Taxi Driver Online

The Casey Column

By

Wayne Casey (LL SC)

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

Newspapers & the police

I don’t know if the magazine is going to run an article from Carlisle’s evening paper on Thursday, 09 February 2012, I sincerely hope they do, if they don’t the article is available on the national taxi association website. I understand both gentlemen referred to in the article will be taking their respective cases to appeal via the magistrates court, I must therefore, whilst giving a view, not be too prejudicial.

Taxitalk more or less allow me to write about what I want, I’m not really limited to any space, if I was they’d carry the remainder into a part two for the next issue. Indeed, the article would appear in full on the NTA website. However, even taxitalk has its obvious limitations, I cannot for example criticise advertisers for obvious reasons, they pay the bills and allow me to write. Unless of course you want to start paying for the magazine? ........thought not, silly question really.

I imagine the life of a local newspaper guy, dispatched to council meetings to report on hum drum events doesn’t compare much with the life of James Bond. They sit there in the press gallery (or seat as we call it in Carlisle) possibly wondering about driving Aston Martins through the streets of Monte Carlo, thinking what a spawny so and so Jeremy Clarkson was to escape the Rotherham Advertiser, whilst they are stuck there, listening on the whole to mindless pap. But there’s a job to be done, a report must be written, even the trivial matters in council meetings must meet the demands of readers, who are wholly more interested with the goings on at Brunton Park. This is possibly why the councillor on the Wirral who likes picking up dog [edited by admin] became such a star. Of course, I am presuming the reporter in question was pandering to the needs of his readers, presumably he knows what his readers like, because after all, the readers don’t have any independent thought.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe the clue is in the title. I lavished the word ‘reporter’; this would suggest he is merely reporting on events, whereas a ‘journalist’ would presumably do a little research. Reading the article in question a fair minded person could only come to the conclusion that he reported on the juicy bits rather than the altogether more mundane truth. He appears to have completely missed a rather worthwhile story, which arguably wouldn’t be written locally anyway (it’s easier to criticise cab drivers than the establishment).

Am I being overly mean to the reporter / journalist? If he shows any kind of initiative he may well be fired because journalistic publications have been institutionalised into the same establishment I referred to above. Do you people think for one moment I could get a job writing for the press? I think ‘Nick’ the disgruntled cabbie from Liverpool answered that last month. The last thing a local newspaper needs is a person that may ask why and have an opinion.

Perhaps there’s editorial pressure, perhaps there’s the pressure of space – which in itself is a worry – as it suggests a twitter style story on based upon 140 characters or less, perhaps an article causing potential embarrassment to both Cumbria police and Carlisle City Council may lose the publication a loss of perceived contacts in their future relationship and possibly potential lost advertising revenue, lest I forget good old ‘reporter’ laziness.

Indeed, I suppose the editor could deem such an investigation not of interest to his readership, which presumably means he too believes his readers are sheep like creatures unable to register any independent thought. What all this results in is a tainted view – very often a perversion of the actual truth – Hitler was quoted as saying;

“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”

What Adolf Hitler recognised was that it’s no use writing intelligent articles when a selection of your audience are knuckle draggers, indeed, a person shouldn’t write giving an unpopular views if they hope to advance.

To this end writing about a taxi driver, who is always a popular target of public disaffection, highlighting something like a possible kidnap charge and holding teenage girls against their wishes, is something that will taint pander to public opinion and avail “itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach”.

The worrying fact to me is that the reporter doesn’t appear to have seen the obvious. If the driver was the monster he is being painted as, why was he the person who called the police? Is he a criminal mastermind or a fool deluded into thinking the police would assist him?

Of course we now have blogs on the internet where there is no real censorship in the context of the real meaning.

Invariably, and myself included, bloggers are invariably treated with contempt by the written media, a lunatic fringe so to speak. A decent example is a conversation I had with a fellow cabby this past weekend, he was mentioning an article written in a trade publication; the article was some 5 weeks old and had been on the NTA website for at least that amount of time, yet to him it was a new article because he’d just read it. Fair enough, but it just shows the power of written media over internet blogs. This leads me to the following.

