Greedy Bridge Company Hikes Discounted Toll 3 years Early
The Whitchurch Bridge Company are increasing the bridge card discounted toll to 20 pence as of 1st March 2010. This is 3 years earlier than their own recommended proposal (see ‘Option 3 – Recommended Proposal’ page 13) which was presented to the Inspector and the Public Enquiry in June 2009. The increase was proposed to be gradual starting at 13.89 pence per crossing in 2009 reaching 20p in 2013 as shown below from their proposal at the Public Inquiry:
How long till it is 30p or more?
On a BBC Radio Berkshire interview on Feb 16th, Geoff Weir actually had the audacity to blame the Tollfreeze organisation for the early toll increase because of the cost of the public inquiry even though the Bridge company knew how much the inquiry would cost before they actually proposed this gradual increase at the very same inquiry. And regardless of the fact that in the case of the Whitchurch Toll Bridge it only takes a single written objection from a member of the public to invoke a public inquiry. It will be interesting to see if the directors take yet another dividend this financial year.
So there we have it; The Whitchurch Bridge Company, as usual, tells the public one thing and then does whatever suits them. They cannot even honour their own proposal. Another absolutely disgraceful example of highway robbery by our ex-Whitchurch Village Parish Council chairman, Geoff Weir and his greedy bridge company.
But don’t fret! If you wish, you can pay £18 per month and get unlimited crossings by car. So at least now the highway robbery is capped at only £216 per annum - almost twice what you’d pay for a small car in road tax to use the rest of the UK road network.
So, please, take action. Please sign the on-line petition and write to your local MP, Oxfordshire County Council, and the Department for Transport to ensure they know your views on this deceitful, untrustworthy sham of a company.
TollFreeze calls on Oxfordshire County Council to step in and take over the toll bridge. They are the only ones with statutory powers to act, yet they do nothing.
I haven’t seen the announcement in the Henley Standard, so I don’t know what else is included ( an apology, perhaps; an explanation?) but the Bridge Company’s action cries out for a response in whatever paper it has used for the announcement. Previous press notices have been excellent, in my view. Could whoever wrote those write another?
In the meantime, I shall write to our MP and to our county councillor.
@Mike Scott,
Unfortunately for us bridge users, there is no statutory requirement for them to announce such an increase beforehand- they could, in fact, just tell us on the day of the increase at the toll booth. Only proposed increases over and above the 40p cash toll would require a public notice.
The Bridge Company always seems to be antagonistic - a bit of public relations would help their cause - however they seem to enjoy being inflamatory & spoiling for a fight.
Absolutely Disgraceful!!!! To have the cheek to blame the increase on the public enquiry and on the earlier delay in toll rises is inexcusable. I use the bridge every day, and although it is not going to mean having to sell a car or a kidney to finance the rise, in the depths of a recession this is taking the mick.
I have been in correspondence with my MP (John Howell) on another subject. I sent him an email today to thank him for doing something for me but I tagged on a bit about the bridge.
For those that live in South Oxfordshire it might be an idea to email him. His email address is below. For those in on the Berkshire side maybe they could do something similar.
Ian
HOWELLJM@parliament.uk
“…I, and I’m sure many others, will however be reverting to you in relation to another subject - the Whitchurch Toll Bridge. In case you don’t know the WTBC has increased (1st March 2010) the rate of the ‘discounted’ bridge card beyond that per the outcome of the Public Inquiry. People will be wanting to know what recourse there is when an entity such as the WTBC disregards the outcome of the Public Inquiry - do they just tear up essential elements of the findings and do as they like?.
You can read more here:-
http://www.tollfreeze.com/
I have objected to an advertorial placed in the Woodcote Correspondent (April) - sandwiched in between community news about the Rally and a Quiz night. It seems like all the local parish mags are used by WBTC to issue press releases. Makes my blood boil!
—————————————————————————————
Dear Sir,
Woodcote Correspondent Vol. 21 No. 4 (April)
Whitchurch Bridge Holdings Limited – Advertorial (pages 18 & 19)
I am usually grateful for having the Correspondent delivered to our house. However, when reading this April’s edition I was somewhat surprised to see an ‘article’ written by Mr Geoff Weir, the Company Secretary of the Whitchurch Bridge Holdings Limited. In my opinion, the ‘article’ amounts to an advertorial for the company. It is a commercial organisation and in the piece sets out to justify its recent price increases.
Before responding to this letter please have a look at the newsletter and the ‘article’ which sandwiched in between the good news about the Woodcote Rally and the South Oxfordshire Quiz Leaque. I also append a definition of what is an ‘advertorial’ so that you can fully appreciate my views.
I do appreciate that you have a general caveat in page 2 that ‘Opinions expressed are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor or Committee’. However, in this instance I believe that it would have been more appropriate to either have an express strap line preceding the ‘article’; or have the piece boxed in/segregated so that readers in the local community, can more readily distinguish such matters as being either non-commercial (community), or commercial business propositions e.g. an advertorial. In the case of the ‘article’ it only becomes clear at the end of the ‘article’ that it has been written by Mr Weir, who is the Company Secretary of the Whitchurch Bridge company.
Yours faithfully
Ian Reynolds
Advertorial Definition
An advertorial is an advertisement written in the form of an objective article, and presented in a printed publication—usually designed to look like a legitimate and independent news story. The term “advertorial” is a portmanteau of “advertisement” and “editorial.” Merriam-Webster dates the origin of the word to 1946.
Advertorials differ from traditional advertisements in that they are designed to look like the articles that appear in the publication. Most publications will not accept advertisements that look exactly like stories from the newspaper or magazine they are appearing in. The differences may be subtle, and disclaimers—such as the word “advertisement”—may or may not appear. Sometimes euphemisms describing the advertorial as a “special promotional feature” or “special advertising section” are used. The tone of the advertorials is usually closer to that of a press release than of an objective news story.
Legal Issues
In the United Kingdom, UK’s Advertising Standards Authority requires advertorials to be clearly marked as such. In a recent case, the Scottish newspaper The Herald published a feature titled “Professional Brief” that had been submitted by Glasgow-based French Duncan Chartered Accountants. According to a complaint, it did not clearly indicate that it was a paid advertisement. The newspaper argued that,because it was a “sponsored column” and it was indicated that the opinions expressed were those of the author, it did not have to refer to it as an advertisement. The ASA responded that, because payment was given in exchange for the publication of the columns and because the content was provided by the marketers rather than the newspaper, they considered the columns advertisements and required that they indicate as much.