Taxi Driver Online

But it is defined as 'working for hire and reward', as per the case law previously stated.

_________________
IDFIMH

The reason you are going around in circles is because you are wrong but you refuse to accept that you are wrong.

_________________
Grandad,

Yeah, whatever. If I ever need someone to tell me that I'm wrong without ever actually backing up their argument, I'll give you a shout. The reason I'm going around in circles is because you can't give me a proper answer. Can you be more specific?

_________________
Sometimes the most telling information comes from what's not said...

Behave yourself. I, and others, have explained why you are wrong but you choose to ignore anyone who doesn't share your view.

_________________
Grandad,

As you need a reminder from earlier in the thread.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

You haven't explained it, END OF. (see what I did there?)

How could I be ignoring you if I've responded to and addressed everything you said? I don't think I've ignored anyone on this thread, if they were not quoted directly then what I said will have addressed the issues raised. I think you're talking out of your backside.

I did read up on the Swallow Hotels case before I even made a response on here. If the regularity of such activities were not a factor in making the decision, why is it continually mentioned throughout the case, and in Albert v MIB? Do you think it's a sufficient response to simply say "the law says there is no difference"? I could go on but I only have a finite amount of time.

_________________
Sometimes the most telling information comes from what's not said...

Interesting, you are firstly saying you want more info from others, then say you could go on, but don't want to.

But I will say you are not alone in this trade, because your responses are akin to the brain dead conversations that happen daily on most of the taxi ranks in this country.

_________________
IDFIMH

Pedal powered rickshaws are not motor vehicles and do not need insurance of any sort anyway! The "insurance" section of the RTA only applies to mechanically propelled vehicles.

Would it be in the public interest to prosecute? No. It's a publicity gimmick, live with it. If it were a regular service being offered, that's a different matter.

Wow you got me there! Yes, I said I could go on but I have a finite amount of time, not that I didn't want to or wouldn't get round to it. If anyone were to think that the information in my post wasn't enough, I'd be happy to provide more. The fact that I have to go to work is by no means an excuse to say "i'm not continuing this anymore". But you keep reading what you want to read.
Oh no, please don't infer that I'm as dumb as the average taxi driver! Anything but that! Let's just gloss over the fact that your post contained NO subject matter, did not answer anything anyone said, and simply made some silly comparison between my posts and some conversations on taxi ranks. I'm still waiting for a real answer, and doesn't look like you can provide it so you're just slinging mud now. You know what they say about people in glass houses....

_________________
Sometimes the most telling information comes from what's not said...

Well then act like it.

_________________
IDFIMH

And they can't be licensed (outside of London) as a PSV or PH, only as a hackney.

_________________
IDFIMH

Could you please teach me how to write such an eloquent, meaningful response? My ignorance skills are somewhat lacking.

_________________
Sometimes the most telling information comes from what's not said...

Because you are showing another trait that sadly afflicts this trade, in that because the law, or a law, doesn't look right or you disagree with it, then it must be wrong.

This trait has cost, or lost, the trade millions of pounds over the years.

The law is crystal clear, if a benefit is gained, either directly or indirectly, then a licensed vehicle is required.

There are many laws I disagree with, but this isn't one of them, and I'm amazed anyone in the trade is actually arguing against for it.

But hey ho.

_________________
IDFIMH

See now we're actually getting somewhere. It's arguable that the business would benefit from it, and it being a one off the shopping centre might even try to claim it was an act of "social kindness".

Nowhere on this thread have I said I think the law is wrong. You've pulled that assertion completely from your behind.

Was it that difficult to write a proper response?

_________________
Sometimes the most telling information comes from what's not said...