I cannot say I am actually friends with either of the gentlemen concerned, nor the driver who reported them; I fully understand his frustration (the chap that reported them). Cherrypicking of fares on ranks is a relatively new phenomenon to Carlisle, although I did suggest it was going to come to the city in a previous article, it had to, the overabundance of taxis sitting for hours between jobs, does tend to lead to it – after all who wants to sit for 90 minutes for an RTFC?

My main concern isn’t the actual incident of two drivers refusing a wheelchair hire from a cab rank, although I acknowledge it is a pretty stupid thing to do. They should perhaps have been a little more like a number of more experienced drivers who tend to feign a radio job being accepted and then simply pull off.

My main source for concern is the report in the paper. Whilst in respect of the first driver I would say the report is a reasonably fair acknowledgement of the facts, the driver was a white Caucasian born and bred in the city. I would suggest in the case of the second, it is a rather more serious case of the selling of newspapers via a rather sensational headline coming before the actual reason he was in front of the committee.

The report from the newspaper highlights reports from the police pertaining to the driver, these were disclosed and are public information, but they have nothing to do with the refusal of a wheelchair hire, they are there presumably to build a case for revocation.

Any cab driver reading through the report from the police would very probably conclude that Cumbria Constabulary are simply not interested in fare disputes between drivers and passengers. I would also hope they were educated enough to wonder why the local authority took such an amount of time, apparently not to question why the instances were not brought to the attention of the regulatory committee at an earlier stage.

The driver called out the police approximately 23 times between October 2010 and December 2011.

Perhaps taxi drivers should try to attain charity status? I don’t know, but when I read through what the driver seems to have gone through, there seems to be more sympathy with the drunken perpetrators than the cab driver himself. As many of you will be aware, I have driven cabs since I was a boy, 24 years and to some of you I am still a relative newbie. My first only and experience with Cumbria Constabulary whilst driving a cab (with an irate passenger) was when I was 18 years old. I was getting grief off a passenger who refused to pay and emptied the contents of his kebab over my ‘E’ reg FX4S plus’s floor, and who was threatening to kick the crap out of me. I stopped beside one of Cumbria’s finest who kindly told me to get the fare out myself, “he wasn’t Casey’s debt collector”. The ‘Casey’ he referred to was my dad who owned numerous cabs in the City and had done for many years.

Ever since my opinion of the police has been tainted, I simply don’t call the police when driving my cab anymore because it seems to be a waste of time.

The local paper ran the headline; “taxi driver accused of locking people in cab”, the obvious inference was that the driver was either kidnapping or falsely imprisoning the passengers. I know the driver may not be a criminal mastermind here, but what sort of kidnapper phones the police after kidnapping someone and then gives his name, location and waits for the police to arrive? – Not a particularly good kidnapper obviously.

Two Merseyside drivers were acquitted of similar charges in the Liverpool Crown Court, both drivers had their licenses immediately suspended by Knowsley Council (unlike the driver in Carlisle) after they called the police for assistance following their capture of two boys that had been throwing stones at their cabs. Thankfully the court saw sense and the drivers were both acquitted, however, the turmoil both went through, considering they were the innocent parties is horrific to comprehend.

Tony Carr, who represented them at their Knowsley Council licensing hearing, summed it up perfectly when he told the Liverpool echo: “The most tragic thing about this whole case is two wholly innocent taxi drivers have been accused of crimes which were a total fabrication. The real crime, that has failed to have been investigated with the same gusto, is that of causing criminal damage to a moving vehicle with the potential to threaten life. It is this particular offence which causes taxi drivers across Merseyside most concern. It is reassuring that the justice system has arrived at a fair conclusion to a case which should not have reached crown court proceedings.”

But I digress; the newspaper in Carlisle grabbed a rather juicy headline, where the driver locked two female passengers in the vehicle to await police assistance. The police concluded a fare dispute (which depends on how you read the Fraud Act 2006). The passengers allege the driver quoted £20; the driver wanted the metered fare of £32. The daytime fare to this particular place is between £20 & £25, the night time rate is 33% more. It would be highly unusual (on the night in question) for a driver to offer or accept £20 when the fare would be nearer £30.

The Eve Lamb vs. Equity Red Star case (9th Sept 2011, Manchester County Court) is being sent out to all rozzers in the Carlisle area. This case has been misreported as a kidnap case, where the truth suggests it was a compensation claim, where the driver had a number of options – one of which was to allow the passengers to leave the vehicle. The driver was not charged with kidnap and not prosecuted; the case itself was in a County Court. Indeed, words ‘kidnap’ and ‘false imprisonment’ do not actually appear in the transcript of the case. I personally find this all very sinister.

Of course, if Cumbria Constabulary wished to charge the driver apparently accused of ‘kidnap’ with ‘kidnap’ they didn’t actually do it (neither did GMP in the Eve Lamb compensation case). Which actually suggests a minor thing, which is quite popular amongst our learned friends called ‘evidence’, presumably the CPS would have thrown the argument out as any court in the land, given the circumstances would have asked the CPS if they were actually serious. Although they sadly didn’t in the Knowsley case mentioned earlier.

If the police are now suggesting every time a cab driver detains a passenger who is refusing to pay – a detention based upon the fact the passenger may make off never to be seen again – they better call in some contractors for the extension of police cells – because every store detective in the country will be guilty of holding shoplifters against their will.

The question we must ask is why a cab driver in Carlisle has called for police assistance approximately 23 times in 14 months. Well given my own experience, I spoke to a number of colleagues, surprisingly they all basically said the same thing – they don’t call the police anymore because of a couple of key points, primarily the cost of time lost - time involved and losing other potential hires doesn’t make it worthwhile – secondly – the police in almost all circumstances declare it a civil matter.

With such antipathy towards the police there can be little doubt as to why drivers in certain areas – wrongly - take the law into their own hands. We are well aware of the areas I refer to, so I won’t waste our time in going through what a simple Google search would resolve. But going on, and once again, whilst I am actually no friend of the driver concerned, does his regular reporting of incidents make his some type of vexatious complainant? Perhaps. Maybe he is the one cab driver in Carlisle doing things by the book, and reporting what he sees as crime to the only people their supposedly there to enforce it?

Or maybe the cab trade has it wrong; maybe we should have a system where the customer pays up front......a little like buses and rail?

I don’t know if anyone in Carlisle has actually noticed, but there does appear to be a little change in people when they’ve had a few drinks. I very often wonder what the attitude of these same customers would be, if I arrived at their place of work, possibly top shop or similar, drunk as a skunk with kebab in hand? I think they’d call the police, and I tell you what.....I wouldn’t blame them.

The issues surrounding the detention of passengers have been addressed in other areas, in Sefton for example the following wording is on a notice in all hackney carriages;


By entering this vehicle you are representing that you have the means to pay for the journey.

If you do not have the means to pay you can be arrested for a criminal offence (Fraud Act 2006)


Given the amount of times the driver called the police for assistance, and given the number of instances where the police dismissed the non-payment of taxi fares as a civil matter I am certainly of the opinion Cumbria Constabulary would be better off showing their officers the CPS guidelines as to section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006.

It’s not really a difficult task, when a person enters a taxi they know payment will be required at the end of the journey – it’s like ordering a meal in a restaurant – consuming it and then leaving without paying.


Obtaining services dishonestly (Section 11)

The defendant:

• obtains for himself or another;

• services;

• dishonestly;

• knowing the services are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them or that they might be; and

• avoids or intends to avoid payment in full or in part.

This offence replaces obtaining services by deception in Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978 which is repealed by the Act.

The defendant must have the necessary intention at the time that the service is obtained (section 11 (2) (c)).

In many cases, the defendant will also have committed an offence under Section 2 of the Act by making a false representation that payment will be made or made in full. Prosecutors must decide which offence better reflects the criminality involved. The maximum sentence for the Section 11 offence is five years' imprisonment.

Charging practice

Section 11 will cover circumstances where the defendant:

• obtains chargeable data or software over the internet without paying;

• orders a meal in a restaurant knowing he has no means to pay;

• attaches a decoder to his TV to enable him to access chargeable satellite services without paying;

• uses the services of a members' club without paying and without being a member.


Till next month
Wayne Casey

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

The following should be added to the above as a counterbalance;


Sefton police and that cab trade:

There is still the odd occasion when a police response is unhelpful. In general the police locally are supportive, this is particularly the case since then CPS in Liverpool agreed that section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 applies to non payment.

