Talk:Messages from the Shareholders/@comment-4074242-20141124155159

I receive the magazine every month and Which Travel every second month. But I hardly ever look at them, because I receive regular Which? emails and, when I need to, I look at the website, including Which? Local. This is the sole use I make of my subscription, and my view is that it is of diminishing value, because there are so many other sources of information online (some of them arguably better, in the case of computers and electronics). I do also waste £38 a year on the Legal Service, which has never yet been of any use, but I regard it as an insurance premium. There used to be a rule that commercial organisations were banned from promoting their products or services as Which? Best Buys (a concept which in itself is far from new, contrary to the apparent implication in your letter). For me, the change in policy to which you refer is a betrayal of the historic guarantee of independence. There is a (not very local) offshoot of Which? Local in the form of a door-to-door booklet listing “Trusted” suppliers. I assume this is actually paid-for promotion, and even if it isn’t that still says something about my loss of trust. That goes in the bin too. In my view CA should be totally and demonstrably independent. Without that, it is pointless. I would add one thought which is not addressed in your letter. I do appreciate that charities are limited by law in their ability to “campaign”. But every now and then CA does organise petitions which come to much the same thing, but on an inadequate scale. The trouble is that this is done so much more effectively by big new online organisations like 38 Degrees and others based in the US. Why can’t CA lend active support to 38 Degrees, as far as charity law permits, instead of going it alone?