yet another disadvantaged group.

John Connelly ● 7049d

Neil, Trinity aren't investing in the Chronicle or local newspapers in general because they are seeing a steady decline in readership. Therefore as a business their strategy is to consolidate processes and cut costs. Revenue doesn't suffer that much because of lack of competition and the fact that much of their revenue comes from the local authority and is there for statutory reasons. The Council's response has been to try and take more revenue away from Trinity by setting up HM but I would say this is counterproductive as a large proportion of the spending on advertising and public notices has to be done in a paid for newspaper. The net result of HM is that the taxpayer is paying more money for a poorer overall service. Trinity have printing plus distribution already in place and have economies of scale. Therefore they should be able to do the nuts of publishing more cheaply than the Council. I would be very surprised if they didn't react favourably to a Council proposal which would guarantee them income in return for meeting targets for readership and providing public information.

Justin Harris ● 7049d

I agreewith JIm. I get a copy past onto me and it makes a good read.It is very difficult to attract enough advertising in most industries, although i would like to see a piece on who has been targeted and who had turn down council.Regards approaching a company like Trinty to run the contract, thats a non starter. I have a friend who works for the Chronicle (a Trinity paper) and the company has no interest in it at all. No investment, nothing. He believes they would like to turn it into a freebie but are reluctant too because of the B & C Times.

Neil Chippendale ● 7050d

Steve, we will end up paying large sums to the big media companies anyway because there are lots of things that the Council has to put in local newspapers by law. In an ideal world the Council would be able to decide itself what is the most effective way to alert people to public notices etc. but for now it has to go in the local rag no matter how dire or unread it actually is. The problem with HM is that it creates a vicious circle in that if you take away revenues from the papers they take away resources from your area and the quality dips further and hence even fewer readers. So the response they get for the information they are obliged to put in the paper declines. It will also impact the relationship the Council has with the paper - for instance if there is a drive to encourage adoption the paper might be inclined to give it more coverage if they knew there was a chance they would get the discretionary spending of other Council departments.By setting targets for the paper in return for a guaranteed stream of income you could stop the rot. If you frame the agreement so that the paper knows they don't get paid if they don't produce an interesting well written paper that local people want to read then there is no real risk to the Council and lots of benefits for local people. Sure it would be nice if the local paper was a locally owned concern and not part of a massive media conglomerate but nearly every local paper in the UK is now part of a large company.

Justin Harris ● 7050d

How can you justify local residents paying large sums of money to big companies for providing a service that they would be doing anyway? HM is a good quality publication and if people choose to put it straight in the bin they can't complain about not being informed. The only is that the costs of production are very visible but the savings are harder to quantify. More awareness of Council services and a higher take-up ultimately provides better value for money for residents.

