Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri May 01, 2026 7:56 pm

Board index » General » News

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
MR T
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
JD wrote:
MR T wrote:
I do not think for one minute that this condition would stand up in court, A hackney Licence is for stands and road, but what I do think is that councils are being put under pressure to become 100 per % wheelchair accessible hackney fleets, and as they can not force drivers to willingly change saloon vehicles for WAV , then their only alternative is to continue issuing licences for WAV, that is unless the law is changed regarding the issuing of private hire vehicles


I started to read this article and got bored after the first few paragraphs, the longer it went on the more bored I became and after reading most of the first page I decided I couldn't bear it any longer. I could be wrong but I think the content, which I read resembled items that had already been discussed on TDO. From posts already made on this article it would appear to me that the condition is question is the one which refers to radio circuits is that correct?

I notice the article goes on for several pages so the person who wrote it has put a lot of effort into it, however It shouldn't take four pages to articulate one point if that's what they are trying to do, even if they present differing scenarios and facts appertaining to that point?

If anyone cares to post in this thread what the actual condition is that the article alludes to then I would be most grateful.


Regards

JD

I certainly understand what you mean, it is not a gripping story, the way I read it, he is trying to bring out into the open the circumstances behind the issuing of the 20 plates, he's also trying to provide the reader with the relevant roads on which they can view his sources of information, he openly admits that pressures from numerous groups have been involved, and I think he feels the whole thing is a farce, to me he is trying to show the reader the consequences when so many different groups tried to manipulate this situation, and in the end is not certain himself as to which particular group or groups were responsible.


Oh yes, the condition, that new licence vehicles must be on a radio system...
:wink: :wink:

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
Top
 Profile  
 
JD
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
MR T wrote:


Oh yes, the condition, that new licence vehicles must be on a radio system...


Thank you Mr T.

I thought that was the condition.

I think we debated that condition on TDO, I was of the opinion that it was probably unlawful. The Maud case set out the legality of a similar condition when it was proposed by the local taxi organisation that all new hackney carriage licensed vehicles should only be allowed to ply for hire in a certain area of the Town. I think applying a condition on new licenses that imposes a requirement to work under certain conditions is perhaps similiar but not entirely identical to that which was proposed in the case of Maud.

Regardless of Maud I think the condition is unworkable even if the person granted the license, initially complied with the condition, then at a future date chose to ignore it.

Regards

JD
Top
 Profile  
 
Guest
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:48 pm 
the actual condition says.
the properotor shall ensure that the vehicle is attached to a radio circuit operator whose operation comproses a minium of 3 vehicles, therefore enabling the vehicle to be pre booked for wheeelchair users
Top
  
 
JD
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Cgull wrote:
the actual condition says.
the properotor shall ensure that the vehicle is attached to a radio circuit operator whose operation comproses a minium of 3 vehicles, therefore enabling the vehicle to be pre booked for wheeelchair users


Unlawful in my opinion. However I'm sure someone will disagree with me but until one of these Brighton cabbies disregards this condition and Brighton council revoke his license then it won't be tested.

Regards

JD
Top
 Profile  
 
GBC
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 8998
Location: London
Cgull wrote:
the actual condition says.
the properotor shall ensure that the vehicle is attached to a radio circuit operator whose operation comproses a minium of 3 vehicles, therefore enabling the vehicle to be pre booked for wheeelchair users


There you go Terry, 'Radio's out of Taxi's' except where it could loose you members. :D
Top
 Profile  
 
JD
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
GBC wrote:
Cgull wrote:
the actual condition says.
the properotor shall ensure that the vehicle is attached to a radio circuit operator whose operation comproses a minium of 3 vehicles, therefore enabling the vehicle to be pre booked for wheeelchair users


There you go Terry, 'Radio's out of Taxi's' except where it could loose you members. :D


The stupidity of this condition is that even if you complied and put a radio in the cab, there is nothing on this earth to compell you to use the radio.

I don't have the time to research this condition in depth but if I did it wouldn't surprise me if I found several instances that pointed to it being illegal.