On a couple of occasions even fixed penalties have been withdrawn by representation.


A fare from Southport town centre to Formby; a happy (drunken) lady alone.

On entering the cab the lady did not appear problematic in distress or out of control, although she did walk out of a bar as most people do on a Friday night. The lady asked to go from Southport to Formby.

The driver stopped on Southport Road, Formby to ask the exact address, the lady opened the door, feet in the watery gutter and head in hands. She could not find her mobile to call her husband and the driver could not understand the number she tried to mumble. Ten minutes later when asked if the journey should continue she slumped onto the cab floor, legs hanging out and vomited.

The cab was a TX1 with vinyl flooring.

The police advised a category 2 call priority, i.e. 10 minutes to an hour, but said that were simultaneously dispatching a car. It arrived in 15 minutes.

The lady came to enough to give the police a number & an address; there was no reply at the telephone from the husband, whose number was extracted on the arrival of the police. .

One of the two policemen drove, in the police car, to the lady’s home but radioed to say there was no reply to the doorbell.

The lady was pulled into the cab (by the driver, the policeman watching to ensure fair play), the cab then drove to the address obtained, with the second policeman also a passenger in the cab.

It was discovered there was no money in the lady’s purse, but lots of ‘plastic’. There was a bunch of keys.

The police used the keys to get into the house (the lady wanted to get in), the husband and children were not there and he still did not answer his mobile, (we later discovered that he was with relatives).

There was £30 on the meter at this stage, and a soiling charge was due.

There was no point no criminal charge if the fare could be recovered

The police were confident the money would be paid the next day. They also said that if it was not paid then they would take further action.

The appreciative husband also actually added a good bonus.

Had the passenger appeared, at the outset, to have had so much to drink that this type of problem may arise then the automatic ‘risk assessment’ carried out before undertaking the journey would normally mean refusing the fare.

In the ordinary course of things the passenger (male or female) would be sick, and then sober up enough to get home sensibly. Drivers are not obliged to put themselves at risk; especially where a vehicle with cloth carpeting may be impregnated with vomit. Drivers commonly refuse such an apparent risk; both the police and taxi marshals in Southport do not expect you to take the hopelessly drunk unless wish to accept the risk.

A fare from suburban Bootle; in the early hours of a Friday night / Saturday morning.

A radio job to a pleasant Bootle semi – a lady of maybe 30 years of age asked to go to the other side of town; she was pleasant, lucid and communicative; giving the appearance of being a professional person.

At the destination the lady was unable to find money in her large shoulder bag.

She appeared to become increasingly unwilling to articulate and mumbled something about going round the corner; there was a bank 50 yards away. There was £5 on the meter.

At the bank car park the handbag was emptied on to the rear seat but no cards or purse could be found. Asked if she wanted to return to her starting point the lady muttered something monosyllabic about ‘going home’ , that she was not the sort of person to refuse payment and that her boyfriend would sort “it” out; that comment, of course, immediately brought to mind the number of the police switchboard.

The meter was escalating; a call to the police elicited the request to drive to the nearby police station where a police car would rendezvous. Five minutes later a police car appeared and the passenger became talkative, clearly confirming that she had been feigning the effects of alcohol earlier; she said she thought she had money at home.

The police asked that they should follow the cab back to the destination. Once there the meter showed £9, the police asked if there was money in the house, the lady assented.

The police followed the lady into the house and returned with a £20 note for the £9 then on the meter.

On being told that there were reports elsewhere of drivers being charged for taking a fare to the police station the PC was surprised saying the facts were clear and proper in this instance, and that drivers should not be left in this position.

Recently two Knowsley drivers were acquitted of abduction after detaining youths throwing stones at cabs. When making a citizens arrest a driver does not have the luxury of doing so on reasonable suspicion, he must be sure the facts areas he alleges. Knowsley is also in Merseyside, which is covered by one police force.

Nothing however, is quite this simple with the law, especially where young people are concerned.

Is it not time that this topic was covered by the VRQ; even if the syllabus shows the pitfalls and recommends no action.

It is not credible that taxi drivers must accept that the superstore employee can detain for a £3 bottle of wine and a driver cannot.

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