Andy Jones ● 7050d

I thought I'd managed to kill the darn waste of money, time, paper, human resources etc.  I (fortunately) haven't seen this "con" for a year or so.----------------------------------------Hi Rebecca,Now I think that you are just toying with me.  Not only "Given thatproduction is ongoing...........",but you also fail to delete the sign-off  "London 2012: Hounslow is backingthe bid. "  :-)Streets choked by con­gestion. Police roadblocks eve­rywhere. Touriststrampling every inch of public green space. Crime rates soaring. Braceyourself: the greatest show on earth is coming to town - at least, if theGovern­ment, the Mayor of London and Lord Coe have anything to do with it.Even the Queen is bending over backwards to woo and wow the inspectors fromthe International Olym­pic Committee who have arrived to assess London's bidfor the 2012 Games. From Buck­ingham Palace to City Hall, eve­ryone has beenso careful to wrap the Union Jack around London's bid to host the Games thatit has become un­patriotic to oppose the project. But it is mad to supportit.    First, the Olympics are expen­sive. Hosting the world's su­premesporting event would cost London more than £2 bil­lion - and force Londonersto pay more in council tax. Those outside the capital would not be sparedthe joyous burden either: funds would be diverted from national lotterysports projects to build the Aquatic Centre and athletics stadiums whichwill be part of the five ­ring circus.    What of the promised tour­ism dividend that the Games are supposed toearn? Mon­treal, which hosted the Games in 1976, attracted too few visi­torsand is still in debt. Lon­don's roads and transport can hardly cope with thepresent an­nual influx of visitors - 1.2 mil­lion last year - and chaoswould result if the volume grew even a fraction. A few hundred more peopleon your rush-hour Tube journey? No thanks.    Add to this the security head­ache. "America's poodle" host­ing a globalcompetition would be a lip-smacking target for any headline-seeking bomber.The protection of huge and far-flung sports arenas will be used to justify ahuge increase in roadblocks and stop and search - that invariablyincon­venience the innocent citizen but rarely flush out the terror­ist.    Those who support the bid like to parade the Games as a sanitisinginflu­ence, that will instil a new steely discipline in the city. Londonwill fix its transport sys­tem, clean up its act and regen­erate derelictareas almost overnight.    A city that has to wait for the Olympics to spruce itself up is like the mother who makes her child tidy his/her room because guests are coming: it does not last and fools no one.    I have had one good idea, use the saving on my copy of HM to reduce thedebt of £1 BILLION plus that is left over from the Dome and it's subsequentupkeep, or spend the money on the NHS, residential / nursing homes, roadrepairs, .............................ad. inf.Good luck ;-)Dave.----- Original Message ----- From: "Rebecca Holmes" To: "Dave Johnson" Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 9:33 AMSubject: RE: hm deliveryHi Dave,Thanks for your email and your friendly comments. Given that production isongoing, would you like me take action to ensure you receive it? If soplease provide your address and I will alert our distribution companyimmediately. Copies are generally available at local libraries.Kind regards,Rebecca-----Original Message-----From: Dave Johnson [mailto:davejohnson100@btinternet.com]Sent: 25 February 2005 09:25To: Rebecca HolmesSubject: Re: hm deliveryDear Rebecca,Thank you for your concern.  May I first of all say that our opinion is nota personal attack on you.  I'm sure that you work very hard and can not beheld responsible for the priorities chosen by your employers.We are sorry to hear that the non-arrival of HM is merely a distributionproblem.  We were, mistakenly, pleased to think that the publication hadbeen discontinued and that the money was no longer being wasted.Kind regards,Dave.----- Original Message ----- From: "Rebecca Holmes" To: "David Johnson" Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 6:55 PMSubject: hm deliveryHi David,I'm really concerned to hear that you have not received the magazine sinceJuly last year (the last edition before we changed to a differentdistribution company). I am very keen to get distribution right and identifyany problem areas. Our distribution company requires specific informationand I'm hoping you can help me by providing the following info:Full address including postcodeDetails of any possible reason why the magazine is not being delivered (egsecurity buzzer, locked gates, property located behind or down the side ofanother etc)Also, do you know if your neighbours are also missing out?Thanks for your interest in hm and for taking the time to help me resolvethis problem.I can be contacted directly on 020 8583 2184.Kind regards,Rebecca Holmeshm editorHounslow CouncilRebecca Holmesrebecca.holmes@hounslow.gov.uk_____________________________________________________________________This message has been checked for Viruses by the Message Labs ControlCentre._____________________________________________________________________Hounslow Council routinely monitors the content of e-mails sent andreceived via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance withits policies and procedures.The contents of this message are for the attention and use of theintended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee, or theperson responsible for delivering it to them, you may not copy, forward,disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any way. To do so may beunlawful. If you receive this e-mail by mistake please advise the senderimmediately.Where opinions are expressed they are not necessarily those of theLondon Borough of Hounslow.____________________________________________________________________London 2012: Hounslow is backing the bid.

