Wightlink at Yarmouth Harbour

Cuts to Wightlink timetable impacts income and jobs for Harbour

Yarmouth Harbour Commissioner (YHC) says the reduction in Wightlink‘s sailings to and from Yarmouth Harbour, first announced in November 2012, has had a negative impact on the Commissioner’s income.

As well as the changes to sailings from January 2013, further sailings were cut in the summer of last year, with the YHC linking the drop in foot and car passengers to a reduction in their income.

According to the report, the drop in crossings led to the redundancy of a YHC ferry terminal operator position.

Drop for third year in a row
The report reads,

“Our largest single customer, Wightlink, made changes to its service from the beginning of the year which led to a reduction in the number of sailings, predominantly late at night and early morning.”

It goes on to say,

“The traffic Wightlink carried fell for the third year in a row, notably cars and foot passengers reduced. As a consequence, YHC’s income from Wightlink fell.

“This trend is particularly worrying for YHC.”

You can read the full report below (click on the full-screen icon to see larger version


Thanks to Martin Wareham for the heads-up.

Image: David C Jones under CC BY 2.0

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
7 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Sciolist
11, December 2014 6:56 pm

I hope they will name them? Do they not usually name people arrested in connection with sex offences?

It will stink if it’s one rule for them..

anon
Reply to  The Sciolist
11, December 2014 7:36 pm

No, they most certainly should NOT name them.

These people have been arrested – NOT tried and convicted.

Until they are proven to be guilty, they must be presumed innocent. Releasing their names before a conviction would be unthinkable.

Anon Again
Reply to  anon
11, December 2014 7:42 pm

Anon – standard procedure is releasing names on charge not conviction – a public trial is key part of justice.

Of course, the Police themselves aren’t above leaking names on arrest or even inviting the media along for the fun of the arrest if it’s a bit of juicy gossip.

John Thomas
Reply to  anon
11, December 2014 9:03 pm

“Until they are proven to be guilty, they must be presumed innocent. Releasing their names before a conviction would be unthinkable”

Agree, so why was it ok for them to name Sir Cliff Richard and a host of other celebrities recently for similar said offences?

Billy Bongo
Reply to  John Thomas
12, December 2014 10:41 am

“Agree, so why was it ok for them to name Sir Cliff Richard and a host of other celebrities recently for similar said offences?”

It might be legal but it certainly isn’t OK…

billy muggins
11, December 2014 7:42 pm

Dont loose faith in the police they tell us. What when they corrupt. I think we will dont you?

The Sciolist
11, December 2014 9:09 pm

It’s not just Sir Cliff thou is it? The police seem quite happy to name anyone arrested for questioning when they are ordinary citizens, DJ’s, ex DJ’s, teachers, musicians. Either name everyone arrested for sexual offences or no-one. The police cannot decide for themselves that they alone are a special case.

dougie
11, December 2014 10:05 pm

Our police force is 100% honest, how can any of you think otherwise?
I am sure the accused officers will be treated with the same dignity, and questioned as fairly as any other person accused of a crime.
I just hope the evidence does not get lost in some mysterious way.

ryan
11, December 2014 10:26 pm

x famous person has been arrested on allegations of sexual crimes. If x can be named before charged, then so should any serving police officer. Same rules should apply to all.

Man-at-the-Bailey
12, December 2014 7:49 am

The excuse usually given (by the police) is that simply knowing person x has been arrested on a sexual charge, flushes out any other victims, thus strengthening the case against the person under arrest. The media often correctly call this a fishing exercise. I think this happened in the DLT case, it certainly happened with other celebrities, who were eventually not charged with any offences despite being… Read more »

Mark Francis
Reply to  Man-at-the-Bailey
12, December 2014 9:51 am

According to Brian Paddick, the form used to be an exchange of plain brown envelopes in the Wapping McDonalds if you wanted any info out of Plod.
I assume that OTW is above this kind of thing – unless we have a whip-round maybe?

block8
12, December 2014 11:05 am

I thought it was the BBC who named Cliff following a tip off.

Stuart Sampson
13, December 2014 12:03 am

I note the story states serious sexual offences. That is a broad statement. I wonder if the charges refer to adults or children or an adult with learning difficulties? Maybe On the Wight or the police could clarify this.

Mike
26, January 2015 1:25 am

[Comment removed, but can the author please get in touch with us]

Mike Smith
26, January 2015 5:33 pm

See how the factual comment about the charge was taken off!! If I had started to name the officers and the solicitors then fair play take it down!!! Or next time should I just name them on here and facebook so the island can find out exactly who is who! I am disgusted that you couldnt have left it any longer just so a few people could… Read more »

Mike Smith
Reply to  Mike Smith
27, January 2015 10:49 pm

[Comment removed by moderator – Mike, it is not that we don’t want to hear what you have to say about this case, but your comments may prejudice any impending court case – please get in touch with us by calling 898777 or emailing]

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined