MR T wrote:
JD wrote:
Yorkie wrote:
look the site has accused nige of lying,
Nigel was given enough rope to hang himself and so was his partner in crime. If it had been any forum other than this they would have had their marching orders long ago. The administration of this site can't allow posters to threaten and abuse them with impunity. They also can't allow defamatory and libellous statements to be thrown around like confetti. The administration do not have to account to anyone on here, if you don't like the way this forum is run then you have the option to take your wisdom somewhere else.
So far in this thread you have spouted nothing but nonsense. You harp on about a document, which has nothing whatsoever to do with you but you claim it has, yet you cant say how or why? When you start using your own telephone line and commit yourself to countless hours of information gathering then you might be able to claim you had some input into this document but until then? All you are entitled to do is read it, and that's all you are entitled to do.
This document was produced to show the true facts of what is happening in respect of the Government guidance. It has been of assistance to all concerned because they can see which councils are doing what. It doesn't matter if you are for, or against lifting numbers, that database gives everyone the same information.
Some vested interests may not like the factual comments in the document but that is just tough luck. They also might not like the way restricted councils are changing their policy at a rapid rate of knots, hence the statements from the NTA and the nonsense spouted in the monthly magazine for professional cab drivers they call Taxitalk.
So love it or loath it, its here to stay and it’s the only one of its kind so you better get used it but don't ever say you had any input into it, because you didn't
PS. look out for the next edition it might just have the names Nigel, Angel and Yorkshireman in the properties. lol
JD
I have seen your database,values wrong,information regarding councils wrong Twisded comments in fact a very flawed piece of work.....mr T ...
Considering this document has always been an ongoing exercise you are at liberty to tell me what it is you find in-factual? Providing you can point out any errors I will consider changing it to reflect the accurate situation? That has always been the case with this document and always will be?
Shall we start with the Values? Which values do you consider incorrect?
Is it the fact that only 112 councils still retain a restriction on numbers?
Is that value incorrect?
Is it the fact that only 36 councils out of the 150 that retained a control on numbers before the DfT guidance came out on June 16 2004 have made a policy decision to retain quantity restrictions?
Is that value incorrect?
Is it the fact that 76 councils out of the 112 that still retain numbers control have still yet to decide on which policy route they intend to take?
Is that incorrect?
Is the fact that out of 343 councils in England and Wales only 32.6% of those councils still retain a numbers policy with 67.8% of those councils still to make a decision?
Is that incorrect?
Is it the fact that the majority of those councils that have lifted numbers control have done so in favour of some degree of Quality control?
Is that incorrect?
Is it the fact that 38 councils out of the original 144 restricted councils mentioned in the OFT document, plus the 6 that have re introduced numbers control since that document was produced have lifted numbers control?
Is that incorrect?
Is it the fact that journeymen pay an owner for the privilege of hiring their vehicle?
Is that incorrect?
Is the plate value database incorrect?
I'm afraid the only thing that is incorrect is your blindness to face reality. You may wish to close your eyes to the real world and escape into you're blinkered past but while you are living in you own little cocoon the real world moves on.
You epitomise the two characters that have since departed, they like you make statements without foundation and you think others will find them credible. Well I'm afraid as per usual your credibility is at an all time low.
Perhaps the next time you offer your pearls of wisdom you can back them up with some facts.
JD
Login
Register
FAQ
