Of the 57 Hackney Carriages checked, 25 were found to have faults.

330 private hire taxis were inspected – 98 of which were given VDNs and 22 forced to stop operating as nearly 40% were found to be faulty.

Go on Mr T you tell 'em how it is......

Me .... you know I am extremely shy... and hardly ever say anything ... plus the fact I do everything in my power to make sure drivers have no rights.

So basically all this means is that the restricted HCs are no better - or perhaps worse - than the unrestricted PH?

Why does everything come down to restriction or derestriction.

Perhaps you should have all the information before you make comparisons, at least then it will be a valid and unbias comparison :-

I really don't know - perhaps you should ask people like yourself who support restricted numbers and make the case that this raises standards. Or Mr T. Or Captain Cab. Or Blackpool. Or Doom.

In case you hadn't noticed I'm not the one making the case.




Well perhaps the most scientific analysis in recent years was the OFT's, which as I recall it found no difference when it analysed the safety statistics.

But you don't need to be the brain of britain to conclude that standards have little or nothing to do with restricted numbers, so if the likes of the above can help demonstrate the self-serving nature of the argument then why not point it out, even if it doesn't suit your own particular purposes?

Or perhaps you could proffer valid and unbiased evidence to support the case that restricted numbers raises standards?

Its a little like Dusty himself....he turns up everytime theres something a looming in the cab trade.....last time we saw him this much it was of OFT report.....now its the Law Commission.

So I take it from this diversion that neither yourself nor Blackpool have anything to say about the actual point being made?

Thought not.

And in any case your point is predictably ill-informed and half-baked. I was a regular poster on taxi forums since early 2002 - which was way before the OFT announced its investigation and indeed way before you became a regular - and was a regular for several years after that, and of course if it hadn't been for yours truly TDO would never have existed, and the site's advent had nothing directly to do with the OFT investigation - it would have happened anyway.

And I've come and gone several times since then, but not really anything to do with the wider taxi world - indeed I didn't even read the Transport Committee stuff earlier this year - and the specific reasons are many and varied.

Having said that the LC's project has stimulated my interest slightly, and why not? After all it makes a change from the usual banalities, but if I was really that interested in it then I'd be working on something to submit to them rather than getting involved with the frivolities on here.

And of course others like Blackpool and Doom only seemed to reappear when their vested interest looked like it may be threatened, but of course no mention of that because they're on the right side.

Indeed, you could say much the same about the national groups. I seem to recall articles by yourself about some such groups disappearing back to their 'sleepy hollows' once the OFT had been seen off, and indeed you've been doubly vindicated by the recent re-emergence of some such groups now that the Law Commission's work commenced, so well said on that one

But your criticism of Dusty is a bit unfair, even if I say so myself

I really don't know - perhaps you should ask people like yourself who support restricted numbers and make the case that this raises standards. Or Mr T. Or Captain Cab. Or Blackpool. Or Doom.

In case you hadn't noticed I'm not the one making the case.




Well perhaps the most scientific analysis in recent years was the OFT's, which as I recall it found no difference when it analysed the safety statistics.

But you don't need to be the brain of britain to conclude that standards have little or nothing to do with restricted numbers, so if the likes of the above can help demonstrate the self-serving nature of the argument then why not point it out, even if it doesn't suit your own particular purposes?

Or perhaps you could proffer valid and unbiased evidence to support the case that restricted numbers raises standards?