Regards

JD
Top
 Profile  
 
GMB Branch secretary
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:56 pm
Posts: 1018
Location: London
What is required in London might not be required elswhere, the members decide which you rules out GBC and of course MrT.We will get what we want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MrT saw 2 great demonstrations at Anfield this afternoon, the first the truly magnificient demonstration against K. Mc of the Sun and his disgusting articles against the Liverpool supporters so cruelly murderd by the FILFYS. They did the city proud!!!!!!!!
And secondly the Arsenals brilliant victory over the pool once again!
UP THE REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
The views expressed by this contributor do not neccesarily reflect the policys of The GMB Nationally or of the GMB London Region.
Top
 Profile  
 
MR T
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
GMB Branch secretary wrote:
What is required in London might not be required elswhere, the members decide which you rules out GBC and of course MrT.We will get what we want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MrT saw 2 great demonstrations at Anfield this afternoon, the first the truly magnificient demonstration against K. Mc of the Sun and his disgusting articles against the Liverpool supporters so cruelly murderd by the FILFYS. They did the city proud!!!!!!!!
And secondly the Arsenals brilliant victory over the pool once again!
UP THE REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Terry let's get something straight, the whole of Liverpool shed tears for the dead, and we still do, we do not think anybody was murdered, we believe that the police made very bad mistakes, and all we have ever wanted is for them to admit they made them, as for the sun, I will never buy it, my children will never buy it , and they are teaching their children never to buy it, may the sun and it editor rot in hell...

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
Top
 Profile  
 
GMB Branch secretary
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:56 pm
Posts: 1018
Location: London
OK MrT this an issue we nearly agree on a miracle?
most ive spoken too believe the polices actions were deliberate IE murder.
As for the Current Bun good on you disgusting rag like the Mail!
Of course this is another cover up by the state for the FILFYS, pity people only recognise it when it personally affects them.
What about 3-1 on your own TOBY need a new manager? no doubts the Arabs will solve your problems, talk about selling your birthright!!!
UP THE REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
The views expressed by this contributor do not neccesarily reflect the policys of The GMB Nationally or of the GMB London Region.
Top
 Profile  
 
MR T
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Don't know anything about football, only know mugs pay over the top to watch it, it's not the Liverpool football supporters that hate the sun, it is everyone in Liverpool.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
Top
 Profile  
 
GA
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:31 pm
Posts: 1761
Location: Commonsense Country
MR T wrote:
Oh yes, the condition, that new licence vehicles must be on a radio system...
:wink: :wink:


If there is a requirement from the disabled community to provide more accessible vehicles should the large fleet owners not have to provide some licensed as private hire under the law.

Sorry ...................... that would mean them being involved in a situation that didn't suit their bank balances, or their ability to pick and choose which pieces of legislation should apply to them ............ I will never be so stupid again.

B. Lucky :D

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.
Top
 Profile  
 
GBC
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 8998
Location: London
GMB Branch secretary wrote:
Of course this is another cover up by the state for the FILFYS, pity people only recognise it when it personally affects them.


Ah! Look out folks it's another Terry conspiracy theory! (No.17)

Your wasted as a Union groveller, you should contract yourself out to MI5 or someone, all these cases would be cleared up in a day. :D

Bodie and Doyle would'nt get a look in.
Top
 Profile  
 
GMB Branch secretary
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:56 pm
Posts: 1018
Location: London
Rest assured if my members decide to challenge any part of this decision we WILL. Of course that means MEMBERS, anything wrong with that.
DECISIONS ARE TAKEN BY THOSE THAT TURN UP!

_________________
The views expressed by this contributor do not neccesarily reflect the policys of The GMB Nationally or of the GMB London Region.
Top
 Profile  
 
Downtown Cab
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:53 pm
Posts: 108
Location: Brighton
Cannot get a copy of this magazine in B&H for love nor money. Even 747474 who usually have them have banned this edition.

Looks like there is some truth in the story. Thankfully copies are being handed around the station. Looks like civil war in the TGW union. Which is wrong because the drivers need it to be strong.

Big talks of a challenge, but how much would it cost?

_________________
Unmet demand you're having a laugh
Top
 Profile  
 
JD
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Downtown Cab wrote:
Big talks of a challenge, but how much would it cost?


A challenge to the Radio condition?

lol A Mouth watering prospect. A council telling a driver how they must conduct their business? A council placing conditions on a taxi that it must be fited with a radio? Yet they cannot place conditions on a driver stating he must work in a certain way? Therefore does that make the first condition ultra vires?

As I said a mouth watering prospect which i'm sure would set many a precendent.

Bring on the case we can't wait?

Regards

JD
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Board index » General » News

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 567 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