Taxi Driver Online

So there are 65 submissions.

Not going to read them all, but there are some good ones in my view.

Is 65 many? Of course not, but at least it's something.

_________________
IDFIMH

I wonder if some submissions haven't been published.

I know of one trade submission, which I was sent a copy of, that hasn't been published, and one council that said they would send a submission isn't there either.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes, Sussex, I thought there would be more than 65.

I didn't submit anything, but presumably there might be an publication exemption if requested, on grounds like commercial confidentiality, say.

It also states here that they won't necessarily publish everything they receive anyway. It's a bit vague, and it's not clear why they might not publish everything, unless it's obviously someone just taking the pish, or whatever. I'd assume that a bona fide submission from the trade or a council etc would automatically be published, unless whoever submitted it requested otherwise

And I see City of Wolverhampton Council playing the innocent victim in it all again. The poor dears were simply inundated with applications, resulting in the current 50,000 badges in issue, and couldn't do a thing about it. And it was all the fault of a big bad government who ran away

The one I was sent a copy of was quite detailed, and in all fairness not that far from the truth.

However I wonder if the committee really wants loads of detail, or just straight forward answers to the questions they posed.

Still no excuse for not publishing it.

Maybe the authour will contact the admin and inquire as to why. As I believe he had a proper receipt, so to speak.

_________________
IDFIMH

(And my earlier typo has been fixed - 65 I meant to say, not 25, obviously )

But they've definitely all been published that they mean to put in the public domain? Maybe the 65 isn't the final total?

It looks like they're not actually published as submitted, because the vast majority seem to use a similar format, layout and typeface etc, so presumably they're reformatting it all themselves, so that might take some time, therefore maybe they'll publish more in future?

On the other hand, they do seem to make it sound as if they can be a tad selective about what they'll publish, precisely, but I'd guess they'd only not publish it unless it was something very odd or extreme, or whatever.

.

There could be legal reasons, and a whole host of other stuff, such as being too long, or too off-topic, or whatever. There's this more general page about submitting evidence to select committees, and potentially there looks like a whole host of reasons they might not publish stuff, but it looks like that if it's not going to be published, then they would let the person making the submission know.

But, again, it all looks a bit vague - this general page says it's 3,000 words max, but the specific taxi 'call to evidence' only says if it's over 3,000 words then a summary should be included. 3,000 words is generally less than 10 pages (I'd guess) of the kind of stuff in the submissions I've looked at, so some of them must be a lot longer than 3,000 words

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... idance.htm

I pasted Uber's submission into Word, and it suggests it's over 7,000 words, so it's maybe not length that's an issue with any of them. Although Uber's does have a summary at the top, as is suggested for those over 3,000 words.

On the other hand, one or two of the submissions just seem to be random stuff about taxis, and not really addressing the specific 'call for evidence' submissions at all, yet they seem to have published them

Doubt if I'll really read any of them in full, but naturally a quick look suggests a lot of them are being very selective, and maybe a tad misleading. For example, Uber doesn't really say much at all about cross-border working, which is surprising, but maybe that's because they don't want to focus on the topic.

And this bit stood out:


I'd guess that's just stats they've collated relating to trips involving some sort of cross-border element, and they're claiming that they simply couldn't happen under an amended regime. Which, of course, isn't correct. I think they're just stating, in effect, that cross-border runs just couldn't happen under an ABBA or Scottish-style regime. Which is bollocks

Had a quick look at the Stockton-on-Tees Council submission as well, and they've manage to confuse vehicles with drivers. You might expect that with the press, but not a submission like this to Parliament from a licensing authority


The 35,000 is, of course, vehicle numbers, not drivers, which is around 50,000

I was unaware there was a limit, as I suspect was the authour of the one that hasn't made it. His submission was 17 pages, not all text, but I guess more than 10,000 words. (edit - just did the Word word count and it was 8,600)

I suspect he will email it separately to each of the Trans Committee members.

Does also beg the question as to how many other submissions didn't make it. It would have been nice if the admin could have emailed back requesting it to be shortened.

_________________
IDFIMH

A chap once told be about the attention span of the average MP

If you cant put it on an A$ sheet in bullet points - forget it - sad I know

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

The historical revisionism and blame-shifting in the Wolverhampton submission is incredible. But entirely as expected given how they've effectively done a complete U-turn from the braggadocio days of when Alan Bolshaw was licensing chair.

But basically they're now arguing against the very things they've enabled, such as varying standards in the same areas because of cross-border cars, license shopping and enforcement difficulties etc.

It's basically the psychological manipulation of gaslighting, or a bit like this DARVO thing in emotional abuse scenarios etc - Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

So basically they're Denying the huge rise in cross-bordering has anything to do with and Attacking the legislation etc. And they're playing the Victim in it all rather than the Offender.

Of course, they couldn't have done it without the legislation, but in the early days they obviously viewed themselves as some kind of de facto national licensing authority, as opposed to a bog standard licensing council with more efficient systems and cheaper fees.

I mean, they've spent a decade highlighting difference and lack of uniformity across the country for their own benefit, but now it's a problem?


And, for example, now they're saying there should be more co-ordinated and uniform enforcement?

But, when, in probably a hundred plus press reports and the like over the years from the areas they're operating in, have they ever said enforcement is a problem? As opposed to the boilerplate about taking "enforcement responsibilities seriously and our officers are out across the country, every Friday and Saturday night, working to protect the public.", blah, blah

Wondered why there was no sign of submissions from Sefton and Knowsley either. But the Liverpool City Region/Combined Authority has made a single submission on behalf of them all

But which spends several paragraphs mumping and moaning about Wolverhampton

It's section 3 here. Couldn't actually be bothered reading it properly, but its content seems pretty predictable. Except to the extent it's supposedly made on behalf of Sefton and Knowsley

https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... 48409/pdf/