Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 6:01 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37029
Location: Wayneistan
Dusty Bin wrote:

Well we clearly have different values on this kind of thing, but I don't call people fools, for example, even those posting on here who're barely literate. :-|


No your insults are rather more subtle, but insults all the same.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
Dusty Bin wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
And how can my post be deemed 'borderline personal abuse'?

Well we clearly have different values on this kind of thing, but I don't call people fools, for example, even those posting on here who're barely literate. :-|

Now I am confused.

Did you mean 'borderline personal abuse' to you, personally?

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
Dusty Bin wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
And how can my post be deemed 'borderline personal abuse'?

Well we clearly have different values on this kind of thing, but I don't call people fools, for example, even those posting on here who're barely literate. :-|

Now I am confused.

Did you mean 'borderline personal abuse' to you, personally?


You called me a "micro-economist fool".

Which I perversely find quite flattering \:D/ , but I suspect many people will view that kind of thing as borderline personal abuse, so keep it up :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
captain cab wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
And how can my post be deemed 'borderline personal abuse'?

Maybe because you just 'think' he's a c*nt :lol:

Stop confusing the issue with think written as 'think'.

And why would I think or 'think' that of Mr Dusty Bin anyway?

He has his robust views, albeit I don't agree with many of them.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
Dusty Bin wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
Dusty Bin wrote:
Well we clearly have different values on this kind of thing, but I don't call people fools, for example, even those posting on here who're barely literate. :-|

Now I am confused.

Did you mean 'borderline personal abuse' to you, personally?

You called me a "micro-economist fool".

Which I perversely find quite flattering \:D/ , but I suspect many people will view that kind of thing as borderline personal abuse, so keep it up :D

Thank you!!!

You have now confirmed to the Forum that you were and are the author of 'Myth and Reality' something I did not know until this moment.

I might have suspected it, as perhaps did some on the Forum, but now it's confirmed.

Sometimes there is a method in my madness.

Thank you very much indeed Mr Dusty Bin.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
[Thank you!!!

You have now confirmed to the Forum that you were and are the author of 'Myth and Reality' something I did not know until this moment.

I might have suspected it, as perhaps did some on the Forum, but now it's confirmed.

Sometimes there is a method in my madness.

Thank you very much indeed Mr Dusty Bin.


Oh, you didn't know?

Sorry, I thought everyone who was interested had known that, since it was published eight years ago, or whenever.

It wasn't supposed to be a secret 8-[


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
Dusty Bin wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
[Thank you!!!

You have now confirmed to the Forum that you were and are the author of 'Myth and Reality' something I did not know until this moment.

I might have suspected it, as perhaps did some on the Forum, but now it's confirmed.

Sometimes there is a method in my madness.

Thank you very much indeed Mr Dusty Bin.

Oh, you didn't know?

Sorry, I thought everyone who was interested had known that since it was published in eight years ago, or whenever.

It wasn't supposed to be a secret 8-[

If it wasn't a secret, then why was there no author's name on the document, even in pseudonym form?

You didn't exactly publish the fact that you wrote it, did you.

I actually printed it off shortly after I joined TDO and have a bound copy. And yes, I have read it several times, but not for a year or so.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
BTW, there was no 'borderline personal abuse' intended against you Mr Dusty Bin.

If you were not the author, then it would not have affected you.

If you were the author it might have affected you, as inded it did with your reaction.

It's what the 'Washington Post Two' called a 'non-denial denial' if you follow my drift, only this was a full affirmation.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
If it wasn't a secret, then why was there no author's name on the document, even in pseudonym form?

You didn't exactly publish the fact that you wrote it, did you.


Well back then all the forum regulars knew that Dusty was the author, although the document's preparation was a joint effort.

But orginally TDO was intended to be a sort of online magazine with opinion pieces, papers and the like and they were authored as 'Taxi Driver Online', thus a bit like a report by maybe the NTA or a union where the author isn't specifically named.

And the forum bit was intended to discuss the issues, um, professionally, maybe a bit like an online Law Commission meeting or whatever, to use a present day comparison.

