Taxi Driver Online :: View topic

Manchester City Council is looking at enforcing cctv in all vehciles just a thought they say

charles007 wrote:

Manchester City Council is looking at enforcing cctv in all vehciles just a thought they say

They should be applauded. =D>

I agree, it's should be made mandatory UK wide, no questions, no demos, mandatory.

I am not against CCTV! However if it is compulsory...then "THEY" should pay.

Rant over :wink:

Cabby John 1 wrote:

I am not against CCTV! However if it is compulsory...then "THEY" should pay.

Rant over :wink:

When we had it fitted years ago we got a grant from the Councils Liveability fund. All we had to pay was £40 installation.

Nidge2 wrote:

Cabby John 1 wrote:

I am not against CCTV! However if it is compulsory...then "THEY" should pay.

Rant over :wink:

When we had it fitted years ago we got a grant from the Councils Liveability fund. All we had to pay was £40 installation.

I inquired about it down here (some years ago) mainly as a personal safety back up; the LA came back with something like 3 providers asking silly money in the region of £600-700. I have never bothered since. It needs to be sensible at the end of the day - do THEY actually dip directly into THEIR own pockets to provide street cams? It would seem that others are happy for us to come up with the whole amount to satisfy others - compulsory is not acceptable from where I am standing.

I think you will find they do dip into 'their' own money for street cams, it's part parcel of the taxes we pay and the streets are part and parcel what we pay for. Also if shops and other businesses have CCTV they also have to pay for it. It seems to me that some drivers wish to be considered a small individual business/enterprise but don't want the financial responsibility that goes with that. It's £2 per day for a year and I don't think that's a lot to pay and in many cases now it's cheaper than that.

Quote:

Toots. That is why I said "Their own pockets" as opposed to "our" tax payers money to do the job. Also it should "If" shops and other businesses have to pay for it! With them it is "If" - not necessarily compulsory.

I take my responsibilities seriously, having said that I do not see as to why I should pay (extra) out of my pocket just because we have some bad apples around. Neither might I add is it going to stop those who purport to be a Taxi/PH.

If people are that concerned re safety then perhaps they should take responsibility by purchasing body cams. Unfortunately they will not do that as it means that they have to spend their own money, they also have a better idea of getting others to spend the money, in turn doing it for them #-o

As I have mentioned before; Taxi/PH drivers have been murdered in the dozens, assaulted in the tens of thousands, and nobody gives a stuff. If it is a member of the public a totally different story, with others within the trade going along with it #-o

Well of course it is a different story if it is a member of public, the council are there to protect them they are not there to protect you or I.

Author:	charles007 [ Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Manchester
Manchester City Council is looking at enforcing cctv in all vehciles just a thought they say

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Manchester
charles007 wrote: Manchester City Council is looking at enforcing cctv in all vehciles just a thought they say They should be applauded.

Author:	Nidge2 [ Wed Jul 29, 2015 4:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Manchester
Sussex wrote: charles007 wrote: Manchester City Council is looking at enforcing cctv in all vehciles just a thought they say They should be applauded. I agree, it's should be made mandatory UK wide, no questions, no demos, mandatory.

Author:	Cabby John 1 [ Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Manchester
Quote: I agree, it's should be made mandatory UK wide, no questions, no demos, mandatory. Absolutely! You should be FORCED to spend any money that they deem fit. In fact I am thinking of handing all of my pittance over to THEM to get it all over and done. It seems to me that earnings/money is a game. "THEY" get you/I to make profits for "THEM". Unfortunately for "THEM", "THEY" have to do it in a manner to make look "THEY" do not do it on slave labour - so "THEY" have to pay you/I. The game continues by "THEM" trying to get back from you/I as much money as possible......by whatever means i.e tax on your earnings and then more tax on whatever you purchase. Not being content with that, "THEY" will now alter your "Will" and throw your wishes into the bin to grab the money back into the economy........................to top it off that you want to give "THEM" the right to TELL YOU/I how to spend our money whilst we are alive!!!!!!!! I am not against CCTV! However if it is compulsory...then "THEY" should pay. Rant over

Author:	Nidge2 [ Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Manchester
Cabby John 1 wrote: I am not against CCTV! However if it is compulsory...then "THEY" should pay. Rant over When we had it fitted years ago we got a grant from the Councils Liveability fund. All we had to pay was £40 installation.

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Manchester http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27357	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Cabby John 1 [ Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Manchester
Nidge2 wrote: Cabby John 1 wrote: I am not against CCTV! However if it is compulsory...then "THEY" should pay. Rant over When we had it fitted years ago we got a grant from the Councils Liveability fund. All we had to pay was £40 installation. I inquired about it down here (some years ago) mainly as a personal safety back up; the LA came back with something like 3 providers asking silly money in the region of £600-700. I have never bothered since. It needs to be sensible at the end of the day - do THEY actually dip directly into THEIR own pockets to provide street cams? It would seem that others are happy for us to come up with the whole amount to satisfy others - compulsory is not acceptable from where I am standing.

Author:	toots [ Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Manchester
Cabby John 1 wrote: Nidge2 wrote: Cabby John 1 wrote: I am not against CCTV! However if it is compulsory...then "THEY" should pay. Rant over When we had it fitted years ago we got a grant from the Councils Liveability fund. All we had to pay was £40 installation. I inquired about it down here (some years ago) mainly as a personal safety back up; the LA came back with something like 3 providers asking silly money in the region of £600-700. I have never bothered since. It needs to be sensible at the end of the day - do THEY actually dip directly into THEIR own pockets to provide street cams? It would seem that others are happy for us to come up with the whole amount to satisfy others - compulsory is not acceptable from where I am standing. I think you will find they do dip into 'their' own money for street cams, it's part parcel of the taxes we pay and the streets are part and parcel what we pay for. Also if shops and other businesses have CCTV they also have to pay for it. It seems to me that some drivers wish to be considered a small individual business/enterprise but don't want the financial responsibility that goes with that. It's £2 per day for a year and I don't think that's a lot to pay and in many cases now it's cheaper than that.

Author:	Cabby John 1 [ Wed Jul 29, 2015 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Manchester
Quote: I think you will find they do dip into 'their' own money for street cams, it's part parcel of the taxes we pay and the streets are part and parcel what we pay for. Also if shops and other businesses have CCTV they also have to pay for it. It seems to me that some drivers wish to be considered a small individual business/enterprise but don't want the financial responsibility that goes with that. It's £2 per day for a year and I don't think that's a lot to pay and in many cases now it's cheaper than that. Toots. That is why I said "Their own pockets" as opposed to "our" tax payers money to do the job. Also it should "If" shops and other businesses have to pay for it! With them it is "If" - not necessarily compulsory. I take my responsibilities seriously, having said that I do not see as to why I should pay (extra) out of my pocket just because we have some bad apples around. Neither might I add is it going to stop those who purport to be a Taxi/PH. If people are that concerned re safety then perhaps they should take responsibility by purchasing body cams. Unfortunately they will not do that as it means that they have to spend their own money, they also have a better idea of getting others to spend the money, in turn doing it for them As I have mentioned before; Taxi/PH drivers have been murdered in the dozens, assaulted in the tens of thousands, and nobody gives a stuff. If it is a member of the public a totally different story, with others within the trade going along with it

Author:	toots [ Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Manchester
Cabby John 1 wrote: Quote: I think you will find they do dip into 'their' own money for street cams, it's part parcel of the taxes we pay and the streets are part and parcel what we pay for. Also if shops and other businesses have CCTV they also have to pay for it. It seems to me that some drivers wish to be considered a small individual business/enterprise but don't want the financial responsibility that goes with that. It's £2 per day for a year and I don't think that's a lot to pay and in many cases now it's cheaper than that. Toots. That is why I said "Their own pockets" as opposed to "our" tax payers money to do the job. Also it should "If" shops and other businesses have to pay for it! With them it is "If" - not necessarily compulsory. I take my responsibilities seriously, having said that I do not see as to why I should pay (extra) out of my pocket just because we have some bad apples around. Neither might I add is it going to stop those who purport to be a Taxi/PH. If people are that concerned re safety then perhaps they should take responsibility by purchasing body cams. Unfortunately they will not do that as it means that they have to spend their own money, they also have a better idea of getting others to spend the money, in turn doing it for them As I have mentioned before; Taxi/PH drivers have been murdered in the dozens, assaulted in the tens of thousands, and nobody gives a stuff. If it is a member of the public a totally different story, with others within the trade going along with it Well of course it is a different story if it is a member of public, the council are there to protect them they are not there to protect you or I.

Author:	Cabby John 1 [ Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Manchester
Quote: Well of course it is a different story if it is a member of public, the council are there to protect them they are not there to protect you or I. To me that is not exactly the point as it shows double standards - all lives being equal in my book. The point I am trying to make is that the onus for safety should not in terms of technology/expense fall on us, especially bearing in mind that it is THEIR system that has failed big time. It is the LA's that appoint drivers, unfortunately in a very blasé/contemptuous manner, we then have problems resulting in finger pointing towards good drivers, who are also expected to pick up the tab of failure. We do not need to encourage others to spend our hard earned money - because they will. By creating a precedent of going along with THEIR spending of OUR money, then the next piece of technology will also be expected of you/I = more expenditure.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/