David Johnson ● 7050d

Local residents have suggested that a sudden rise in the amount of content in 'The Chiswick' newspaper was a calculated attempt to force the fledgling operation out of business. The Chiswick is part of the Newsquest group which in turn is owned by Gannet one of the largest publishers of regional newspapers in the world. Hounslow Council have also come under fierce criticism for launching their own publication - HM Magazine - in competition with other local media.September 16, 2004 Mayor blasted as 'propaganda' costs balloon Shunned by advertisers cost of 'The Londoner' soars to £3.5 million  Related Links  Council Tax revenue being used for 'propaganda'The latest edition of 'The Londoner' Strong Growth for Local Web Sites"The Londoner" blasted as propagandaSign up for a free weekly e-mail newsletter in your areaBrentfordTW8.comChiswickW4.comAdvertising on Local Web Sites The Mayor's newspaper, The Londoner, is racking up huge losses to the taxpayer as commercial advertisers have chosen not to use it, according to evidence presented to a London Assembly Committee.The publication costs more than £3 million a year to produce and but it only recoups a fraction of its costs from advertising. When asked during a meeting of the Assembly's Budget Committee why The Londoner had made just £16,000 in advertising income in three editions since February 2004, Redmond O'Neill, the Mayor's Policy Director for Public Affairs and Transport, said that seeking advertising in the publication was still in its early days.Andrew Pelling AM, Chair of the Committee, said: "It seems incredible that The Londoner costs millions to produce, yet advertising space is sold for a pittance.  There can be virtually no mark up between advertising costs and how much is charged for the space.“The Mayor's newspaper is funded almost completely from public money, yet little effort is made to ensure Londoners get value for money.  A publication with a circulation of three million should be making more money and costing tax payers less."The publication is heavily cross subsidised by other agencies that come under the Mayor. Transport for London provides over £1.5 million and the London Tourist Board was recently asked to provide £310,000. The funding by TfL is particularly controversial in the light of a recent announcement by the Mayor that fares on the tubes and buses may have to rise by more than the rate of inflation despite pre-election promises to the contrary. The Londoner follows a pattern of local authorities launching their own publications in an attempt to by-pass what they feel is unfavourable reporting in the media. The Mayor has been involved in a long running feud with the Evening Standard over allegations printed about his personal life. Advertisers outside the private sector are reluctant to use these official publications as many believe that the 'Pravda' style reporting means that an overwhelming proportion of copies are discarded unread. Hounslow Council have recently attracted criticism from opposition politicians for allegedly distributing political material along with their HM Magazine and the lack of revenue from non-Council related sources has meant that they have needed to secure extra funding.September 16, 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Johnson ● 7050d

QUOTE (Phil Andrews)"HM MAGAZINE - THEY JUST WON'T TALK ABOUT IT!!"HOUNSLOW'S ruling Labour Group once again torpedoed any discussion of how the council's HM Magazine came to be distributed to homes around the borough alongside Labour Party election literature at a stormy Full Council meeting on Tuesday evening."A motion proposed by Isleworth community councillor Phil Andrews at the previous Full Council meeting had called upon the Council Leader, Colin Ellar, to explain the extraordinary series of coincidences and 'mistakes' which had led to the borough's non-political magazine being delivered as a job lot with Labour election material during the recent GLA and Mayoral elections."At that meeting the motion had been 'guillotined' as Labour members would not allow the meeting to continue beyond the 10pm deadline. It was therefore carried over to Tuesday's meeting as outstanding business."However on Tuesday it was ruled that the thirty minutes allocated to the discussion of outstanding business must apply from the moment that discussion of motions to the original meeting had commenced. The Mayor therefore allowed just ONE MINUTE for the discussion of outstanding business, meaning that the motion concerning HM Magazine would not be heard."Councillor Andrews proposed that Standing Orders be suspended in order that this important matter could be debated. He protested that members of the public were concerned at the possibility that their Council Tax money may be unlawfully subsidising the dissemination of party political material. He called for the vote as to whether to allow the motion to proceed to be recorded."His proposal to allow the matter to be discussed was supported by all non-Labour councillors - Conservative, Liberal Democrat, ICG and ABeeC, but was opposed by all majority party councillors. The latter included Councillor Patrick Edwards, who declared his vote against Councillor Andrews' proposal despite the fact that he had entered the meeting for the first time whilst the vote was in progress and could not possibly have known what was being voted upon. The vote was lost by 29 votes to 20, and the motion was not heard."Angry opposition councillors demanded an explanation for the fiasco. Conservative member Councillor Adrian Lee suggested that the motion be returned to the next meeting signed by all opposition councillors, who would demand that the matter be debated."Speaking after the meeting Councillor Andrews commented: 'It appears they will stop at nothing to prevent this matter from being brought out into the open, which is odd behaviour from people who have protested their innocence."'Public concern that Council Tax monies could be being misappropriated does not seem to interest them in the slightest."'They seem to be of the view that if you refuse to talk about something everybody will just forget about it. If that's the case then they are not only morally corrupt, but stupid as well.'UNQUOTE

