Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:20 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 221 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:04 pm
Posts: 57
ALI T wrote:
Quote:
william maitland wrote
As for an exit strategy, not compensation, a gradual process, however this will probably not be an issue up here for the forseeable future.

you sound so confident william, you almost have me believing you
a gradual process of what? doing nothing
as for forsight, some peoples are shorter than others



I am confident Ali, very, in the short to medium term at least, beyond that we shall just have to wait and see, due to the fact that the people in the trade are not willing or able to talk with one and other on a sensible, rational basis, you will never win, none of us will.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:04 pm
Posts: 57
Oh and by the way Ali, all that nonsense about being a multiple plate holder was nonsense, I used it as a trigger,I got the predictable reaction that I was expecting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 10460
William Maitland wrote:
Oh and by the way Ali, all that nonsense about being a multiple plate holder was nonsense, I used it as a trigger,I got the predictable reaction that I was expecting.



Gee William you really had us going there, and I bet William Maitland isn't your real name either. :oops:


I bet all the guys on TDO were taken in by your deception. Everybody here is shocked at your cleverness William you must be a double agent or something.
:shock:

I hope to hear from you again now that you have completed another mission Mr. William James Bond Maitland.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Skull wrote:
William Maitland wrote:
Oh and by the way Ali, all that nonsense about being a multiple plate holder was nonsense, I used it as a trigger,I got the predictable reaction that I was expecting.



Gee William you really had us going there, and I bet William Maitland isn't your real name either. :oops:


I bet all the guys on TDO were taken in by your deception. Everybody here is shocked at your cleverness William you must be a double agent or something.
:shock:

I hope to hear from you again now that you have completed another mission Mr. William James Bond Maitland.


Sounded remarkably like someone beginning with S and ending with S.

SS.

But My first initial thought was someone else. I'm glad I treated Mr William with respect lol

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:17 pm
Posts: 189
Location: liverpool
William Maitland wrote:
streetcar wrote:
William Maitland wrote:
Streetcar theres 1260, you have 1417, a difference of 157, but work comming out our ears? thing is streetcar tourism is a seasonal

P.S I have not got an issue with the issue of more Licenses streetcar, but there has to be an exit strategy for those who paid for theirs.
Well William we have thousands on benefits . Your city is proberbly a lot wealthier . Why would Skull and Ali want plates if there was no work . Your exit strategy , you mean you want compensating . They are not taking any thing off you. You will still have your plate , you will still be able to rent your taxi out . Well if you bought your plate for 40,000 pounds rents out at 300 pounds a week , it would only take a few years ,so you have proberby had your money back ,unless you bought them a short time ago . Or perhaps you bought your plates , with the expectation ,that there value would increase. Well William the way they are chucking money about ,up there your parliament building etc .Our rulers subsidise farmers ,even pay them to do F A . Yes i agree with you , they did it in Dublin why not streetcar



Streetcar dont believe everything you read and hear, a recent report stated that in Edinburgh



One in nine of city population 'living in poverty' says study

GARETH EDWARDS


MORE than 50,000 people in Edinburgh are living in poverty and relying on benefits, new figures reveal.

And 9000 of the city's residents are classed as living in Scotland's most deprived areas, which include parts of Craigmillar, Muirhouse and Pennywell.


The sobering figures come from a new study into deprivation in Scotland, which looks at the nation's most impoverished areas and examines why people are trapped in the cycle of poverty.

Looking at health, education, housing and employment, it has been drawn up to help the Scottish Executive work out where investment needs to be channelled to tackle social problems.

The study found that in Edinburgh, 52,821 people were classed as income deprived - 11 per cent of the city's total population.

And 24 areas of the city, with populations of around 750 people, were classed as being in the most deprived five per cent areas of Scotland.

Craigmillar was highlighted as the most deprived area in Edinburgh - the 19th most deprived in Scotland - and it was estimated that at least half of the people there were out of work.

David Walker, secretary of Craigmillar Community Council,

said: "I can imagine Craigmillar will be fairly high up the list when it comes to low levels of income. The last analysis we saw put the average earnings of residents in Craigmillar at £10,000 a year, so we're well aware of this problem.

"It is becoming increasingly difficult for families on low income to take that step up."

The Social Focus on Deprived Areas report divided Scotland into population "pockets" of around 750 people, and gathers figures on education, the NHS and the multiple index of deprivation.

The study gathered information about families who are on benefits, including income support, jobseeker's allowances and working families tax credits.

It used the information to find which areas of Scotland were classed as in the most deprived five per cent.

In total, 9256 people lived in the city's - and Scotland's - worst areas, including Craigmillar Castle Loan, Muirhouse Crescent, and Niddrie Mains.

Across Scotland, household incomes are increasing, but there is no indication that the gap between rich and poor is closing.

The analysis showed that people living in the 15 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland were four times more likely to be receiving income support than those living in the rest of Scotland.

More than 40 per cent of children in these areas were dependent on someone in the home receiving income support, compared with just ten per cent of children in the rest of Scotland.

Christina Cran, spokeswoman for Shelter Scotland, the housing and homeless charity, said: "The deprivation and poverty that exists in Scotland is often hidden from sight.

"Shelter staff see each day the effects that a mixture of issues such as debt, bad housing and insecurity can have on people's lives. It can bring about ill health, a lack of self-esteem and a cycle of homelessness that can be hard to break.

"Shelter hopes the new research from the Executive is used to bring about real change to people's lives in Scotland's life by investing support and finance into areas of multiple deprivation."

Communities Minister Malcolm Chisholm said: "We are absolutely committed to tackling the problems of our most deprived communities. It is essential we know the full picture so that resources can be targeted where they are needed. This detailed analysis gives us that."