But that was in the early days of the internet, and clearly like many online publications and discussion forums generally things didn't go quite as planned, and in particular it became obvious that to make the forum a bit more professional and civilised would have effectively shut it down completely. Put simply, no one wanted to 'play nice'. :sad:

So effectively it was the 'warts and all' approach or no discussion at all.

Which is all a bit by the by, but perhaps useful background information for those who weren't here at the start.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37029
Location: Wayneistan
Quote:
But orginally TDO was intended to be a sort of online magazine with opinion pieces, papers and the like and they were authored as 'Taxi Driver Online', thus a bit like a report by maybe the NTA or a union where the author isn't specifically named.


A bit like the NTA or a union? lol which bit ffs :roll:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 7:33 pm
Posts: 1117
Location: City of dreaming spires
I had a good read of the document as well, all I noticed was the author was just obsessed in deregulation, plate values, etc they thought the OFT would do it for them, and now it looks like they've gone running to the LC, there are some choice quotations in that article, I'll pull them up when I'm in front of the PC.

What's really funny is I thought the author was very "two faced", he refers to the market being flooded with immigrant drivers, anyway like I said I'll put some of his quotes up later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37029
Location: Wayneistan
you dont mean this do you 187?

Are you going to make a stand?


As the clock ticks down towards your impending doom, at least one local taxi association is prepared to make a stand against the damaging desires of the Law Commission. At least one association has taken the time to not only answer the Law Commission questions, but to provide a tacit rebuff of the Law Commission rationale. I’m not talking of three or four pages of well meaning but unsupported words – I’m talking 25,000 words in a response which picks apart the Law Commission consultation bit by bit with citations and evidence to back up statements.

The following is a preface to a document which is to be sent to the Law commission by a concerned taxi association. Elements have been cut, the location of the association which wrote it is not of great significance.

It is very refreshing to see there are some in our trade with this type of dedication, the question you must ask yourself; are you going to make them stand alone?

A response to the Law Commission

The general opinion of the association in respect of the consultation by the Law Commission (L.C.) is one of disappointment. It would appear the Law commission has lost sight of their initial aim of reducing burdensome legislation, by suggesting more regulation.[i ]

It would be neglectful of this association to fail to point out that for the Law Commission, a body emanating from the law profession, to point towards unnecessary regulatory burdens in the taxi and private hire industries is ironic in the extreme; the law profession is seemly awash with arguments about minimum wage[ii] and ‘Tesco Law’[iii].

The Law Society stated the following in respect of the minimum wage;

“The Law Society was concerned that the result of this decision will be that trainees who will be offered the reduced minimum salary, who are likely already to have substantial debts, will find themselves in significant financial difficulty and forced to take on other work which will distract them from giving full attention to the training contract. Alternatively, those trainees who have private means will receive an undue advantage over potentially more meritorious candidates. Neither result will be good for the diversity of the profession.”

Our association had great misgivings about the remit given to the L.C. at a very early stage, coming into the project with a political theory – the recurring theme of a deregulatory objective – in our belief offered only a dogmatic view and prospective outcome. The remit given appears to be one of the LC being advocates of hard measure, one of seeing the taxi trade as an industry in need of serious correction.

In many respects our initial view appears to have been correct, the almost Machiavellian manner in which the rationale of the documents differ from the provisional proposals reek of a type of voodoo very often associated with politics. In this manner it is difficult to disassociate the L.C. as nothing more than advocates of the pre-ordained political agenda – we have always considered a matter as relatively mundane as ‘taxis’ as reasonably aloof from political aspiration – sadly we find ourselves amidst that particular world.

The laissez-faire approach to private hire, advocated by the L.C. is ostensibly not deemed correct for hackney carriages; the LC cites (quite rightly) local control. This stance does not however extend to locals being best placed to decide on a seemingly more controversial issue such as control of taxi numbers – the stance of the L.C. appears to be – locals are best placed to decide, just not best placed to decide certain things – this would appear to be a somewhat duplicitous position.

We found the consultation documents badly structured, thought out and repetitive, with little rationale between questions, the majority of which were seemingly placed in no specific order, a true rigmarole of documents in the original sense. The questions themselves appear to be based upon presumptions therefore they were difficult to answer and in cases misleading – numerous members advised us they believed this was a deliberate ploy.

The structure of the documents have also created concern, an obvious point is at 1.27 where the L.C. point to ‘grey areas’ in the licensing of limousines, these points are rehashed at various areas in the documents, however limousines are mentioned regularly in many parts, thus confusing many of us 3.63, 3.66, 3.77 – 3.84, 4.49, 4.51, 4.52, 8.15, 13.5, 14.3, 14.23 & 20.10

It is patently obvious to anyone with any degree of knowledge or interest in the taxi and private hire industries, that vast swathes of the consultation documents have not been assembled via the route of discussion with the industries, but via a ‘google’ search facility on an office computer. Not that this in itself is wrong, although the impact assessment is giving links via a ‘Google’ search. We would contend that the cab trade is a very diverse industry, however, we would contend that this type of research is not conducive to the best and most accurate results or opinions.

The above point was summarily confirmed when the L.C. felt the need within three weeks to rehash their impact assessment, they had made an almost elementary mistake in grossly underestimating the turnover of the taxi and private hire industries. The following was stated on the L.C. website;

“Following feedback we produced a revised draft of the impact assessment stripping out the data which appears unsatisfactory or not robust and to ask further questions. We welcome further comment on the data and would be grateful for further information.” [iv]

The updated figure is £2.585 billion, as compared to £1.4 billion previously, demonstrates quite a dramatic miscalculation. It is obviously illuminating to find out where the LC obtained their original figures, a ‘dot com’ website being cited where an interested party would have to pay to scrutinize. There are some that would suggest this was a deliberate ploy, invariably when faced with a website where money requested, the link is usually closed. A further report from IBIS world recently suggested the figure was closer to £8.85 billion[v], further throwing LC figures into ignominy.

We also wish to point out that to allow a mere three months to answer the consultation – given that all members of our association are working taxi drivers is a serious worry – whilst we appreciate the issue of taxis and private hire are of little consequence to the majority of the UK population – it is of great significance to ourselves – ultimately we will be the ones left to work with any future law.

It is amazing that a law that has stood – practically unchanged since 1847 and is perfectly workable some 160 years later – is subject to the (political) expediency it is currently being seemingly exposed to. An extended period of around 6 months would have been (and still is) appreciated from our association – although we understand the L.C. has extended the consultation period by the somewhat miserly period of one month (the new date being 10th September 2012).

The problem isn’t so much answering the consultation, although that will be troublesome enough; it will be collating the answers by our national body.

As anyone who has ever sown a lawn will know, for every few seeds scattered only a few will actually germinate (unless you use some bizarre pre-germination rouse using cold tea), in many respects the LC document is like this. There are a few ideas of very little merit seemingly punted into the document possibly in the knowledge they’ll be dropped in the future. However, it doesn’t take a genius to realize where the sights are actually aimed at.

We also question the L.C. commitment with regards to the retention of the two tier system, although we firmly believe there is a place in the system for hackney carriages. It is reasonably obvious that private hire covers a multitude of differing business models – a miniscule amount of lateral thinking should lead to the realization that to expect a single tier to cover half a dozen or so differing business models under the umbrella of a single license is foolhardy in the extreme. We will raise this question within this paper.

We are disillusioned to read the view of the L.C. in respect of “market failures that are specific to the taxi market”[vi]. The association considers this view demonstrates a rather alarming lack of understanding of the taxi trade. We found it quite amazing that the LC appear to have trawled Europe in their quest for the deregulatory justification in their documents, but have not gone to the same lengths to seek the true socio economic effects of their policy.

Taxis are a localised form of transport, whilst we acknowledge the L.C. would currently like to continue licensing vehicles on a localised level, we view the erosion of local authority powers in respect of licensing private hire on a national basis as extremely damaging – and without forethought to the consequences.