David Johnson ● 7050d

JimI think the bone of contention is that we were sold HM Magazine on the basis that it would be funded purely from advertising and wouldn't cost the taxpayer.  Whether it could truly be described as being self-financing is a moot point as most of the advertising therein is actually placed, and paid for, by the council!  One could argue of course that in the absence of HM Magazine this advertising would have to be routed through local newspapers, possibly at a greater cost.  There isn't enough information forthcoming for us to be able to make an informed judgement as to how much of the advertising which appears in HM Magazine is essential and how much of it is given to the magazine just because it is there.The local authority could, of course, make greater use of the web for its advertising and public notices.I think what many opposition councillors are also concerned about is HM's potential as a propaganda outlet.  Our political lords and masters have demonstrated in the past that they would have no scruples whatsoever about using a public resource in such a way if they felt they could get away with it.More than anything else we need to introduce some honesty and openness into the question of HM Magazine and its funding.  Is it intended to be self-financing or isn't it and, if not, can we have a breakdown of what it is going to cost the taxpayer so that we can make an informed decision as to whether to continue it, expand it or scrap it?Surely that isn't too much to ask - is it?

Phil Andrews ● 7050d

I can sympathise with the Council's dilemma. The newspapers' circulation is in free fall and so they don't really represent a viable way to communicate with the public. The problem is when HM was costed up someone clearly said 'if we print and distribute 100,000 of these we will be beating of advertisers with a not very clean stick.' So when they were doing the costings they assumed a much bigger revenue than they actually got. The problem is that it isn't simply a question of reach for customers but the association. HM Magazine may be full of smiley people delighted at the latest Council initiative but it is still brought to you by the same people that don't collect your bins, threaten you with court if you are a bit late with your Council Tax or issue with parking tickets. Private sector advertisers will generally give it a wide berth as the association is likely to be negative for them. They also know, that while a faithful few like Jim might leaf through it, most of the copies end up in recycling boxes or landfill unread.I would go to Trinity Mirror and Newsquest and ask them to tender to be the Council's preferred news supplier. The Council would guarantee a certain level of income if targets on readership and distribution were reached. In return the paper would guarantee to include a proportion of public information each week. The papers would remain editorially independent.This wouldn't cost the tax payer a penny and would revitalise the local newspaper sector

Justin Harris ● 7050d

I wonder what the total annual costs are?In some ways I believe that it should have an extra 4 pages(a 4pp spread) to cope with additional copy..that must get omitted each issue.

Jim Lawes ● 7050d

Well, I'm a fan (!) of the HM Magazine and I think that it serve a valuable role in informing the 250,000 residents of the Borough about some of their key activities.It notifies residents of the existence of Area Committees for starters!..and many other thinks.One cannot rely on the Local Press to keep everybody informed.Firstly the circulation of the paid-for newspapers is low...and secondly, the freebies just don't get safely delivered in lots of areas. I haven't seen the Informer on my doormay for many years.If recipients of the HM Magazine just throw them in the bin...well..I feel that's a sad reflection on the receivernot the fault of the sender!Regarding the overspend and taking funds from Education..I really don't know enough about the internal finances of the Civic Centre to be able to make a judgement. Does "Education" include Adult Education for example?  What is the toatl cost of the HM magazine.  Is the overspend to do with  Editorial and journalists expenses,the design fees, the cost of the paper, the production costs at the printers, the distribution costs?Educating the community..and keeping them well informed..is no bad thing..especially if some £250,000,000 to £500,000,000 is being spent each year.

Jim Lawes ● 7050d

£53,000 from the education budget?  beyond belief!

Sarah Felstead ● 7050d