Page 2 of 4

A handfulfailed to indicate (let alone spell out) that they would pass the complainton to their editor or even a more senior member of staff at the firstopportunity.

More than a third of those who answered question two wrongly thought theCode, the Convention on Human Rights, the Youth Justice and CriminalEvidence Act or a combination of them would prevent identification of a fouryear old boy savaged by a neighbour's dog. Too many said that they couldn'tuse an offered photograph taken the day before of the boy playing withanother neighbour's child.

Reasons given were imagined restrictions fromthe above or a fear of prejudicing a "jury" if the dog owner was prosecutedfor keeping a dangerous dog!

Most of those candidates prepared to use the photograph thought it alegal requirement to get the parents' permission to do so, either because ofsome privacy law or for fear of infringing the moral rights of the boy undercopyright law. Virtually all the rest would seek parental permission "as amatter of courtesy".

(If the parents said no, would they give thePolaroid print back to the other neighbour and not tell their news editor?Or has this surge of courtesy reached most news desks without me realising?)

The marking guide for this question suggested bonus marks for asympathetic approach to the mauled child's parents with a view to getting apix of his injuries.

Only three candidates did.

In question three candidates were asked how they might follow up a"national newspaper NIB (News In Brief paragraph) revealing that a body dugup by a Belgian farmer in a field east of Ypres has been identified as thatof a soldier missing in 1915 from an Infantry Service Battalion of what,before various amalgamations, was your local regiment."

Next page...