The comments regarding the night time economy show a total ignorance of the night time economy in the majority of the country – they appear to base their views around metropolises as opposed to the vast majority of the country.

The entire vision of the L.C. proposals would appear to hinge on National Standards being set for both private hire drivers and private hire vehicles. It is clear from the documentation the L.C. has little idea of what these national standards may be, this is a worrying position, as unless people are aware of the standards they have little idea what they are in fact agreeing to.

The above being stated, the rationale behind the standards has been thought out, the thought being if all standards are the same there would be little point in licensees ‘shopping around’ for perceived lax licensing regimes. Of course, and as mentioned, by not actually advising what the standards will be, by leaving that area open to differing interpretation (and suggesting a cheap and cheerful), the general view is that the standards will be minimal. A national standard would after all include not only places such as London, but rural areas where businesses may be run without great profit.

Our association believes the standards mentioned above should be set locally; it is locals that have to live with taxi and private hire services and it is equally obvious they are the ones also best placed to determine the purely localised services for both taxis and private hire vehicles. We believe a deviation from this core principle of ‘localism’ is perverse to one of the coalition government flagship policies and we are highly surprised the L.C. would choose to rule private hire direct from Whitehall.

Indeed, we find it astounding that a large proportion of the issues surround the issue of enforcement, yet the L.C. ‘do not think it appropriate to reconsider the issue of cost recovery’[vii]. One has a huge impact upon the other.

Great swathes of the LC documents hinge upon interlinked policy, these include the national standards mentioned above, license fees, enforcement and so on – it is incredibly complicated and like a house of cards, each piece is very much dependent upon the other.

We will in the next few pages carry on dissecting the papers, however it would be folly of us not to point out our belief that this is nothing other than an exercise in futility, we sadly believe the L.C. has a closed mind on many issues and in many respects, irrespective of the persuasiveness of our arguments we face a ‘fait accompli’.

The Law Commission state the customer should be at the heart of legislation; everybody should be free to choose the company they wish to get lost with. In terms of driver safety, the LC appear to have given that the same amount of thought as the bloke on the Clapham omnibus does about his underpants each morning.

It is unlikely, due to the political agenda set out within the remit the L.C. are working to, that they will have an epiphany.

There are numerous difficulties in writing a response, without questioning the reasoning behind the position of the L.C. my association will attempt this over the next few pages. We fear many of those answering will be inadvertently agreeing to statements they do not comprehend, the consultation responses could therefore present a modern day “ragman’s roll” of consent.

Till next month

Wayne Casey





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


End notes



[i] Law Com 330; Eleventh Programme of Law reform (pg 20 para. 2.73)


[ii] Article from Legal Futures website 17 May 2012


[iii] BBC News website story 6 Oct 2011 “Supermarket ‘law shops’ to sell legal services”


[iv] Law Commission website


[v] PR World website; July 2012


[vi] Law Commission Documents 2.32, 2.33, 13.5


[vii] Advisory group document; Nov 2011, page 10

source: http://www.national-taxi-association.co.uk/?p=3976

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 7:33 pm
Posts: 1117
Location: City of dreaming spires
Not this one, it's the other one I'm referring to.....you know the one written by the founding fathers or father.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37029
Location: Wayneistan
187ums wrote:
.....you know the one written by the founding fathers or father.



pmsl.....yeah, I might have been looking for an excuse to post the article.....but founding fathers sounds okay....afterall, they did lead to the extermination of an entire tribe :wink:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm
Posts: 3272
187ums wrote:
I had a good read of the document as well, all I noticed was the author was just obsessed in deregulation, plate values, etc they thought the OFT would do it for them, and now it looks like they've gone running to the LC, there are some choice quotations in that article, I'll pull them up when I'm in front of the PC.

What's really funny is I thought the author was very "two faced", he refers to the market being flooded with immigrant drivers, anyway like I said I'll put some of his quotes up later.


What was that I was saying about trolls? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group