Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Stop and Search - which of our reps(?) wants this?
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18671		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Jasbar [ Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Stop and Search - which of our reps(?) wants this?
From the minutes of the HCLCG meeting of 10th January 2012.

During a discussion in item 3 - Surplus Funds Within The Budget Alolocated To Enforcement - Eric Barry (who is also a councillor and who I believe is standing for election to Central's committee) asked " ... if there was any requirement for the trade to make a formal request to ring fence the surplus funds and put forward proposals for use."

(Note:- Let's be quite clear, these surplus fund have accrued because of the extortionate licence fees the council is ripping off from licence holders - which none of the reps have seen fit to query on our behalf, in our real interests.)

It is recorded that the "members gave their views on options of whether to lower the licensing fee or increase enforcement with any surplus funds. The group felt that increasing enforcement would be the most beneficial use of any surplus."

(Really? We're all opererating on our a*se ends and here are our "reps" giving our money away? Anyone outwith the cabal ever been asked about this?)

Anyway, our stalwart "leaders" then move on to say how they would like to spend our money.

When asked, John Blain "indicated" the Cab Office would welcome a new dedicated "Enforcement Team" which would be attached to the Cab Office and managed by the Cab Inspector.

(Nice bit of empire building by the loyal servant just before he's due to retire, or what?)

Now here's the rub.

One of the "reps", we don't know who because, although other views expressed in the minutes have the name of the view-holder named, curiously this one doesn't. (I suggest the miscreant should be named and shamed.) actually said, and I quote directly from the minutes ...

"One view suggested that any new enforcement team should be headed up by police officers, rather than the Cab Inspector, with full powers to stop and search."

Now I'd be very interested in knowing how many drivers out there want to work in an environment where the cops have the power to intimidate them, and their passengers, as they go about their business?

Don't we already dread the quieter nights when cops with nothing better to do set up their road blocks to harvest minor infringements from all road users?

Don't we already know that the cab Inspector would interview drivers under Civil procedure without reading individuals their rights?

Don't we already know that the cops already have sufficient powers to deal with misdemeanours, without us introducing South African style "SUSS laws".

OK, so we know we're already heading for a Police state, the Nasties ridiculous sectarian laws are proof of that, among others.

What interests me is that if this was such a reasonable proposition, why wasn't the individual who suggested this named in the minutes?

And if this is an example of the quality of minute recording in the council, what else is being conveniently missed out in council business records?

And isn't this the clearest reason why these meetings are held in secret, because the rights and interests of those of us who are nowhere near represented are being ignored, even ridden roughshod over, by the few powerbrokers in the trade who have assumed power, alledgedly on our behalf?

What we do know is that there is no requirement for any of these "reps" to be properly and democratically elected.

Eric Barry for example, represents an organisation which no one knows anything about, no one is solicited to join, and we don't know what the mechanism for his election is, or even the basis he was elected, if at all. He is also a councillor so has a double vested interest that has nothing in common with those he's supposed to represent, far less any of us working in the trade

But he's not alone. There isn't a single member of this committee who is directly elected to be a member of it. No manifestos set for their election, and no feedback about what happens in them to those who aere supposed to be the represented, nor to the trade generally.

(How can it be that a supposedly democratic council can allow this committee to even exist, given that it purports to represent the trade, yet it is fully aware that not everyone is represented, far less that those who are supposed to be represented are not.)

Yet this committee has the power to influence changes which directly impinge on all of us as we go about our daily business, struggling to make a living in uncertain economic times not of our making.

Isn't this committee, and its fundamental concept, clearly rotten to the core?

And doesn't this latest episode show that rather than being of a benevolent "Uncle Tom" variety, it's actually hurting us badly?

So, for now, who IS the bright boy who wants cops to have the power to stop and search us?
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/