Talk:Hedingham & Chambers
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Chambers (bus company) page were merged into Hedingham & Chambers on 01 September 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Chambers (bus company) was copied or moved into Hedingham & Chambers with this edit on 11:56, 01 September 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Dates
edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hedingham_Omnibuses&diff=23456823&oldid=22995055 I had to interpret the "dates":
- 30/08/2005504
- 30/08/200
I took both as 2005. Please correct if wrong. Rich Farmbrough 12:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Top.ht1.gif
edit
Image:Top.ht1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Disability incicents
editI've removed the following from the article:
Hedingham Omnibuses has been criticised three times for incidents involving disabled people. In 2007 and February 2008, its drivers were criticised by Tendring Community Transport for leaving their vehicles unattended in special bus stops in Station Road and Pier Avenue in Clacton meant for services for disabled and vulnerable people, blocking designated services from using the stop.[1] In September 2008, a disabled man was unable to board a bus as the wheelchair area was full with buggies. The mothers refused to fold their buggies to let the man on board the bus, despite the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 giving priority to wheelchair users. The bus driver refused to get involved and enforce the Act, so the disabled man had to wait half an hour for the next bus. The company responded by saying that they would put up posters from Essex County Council telling passengers to give up the wheelchair space to disabled people.[2]
References
- ^ Claire Owen (15 February 2008). "Echo News: Clacton: Bus drivers' behaviour "disgraceful"". Retrieved 30 July 2009.
- ^ Claire Owen (16 September 2008). "Echo News: Clacton: disabled Dominic angry after being turned away from bus". Retrieved 8 August 2009.
A). The bus stops at Pier Avenue are the exact same (although there's a big gap between them) so it would be easy to assume the drivers had simply got confused over which one they should stop at - Both bus stops aren't different nor do either have the bus companies name on them, It was also common in that era for drivers to leave their vehicles unnattended for a substantial period of time,
B). The buggy incident is an issue everywhere on public transport - It was an issue in 2008 and 10 years later it's still an issue today so as such I feel it's rather unfair to essentially shame this company when in reality it still happens everywhere,
Merger
editI've merged Chambers into the Hedingham article (renamed Hedingham & Chambers)- it was proposed for over a year in 2021 without opposition and the two articles were of limited quality. Towards the end of last the two started using the same website so it seems, for all intents and purposes, they are a single firm. Talk pages of the two articles have been archived. 59abcd (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)