We've had some tough challenges - tough to write and very tough to judge. So this time, I'm going to go back to the devise a headline to an article. This is a genuine article reproduced exactly from the West Somerset Free Press of August 17th, in 2001: it is the regional paper for West Somerset, and as yet doesn't have a serious competitor.

I want you to devise the headline for the article: you may use up to 15 words in total as the maximum. However, very few single headlines exceed 10, or at the very most 11, but sometimes, the main headline is supported by a sub-headline. I have an example in front of me for a weather article

Wet and Windy with a vengeance
Southwesterlies return bringing heavy rains.

...with a total of 11 words.

You may choose whether to have a single headline, or two. The essence of a headline is to get the article read, so it must be made interesting enough, but it mustn't give away the full story.

You know all this, of course, but the essential prerequisite is that you understand what is being reported - and that may be more difficult!

Entries to be sent to John by Alpha Day 6, January 4th.

For results, click here.

At Wednesday’s meeting of West Somerset District Council’s licensing and environmental protection committee, councillors battled to decide exactly what they were and were not voting on.

With questions flying around the chamber as to whether the votes were being taken for amendments or proposals and whether there were conditions attached to those proposals, many were left struggling to keep up.

The main bone of contention came when the committee was asked to consider whether to waive the charges made to the Dunster by Candlelight committee for applications made to the Council for road closures.

The Dunster issue was quickly sidelined and the committee was asked to decide whether it wanted to waive charges to just-registered charities, whether non-commercial organisations should be included or whether to maintain the status quo.

Chairman Keith Parkes advised that the committee could only make a recommendation as the final decision would have to rest with the Council’s cabinet because it would involve a change of policy.

After arguing whether they were technically voting on an amendment or a proposal, councillors opted to continue to levy all or part of the charges associated with road closures to all applicants.

They then immediately tried to decide whether to make an exception for Dunster by Candlelight.

Cllr Parkes told the committee the final decision would rest with the cabinet, only to be told by the Council Chairman, Cllr Stan Taylor that he was wrong and the decision, could in fact, be taken by the committee.

The committee, in turn, decided not to waive the charges for Dunster by Candlelight – having voted to continue the charges just moments before. But as all present tried to understand exactly what had and had not been decided, Cllr Parkes remarked: “I am sorry the press seem confused. It’s really very simple.”

Asked at the end of the meeting why a decision to maintain the status quo on road closure charges had to go before the cabinet when there was no change in policy, it was clear the issue was not so simple after all.

Looking to the committee secretary, Sharon King, for advice, Cllr Parkes said the cabinet should be given the opportunity to “confirm” the decision already taken by the committee – even though he was uncertain as to whether there was actually any legal need.

The next decision taken by the committee to change its policy to allow charitable collections to take place on Sundays was equally confusing, as it was not immediately obvious whether the committee’s decision would have to be ratified by cabinet.

At the end of the meeting, the Free Press was told it would have to go to cabinet as it was a change in policy. The following day, that line had changed as subsequent advice revealed that as it did not financially affect the Council, cabinet’s input would not be needed.

It would, however, be discussed by the full Council as it involved a change in policy.

Wednesday’s meeting was then formally closed almost three hours after it began – only to be hurriedly reconvened when it was pointed out to the chairman that he had forgotten one item on the agenda.

As a result, the decision to note the contents of a report dealing with the quarterly figures for the licensing budget was taken while many councillors were heading out through the door.

It was the third time the meeting had had to be reconvened – the first was for Cllr Parkes to talk privately with a fellow councillor to offer advice about which option the member should favour out of a choice of three on the agenda, and the second was for a coffee break.