Taxi Driver Online

The Casey Column

By

Wayne Casey

The views expressed in this column are not those of the National taxi Association


Peace in our time or the start of a slide into oblivion?

There was a meeting of the Law Commissions advisory group on 22nd November 2011. One could be mistaken, given the general feeling of euphoria coming from some, for having images of the 30th September 1938 on our minds. Good old Neville Chamberlain returning from a meeting in Germany, having signed the Munich agreement, declaring; ‘I believe it is peace in our time.’

Unfortunately the cab trade has never really had a journalist such as me. Yes, I overuse the expression ‘window licker’, and yes I am a tad opinionated, but I’m sorry to say, I tend to read thing s then form my own opinion. From what I’ve read, you are, in the words of the late Private Fraser (played by actor John Laurie) ‘Doomed’.

Harold Wilson once said 'a week is a long time in politics', well six months in taxi politics must seem like a millennia.

Six months ago a certain trade union were supporting the notion that licensing staff should have the power to issue ‘on the spot fines’ to drivers. Sadly, like with many things cab trade they didn’t actually think it through. This is quite scary don’t you think? Ideas are being proposed without anyone checking what would happen?

Well I did.

I said from the start it was ill conceived, although I think the actual words used were ‘effing stupid’. I have been proved to be correct. To issue these fines, a massive £200 fine I might add, the offences would have to be decriminalised. So in effect, the idea would have been no deterrent whatsoever. So, presumably after reading my thoughts, the union stopped supporting the proposal.

I think I’m getting cynical in my old age, while admittedly; my age does appear to be a score below the average age of the trade reps the law commissions’ advisory group. Even at my tender age, I can remember attending meetings where reps simply let their mouths run riot, if in doubt, make it up and carry on regardless.

Maybe it is an age thing, when most of these people grew up we were still perhaps going through rationing. I blame powdered eggs.

One rep quite rightly stated that a pre-booked market was positive for customer choice. Sadly, this reps union was the one who made all the carryings on about Sefton licensed PHV’s doing pre-booked work in Liverpool. Apparently, when the cab world is threatened, private hire doesn’t appear to be as bad as they originally thought? A Saul on the road to Damascus type of moment if I ever heard of one.

Whilst I thoroughly support the two tier form of licensing, I do despair at those sent to give a case for defending it. The words vested and interest cannot be too far away from anyone’s mouths, let alone the lips of the law commission. I get the uneasy feeling that all that happened on the 22nd November was give the law commission an idea of how people will answer certain questions in the looming consultation.

When I read private hire operators reps suggesting a single tier system ‘would lead to the collapse of the private hire industry and thus passengers’ ability to pre-book’. I do start to wonder about deploying the window licker argument. Because, unless that’s a complete and utter exaggeration we are being led to believe that virtually no other civilized country on this planet can order cabs via the telephone, including France.

When I read that representatives of a body such as the Institute of Licensing state licensing officers should be trained, full in the knowledge that they themselves run training courses for licensing officers, I do despair a little. Where was the questioning of this, where was the pointing out?

However, are the taxi trade aren’t so innocent themselves? Elements of the cab trade push these training courses equally as hard as those ‘nasty’ training companies. Perhaps a slight correction is in order, they push their own, impossible to fail, even if you’re a gibbering idiot, training courses as hard as those ‘nasty’ training companies.

It doesn’t come of too much a surprise that everyone is very much in favour of enforcement. What is surprising is the law commission don’t appear to want to grasp the nettle and look into how this enforcement is to be paid for. Am I the only person wondering why? These people are looking into taxi and private hire law, yet they don’t want to know how or if there will be enough money to enforce their new laws?

One rep suggested there was evidence that showed “deregulated areas with high standards were very successful in controlling numbers and congestion and ensuring a mixed fleet”. I can see that suggestion being taken on board. Amazingly this suggestion was not countered by anyone. I tell you what, why don’t we make it a condition that in order to get a cab proprietors license a person has to license a vehicle made of myrrh, that’ll control numbers, there wouldn’t be any cabs, but those numbers, boy, they’d be controlled.

These people are mad. I’m certain of it. Regrettably for the rest of you, if I think they’re all bonkers, god only knows what the law commission thought, I’d lay a wager on them having the place de-fumigated when everybody left though.

Surely I can’t have been the only person to notice how heavily influenced the initial briefing paper was? Yet we have the cab trade and elements of the private hire trade, running around shouting about peace in our time. I have a wake- up call. The taxi and PH won nothing on 22nd November, absolutely nothing, we are not even at the consultation stage yet.

All the Law Commission has to do is simply go away and work out counter arguments to those present offered in the meeting......shock horror....major fleet owners want absolute control over vehicle rents? Not so much an argument, as a statement of fact. Indeed, reading through the minutes there are so many contradictions it should be a quite simple job.

The cab trade better come up with something better.....and quick......the clock is ticking.

Wayne Casey ©

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Not a bad critique of the advisory committee meeting, but I don't get he logic of the hightlighted statement.

your going to have to explain

I was meaning a non crim £200 set fine as opposed to what happens at the moment if someone is caught illegally plying....6 pen points and a massive fine (in a good number of cases).

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Well £200 is not to be sniffed at as a financial deterrent, and if the fines could be handed out more easily than prosecutions under the current process then to that extent it would act as a greater deterrent.

Perhaps the current system is a good deterrent to particular individuals, but as a whole it clearly isn't because the authorities either just scratch the surface of the problem or ignore it altogether.

Thus perhaps making it easier to punish offenders would make it a better general deterrent.

Either that or just crush their motors

Yes.....but tbh thats just hyperbole.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Yes, the last bit, but that much was obvious from the smilie.

But I take it from your Skull-esque response that I have a point?

I know its Christmas.....but no.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Sensible folks never ask a question that they don't already know the answer too.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well that's me told then.

But since you seem unable to address the points directly then I'll assume I have a point.

No you have little point.....but its Christmas.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Back to the main thrust of the thread.

The trade are currently led (in the main by old people who will soon be out of it, or dead, with vested interests not always shared with the vast majority of drivers), down a path that they can't see where it's going.

And those of us that can, either get stick for pointing out the f***ing obvious, or are quite happy to see where this is going, and, once sorted, will make the most of it.

Bring it on is what I say, bring it on.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes, even I realised it was Christmas, but what's that got to do with the point in hand rather than the fact that you can't address it?

Thus mabye my point bears repeating?

£200 for illegal plying is a bad deterrent, making the offence decriminalised is a very poor idea, and one that was mooted by stupid local government officers and even more stupid union officials.

6 penalty points and perhaps a £1500 fine and a lifetime ban from driving a licenses vehicle would be a far better idea.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

So the suggestion is a "bad deterrent", a "very poor idea" mooted by "stupid" people and even "more stupid" people.

Meanwhile, your own way of thinking is a "far better idea".

When I saw you'd actually typed something I expected it to be an in-depth examination comparing the deterrent effect and general efficacy of the alternative systems, but it's, er, what?

Certainly nothing of what you've said will amount to any sort of deterrent to those advocating the idea.

And I thought Sussex might have something more to say on such matters - on which it might be thought that he could combine his skills and knowledge to provide a cogent case one way or the other - rather than trying to change the subject

I was going to write a fairly decent reply, but then I read yours which is meaningless ffs.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin