Nice read, and that's ven2112 out of a job
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Wayne’s World - June 2016 http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29264 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | captain cab [ Mon May 30, 2016 3:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Wayne’s World - June 2016 |
Wayne’s World By Wayne Casey ‘Probably the best taxi column in the World’ - Mahatma Gandhi I’ve been writing about incompetence for a few months in this paper now, and I have to admit, the licensed industry doesn’t let me down, it’s a never ending supply of gossip, inadequacy, stupidity, mirth and continual humiliation. The first person who deserves the crosshairs of my sniper rifle is whichever idiot at Nottingham City Council decided it would be an entertaining idea to grant a private hire license to Shapoor Azimi. Azimi was first granted a PH license in 2008, this was two years after his first conviction for kerb-crawling in 2006. He renewed his license each year after that, he was again convicted of kerb-crawling in 2011 and still managed to renew his license. In October 2015, he raped a former student after she got into his car outside a Nottingham city centre club. Judge Timothy Spencer raised concerns over how he was allowed to work on the streets of Nottingham - after he had been in trouble twice before for kerb-crawling, in 2011 and 2006. After the hearing, a Nottingham City Council spokesman said his previous caution and conviction for kerb-crawling should have been spotted and an investigation had been launched. I have news for the Nottingham City council spokesman, the cautions and convictions should have been spotted on at least three different occasions. Following on from the serious rape I’ll add a dollop of physical assault, this time from Stoke on Trent. Waheed Sadiq had his taxi licence revoked and has now received a suspended prison sentence, he now works in a restaurant in Stoke. My advice to those of you dining out in Stoke on Trent, don’t complain about the food. The court heard Sadiq's taxi was double-parked, blocking one of the two lanes when a bus stopped alongside him to let passengers off. This blocked the road, and one of the disembarking bus passengers complained to Sadiq, who then struck the victim in the face. The single blow caused the man to fall to the ground, and he required stitches to a mouth wound. Sadiq, had two previous convictions including an assault by beating, was found guilty last month after a trial. More news is emerging from the new horror show that is South Ribble. As readers will remember from the last issue, the council failed to run proper background checks on drivers. The father of an autistic boy is now demanding a cabbie who assaulted his son in November 2012, when he was 13, is taken off the road. The boy was being driven to a special school in Southport and the driver, together with an escort from Lancashire County Council, used to pick him up and return him from the school. It emerged that the driver was going around the corner and then strapping the boy into the back seat using bungees. Near the school in Southport, the driver would park around the back and then untie him. The escort never said a word about it. It was only when she was off work ill that a stand-in saw it happen and reported it. The deputy head teacher at the school had become suspicious and waited round the back witnessing what was going on, with the taxi driver screaming into the boys face. The matter was reported to the police and the driver was charged with two counts of assault. He was fined £90 by South Sefton Magistrates in August 2013 and ordered to pay the boy £50 compensation. It is understood the driver, who had been suspended by Lancashire County Council from driving schoolchildren after the allegations came to light, surrendered his taxi licence with South Ribble altogether after being convicted. Within a matter of weeks he applied to renew it accompanied by a lawyer, he appeared before the council’s general licensing committee in October 2013. The licensing committee of South Ribble council heard the evidence and agreed unanimously to approve the licence renewal. Obviously, the good committee in South Ribble deemed this driver as fit and proper when granting him his license. I wonder how on earth they came to that conclusion? Stupidity perhaps? In the space of one month I report of three licensed drivers, all being granted licenses, in three separate areas, all being considered ‘fit and proper’, despite previous convictions. Licensing officers and licensing committees without a single brain cell between them. Perhaps they do have brain cells but just bad judgement. In all seriousness, you have to wonder what these people actually think about our licensed industry when they issue licenses to folk who wouldn’t be given jobs in theme parks. Are we really that bad, an industry that anyone should allowed to partake in? The Rotherham CSE Steering Group, which is a group of survivors of the Rotherham catastrophe, appear to be becoming frustrated with the government encouraged cross border issues that we all face. A report in the Rotherham local paper, the Rotherham Advertiser, reported that in order to circumvent new licensing regulations in the borough, drivers are licensing themselves in other areas and returning to the town and lawfully working. Group member ‘Jessica’ was reported as saying; “Some drivers who are not happy about the cameras are moving to Sheffield or Barnsley for their plates but still operating in Rotherham. “Why are people going to these lengths? The cameras are not going to be for child sexual exploitation, it could be an assault of a driver, anything.” I think it is fair to say that ‘Jessica’ isn’t really that knowledgeable about the vagaries of taxi and private hire legislation, but even a complete novice can see that it is sensationally stupid to allow cross border taxis and private hire. I wonder if Baroness Suzy Kramer ever thought about Rotherham when she was busy telling us all cross border hiring was a grand idea and everyone would think it was a great (or words to that effect). Afterall, Suzy should know, she once needed a taxi in a rural location. Indeed, her words were echoed by greedy minicab spivs who thought their empires could expand beyond their own areas. Well, that was until that damn app came along and nicked all their drivers. At that point it wasn’t a good idea at all, but provided me with lots of lolz. But there isn’t a lolz. It’s a case of setting up shop in a little place that has no need for tight regulation like our cities, then returning to the big lights with a merry band of degenerates – and in reality that’s what it all was ever about. As a side note, don’t you really think it’s wonderful that we have a ‘baroness’ making law in this country in the 21st century? Its quaint, and all us serfs should be really appreciative that the baroness took time out to think of us, the little people, instead of tending her gardens surrounding the castle moat. A friend of mine managed to get a car from a certain app company whose drivers appear to have a track record of rape, murder and the odd spot of pillaging. The driver stopped twice to ask passers-by directions, when my friend got out of the vehicle the car had no plate, it had a TfL roundel – it was 50 miles away from its licensed area and my friend was charged more than double that other colleagues had paid via a local company for the same journey. After an email exchange lasting a day or so, my friend was recompensed, but how many others would have just let it go? Is this the brave new world Baroness Kramer wanted? If so, the question that needs asked really needs to be, is she nuts? Of course, the stock answer we get from national government is one of passing the buck to local authorities, those local authorities they want to privatise. ‘Licensing is a local matter’, ‘best practice guidance advises local authorities’, the same bilge trotted out by minister after minister. If licensing really is a local matter then why has the government systematically done everything to destroy locals being best placed to decide. Naturally, what the government don’t tell the public is that drivers are being licensed from foreign shores who aren’t DBS checked, they can’t provide certificates of good conduct so they’re granted licenses in some cases on the word of another, a reference. In fairness this is nothing more than the now disgraced councillor in Milton Keynes did last year, and it cost him his job. Now it appears to be a growing policy throughout the UK. During the course of the last month I have been considering what licensing authorities should do with drivers that are found guilty of refusing guide dogs. The solution is very simple, because I believe they should not be permitted to drive a licensed vehicle again, so I’m all for a revocation and total ban. We don’t want these people in our trade, they ruin our reputation. So if you refuse a guide dog, without the necessary medical exemption, and you are caught, then its adios. I notice the Policing & Crime bill that is now proceeding through the House of Commons has an amendment added which will affect taxi and phv licensing. The Member’s explanatory statement states: “This new clause would place local authorities under a duty to consider how they can prevent child sexual exploitation when they issue licences for taxis and private hire vehicles.” The exploitation of children is a truly horrible thing, I personally believe culprits, when convicted should face a truly horrific sentence, I would like to see them disembowelled, this would at least act as a deterrent and if we allow pay per view, a vital source of potential income to the tax payer. It’s amazing how quickly politicians can act when it suits them. However, the actual amendments to the act appear to affect the vehicle license. It’s weird I know, but personally I don’t blame the actual vehicles for child sexual exploitation. I’ve also been banging on about fee increases recently and the seemingly cluelessness of local authorities due to the lack of guidance from the DfT. A clear and consistent line from many local authorities is that new fees are due to ‘reviews of the process’ (in calculating license fees). Indeed, some actually trot out the line ’the increases will still make us the cheapest in the area’, which would make me ask why are they comparing themselves to elsewhere. It’s all political speak or bullsh*t, as its more commonly known (and as I prefer to say it), ‘reviews of the process’ equates to ‘we haven’t been doing our licensing fees properly in the past but now we have to issue three year badges we better get our act together’. Till next month https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Manzr3iuq0 |
|
| Author: | mancityfan [ Mon May 30, 2016 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wayne’s World - June 2016 |
Nice read, and that's ven2112 out of a job
|
|
| Author: | grandad [ Mon May 30, 2016 11:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wayne’s World - June 2016 |
captain cab wrote: A clear and consistent line from many local authorities is that new fees are due to ‘reviews of the process’ (in calculating license fees). Indeed, some actually trot out the line ’the increases will still make us the cheapest in the area’, which would make me ask why are they comparing themselves to elsewhere. The comparing to others would be their idea of a best value assessment. |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Mon May 30, 2016 12:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wayne’s World - June 2016 |
where is he.. |
|
| Author: | mancityfan [ Mon May 30, 2016 12:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wayne’s World - June 2016 |
MR T wrote: where is he.. He's gone on a disability awareness course. |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Mon May 30, 2016 12:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wayne’s World - June 2016 |
mancityfan wrote: MR T wrote: where is he.. He's gone on a disability awareness course.  
|
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Mon May 30, 2016 12:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wayne’s World - June 2016 |
mancityfan wrote: MR T wrote: where is he.. He's skiving from a disability awareness course. corrected for factual innaccuracy
|
|
| Author: | mancityfan [ Mon May 30, 2016 12:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wayne’s World - June 2016 |
grandad wrote: captain cab wrote: A clear and consistent line from many local authorities is that new fees are due to ‘reviews of the process’ (in calculating license fees). Indeed, some actually trot out the line ’the increases will still make us the cheapest in the area’, which would make me ask why are they comparing themselves to elsewhere. The comparing to others would be their idea of a best value assessment. By virtue of the Local Government Act 1999 the authority is required to carry out such comparison. |
|
| Author: | Nidge2 [ Mon May 30, 2016 7:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wayne’s World - June 2016 |
mancityfan wrote: MR T wrote: where is he.. He's gone on a disability awareness course. Classic 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|