|
The Casey Column
By
Wayne Casey (LL SC SW)
If this column was an Ice Cream, it would probably have a flake and hundreds of thousands, but it wouldn’t have monkey blood, because putting monkey blood on an ice cream is a sign that you’re possessed by the devil
He ain’t Heavy, he’s my Buddha
Being a cab driver, and one who actually gets out helping passengers into the vehicle, I am constantly surprised by the crap people buy. I usually keep my thoughts to myself, but for a change I’m going to share them with you, this one seems a bit special.
You’re bound to have seen those lanterns that people buy and put around their gardens. The ones that are eco powered and illuminate when it gets dark. Apparently they’re a great way of “illuminating areas of your garden without disturbing wildlife and without using any electricity”.
‘Casa de Casey’ by my own admission did have some, until of course they stopped working and they were disposed of as being sh*te.
It would appear a certain store next to a certain illegal rank in Carlisle has upped the ante and taken the solar powered garden lamp to a whole new level, they are now selling garden lights in the guise of Buddha.
I don't generally do shopping, unless the lager, Magners, Guinness and Lambert & Butler are running catastrophically low, so I thought I’d check this Buddha thing out via the internet, apparently shops do sell them and it wasn’t my imagination.
The selling line is “Turn your garden into a peaceful sanctuary with this highly detailed polyresin Buddha statue. Simply place it in a sunny spot and let the sunlight do the rest.”
Unfortunately my garden ‘sanctuary’ is constantly disturbed by number one son, a cricket bat and bad bowling by his mates.
The guy who bought the Buddha is obviously a man after my own heart, he followed the golden rule, when sent out shopping, waste money on things you don't actually need, thus ensuring you’ll never be given the task again. Its a little known fact that Jack (of Beanstalk fame) was actually sent to the shops for washing up liquid.
Ever had it Blue?
I’ve never been to Bristol, to be honest, reading through the newspaper articles and general coverage of the council attitude towards things taxi there, I can only imagine its run by a bunch of jumped up wannabe Stalinists.
The furore about the colour of Bristol’s taxi fleet was due to come to a head today, however it didn’t, its now going to come to a head later in the year probably around October.
The SP seems to be that Bristol council seem to want all Hackney Carriages painted the same colour, which is nice. Unfortunately elements of the taxi trade don't seem to want this. Indeed, they are rather peed off about it. Having listened to some bloke from their council on Radio 4 yesterday tell me the re-spray will ONLY cost (by their estimates) £1K, I’m now rather peed off too.
Only £1K.....even if it was....ONLY £1K most people don't carry that around of spare in their back pockets.
Indeed, I don't know if the councillor on the radio has noticed, but we are in the midst of a rather difficult recession, still its ONLY £1K.
The reality is that it isn’t ONLY £1K. It’s an awful lot more. Time off the road alone would cost a driver possibly double that figure, presuming of course the council want the vehicle spray painted by professionals and not emulsioned. Not painting a vehicle properly means the vehicle loses a resale value. They don't seem to have thought about that. Indeed, on the list of things Bristol Council don't seem to have thought about is the loss of revenue in advertising, which in a City can run into more than £1K.
It’s nice to see Bristol Council being supportive of the taxi trade, in order to pay for the resprays, they haven’t permitted a fare increase for over 2 years!
Bristol council cite public safety as a reason they want all the taxis the same colour, indeed they claim police support. This is all well and good. It explains a great deal, I therefore wonder who chose the colour in question, which reportedly isn’t actually available (other than on special order) from any motor manufacturer in the world. Who chose the colour, Ray Charles?
Again the public safety argument is an interesting one, particularly as the Bristol taxi trade claim there is widespread illegal plying for hire, (presumably the deregulation of the taxi trade didn’t resolve that old chestnut then?) are we now being led to believe the colour of a taxi will change that old, old favourite? I have a better suggestion, why don't all Bristol’s PH drivers wear cowbells when at work, that way the public will be able to identify them?
I’m sorry if this article is provocative (I’m not really), but these things get me peed off. Its a council using a taxi fleet for its own ends, the pretence is the protection of the public, the truth is that a few councillors will be nursing semis knowing they have this type of power.
1984
I understand that 21 Hackney Carriage Drivers in Sutton in Ashfield were recently suspended for one month by the council. Their crime? Over-ranking.
They were not suspended due to the police giving them points for stupid parking, they were not suspended due to not paying parking fines, they were suspended due to the fact they were captured on CCTV waiting to get on one of the few hackney carriage stands available in the Town.
21 drivers, all of whom I understand own their own vehicles, will now not earn any money for an entire month. Yes this means cab finance not getting paid, cab insurance not getting paid, mortgage payments being missed. Perhaps they’ll go to the Benefits office in order to ensure their families are fed, but I can’t be too certain on that.
Any sane person would actually think if queuing taxis were creating a danger to other motorists or pedestrians, the police would be on hand to enforce the law. But that didn’t happen. Presumably this was because the taxis weren’t causing any danger to anyone. Yeah, they peed off a few bus drivers (some of whom possibly had a predilection for their own genital group, some shopkeepers were troubled about possibly the things shopkeepers get upset about, like a lack of decent pornography to read in between customers or selling cigarettes and booze to those below the legal age.
Facing facts what Sutton in Ashfield has is a council that irresponsibly licensed too many taxis, without providing adequate ranking space in the areas where taxi drivers may actually earn a living. On top of this they designed a rule book of conditions for drivers, which is nice. Unfortunately Hackney carriage drivers are not controlled via rule books or conditions but via byelaws.
Whilst a number of Ashfield’s drivers are members of the NTA, a great many more are not, until Ashfield’s trade develops unity and strength, the LA will continue to urinate all over them.
www.local authoritytossers.co.uk
Reports are being received that a Hackney Carriage driver was recently issued with an immediate suspension (via the much abused section 52 of the road safety act 2006 which was originally devised to stop those accused of rape and suchlike from driving taxis).
The crime this time was obviously quite severe, he had an astute criminal mind, and set up a website thingy where he advertised his services.
Yes folks, a Hackney Carriage driver set up a website and invited bookings for his Hackney Carriage.
The council concerned say he should have a Private Hire Operators license. Indeed they were well miffed with this driver. So much so they set him up. There was a swoop!! He received a call to be at an appointed place at appointed time to take a passenger to a destination, he then turned up and took the passengers, upon arrival he was booked for errm not having a PH operators license.
Apparently the driver broke a rule in the local council rulebook for taxi drivers, unfortunately and as caselaw tells us all, we are not actually governed via rulebooks. Indeed, if your council brings you a rulebook, it should be treated in much the same way as you would ordinarily treat Andrex toilet tissue.
Further to the above, perhaps the council should look at the acts they are supposed to enforce and pay particular attention to section 80 of the 1976 act and the description of the term ‘operate’. Then take a sneaky peek at the Gladen court case, and whilst their at it, have a quick look at Wathan vs. Neath Port Talbot.
Refusing to be hired
I was recently asked about the situation in which taxis refuse to be hired, I hope the following clarifies the law.
The 1847 act states;
53. Penalty on driver for refusing to drive.
A driver of a hackney carriage standing at any of the stands for hackney carriages appointed by the commissioners, or in any street, who refuses or neglects, without reasonable excuse, to drive such carriage to any place within the prescribed distance, or the distance to be appointed by any byelaw of the commissioners, not exceeding the prescribed distance to which he is directed to drive by the person hiring or wishing to hire such carriage, shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding [F8 level 2 on the standard scale].
Translating the above into English is quite simple. As a Hackney carriage driver, when standing or plying for hire within your area, you must except every hire. There are a couple of exceptions, you can reasonably refuse a fare is the journey terminates outside your district. Indeed, you can refuse a fare that terminates within your district, if you have a reasonable excuse. I am not going to list reasonable excuses, but I will state, you cannot refuse a fare just because the job is going RTFC.........some of you should take particular note to that.
The fine (level 2) for refusing to be hired is currently £500.
In London there is in fact a six mile condition, we are all aware London has different legislation to the rest of the country.
To cut a long story short, current law dictates a potential fare can take any hackney carriage standing on a taxi rank.
Refusing to take the fare ‘without reasonable excuse’ is an offence.
A recent case heard in Barnstable heard a driver refuse a passenger because the fare was short, the driver was subsequently fined £350 with £350 costs and a £15 victim surcharge. The driver appealed the fine and was subsequently ordered to pay another £885 in costs for the appeal.
The driver was quoted as advising the passenger that the bus was cheaper and he was trying to save the passenger money.
Till next months NTA conference special
Wayne Casey
_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
|
Login
Register
FAQ