Lord Provost Lesley Hinds said: "While Edinburgh has a strong economy, we are aware that there are also deprived areas

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=2006192005

It's the same all over the place.


As for an exit strategy, not compensation, a gradual process, however this will probably not be an issue up here for the forseeable future.
F.... in he.. I am sorry i mentioned that . Your not a multi plate holder after all . So you were talking crap Thats ok . Theres us being so nice to you as well streetcar. .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 10460
Have we lost RCF, RCFF and now William as well? Makes you wonder why they bothered in the first place. :roll:


Not to worry they are all the same, I am sure someone will take their place.


THE BORG!

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 10460
Back to the rag www.realfastblacks.co.uk

So far the response has been very positive with comments of "spot on" Nothing negative other than a little concern over how strong our comments were against the council. :wink:

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 2372
Location: edinburgh
William Maitland wrote:
Oh and by the way Ali, all that nonsense about being a multiple plate holder was nonsense, I used it as a trigger,I got the predictable reaction that I was expecting.


sounds like youre backtracking to me :wink:

and what reaction would you expect from the comments that you made.
and by the way i think if you read back at the posts youll realise we were all onto you a long time back,you see weve all seen it before,guys who think they have a real argument and can justify thier position but then find that they cant,and iether disapear,or gradually spiral downwards into simple abuse.
i think you will be the former
rcf rcff are obviously the latter

if you ever want to enter real discusion, then great but keep it relevent no more on employee rights please
:lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45465
Location: 1066 Country
Skull wrote:
Have we lost RCF, RCFF and now William as well? Makes you wonder why they bothered in the first place. :roll:

As far as I can see only RCFF has gone to pastures new.

I hope he enjoys his stay there. :D

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45465
Location: 1066 Country
Skull wrote:
Back to the rag www.realfastblacks.co.uk

So far the response has been very positive with comments of "spot on" Nothing negative other than a little concern over how strong our comments were against the council. :wink:

That's to be welcomed, and let's hope your newsletter has given some a few rest-less nights. That's the least they deserve. :-$

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:03 pm
Posts: 280
ALI T wrote:
William Maitland wrote:
Oh and by the way Ali, all that nonsense about being a multiple plate holder was nonsense, I used it as a trigger,I got the predictable reaction that I was expecting.


sounds like youre backtracking to me :wink:

and what reaction would you expect from the comments that you made.
and by the way i think if you read back at the posts youll realise we were all onto you a long time back,you see weve all seen it before,guys who think they have a real argument and can justify thier position but then find that they cant,and iether disapear,or gradually spiral downwards into simple abuse.
i think you will be the former
rcf rcff are obviously the latter

if you ever want to enter real discusion, then great but keep it relevent no more on employee rights please
:lol: :lol:


Ali if you were truly interested in these issues , as I certainly am , dont knock Williams theory,

http://www.partnership-at-work.com/uplo ... lletin.pdf

Now in the paragraph "levels and structures" you can note that our Government has chose the definition of "undertaking" but what happens if that undertaking is made up of seperate business people/ self employed workers.

It's just something that interests William and Myself Ali,and remember Ali it's only Information and Consultation, not negotiation.

Ali I wont be going anywhere, nor will I spiral down into simple abuse, you guys will need to learn, thats not the way I work, it's an unproductive method of working, frankly Ali I dont give a monkeys about, well the monkeys :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Ali if you were truly interested in these issues , as I certainly am , dont knock Williams theory,

http://www.partnership-at-work.com/uplo ... lletin.pdf

Now in the paragraph "levels and structures" you can note that our Government has chose the definition of "undertaking" but what happens if that undertaking is made up of seperate business people/ self employed workers.

It's just something that interests William and Myself Ali,and remember Ali it's only Information and Consultation, not negotiation.

Ali I wont be going anywhere, nor will I spiral down into simple abuse, you guys will need to learn, thats not the way I work, it's an unproductive method of working, frankly Ali I dont give a monkeys about, well the monkeys :roll:


I must admit Sirius I had William tagged as you? But that is neither here nor there, I still wonder why you latched onto this directive and what you see in it that makes you think it has a connection with you and the local council? William for some reason wanted to see more into it than there is. Perhaps he didn't understand it or someone has been filling his head with wrong information. There is a phone number and email address on that link you posted, why not contact them and ask them does the directive effect self employed Taxi drivers and the people who issue them their licence, namely the council? If they say yes? Ask them to point you to the relevant section that applies? Then we might be able to put this directive bed.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:03 pm
Posts: 280
Well it obviously does not apply to self employed people (in this country at least) JD, but it's about the definition of undertaking and employee, I would prefer the term Worker, lets face it, thats what everyone does when their involved in an undertaking, is it not?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Sirius wrote:
Well it obviously does not apply to self employed people (in this country at least) JD, but it's about the definition of undertaking and employee, I would prefer the term Worker, lets face it, thats what everyone does when their involved in an undertaking, is it not?


In that case tell me how it impacts on Self employed Taxi drivers, if you recall the original post from William I think he was implying that it might have an effrect on Taxi drivers? We are all concerned about the EU directives that might effect us but so far it has not been pointed out to me how this directive will effect self employed cabbies?

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
Sirius wrote:
Well it obviously does not apply to self employed people (in this country at least) JD, but it's about the definition of undertaking and employee, I would prefer the term Worker, lets face it, thats what everyone does when their involved in an undertaking, is it not?


The bottom line is that it's about employer/employee relationships, which could only possible be applied in the trade with regard to the owner's relationship with the driver, so even if it did apply, it wouldn't affect the council's relationship vis-a-vis the trade.

That relationship is about the regulator and the regulated, and as far as I can see there are already plenty of checks and balances in place

I repeat, in Scotland a couple of years ago there was a consultation on the legislation. Later the OFT invited responses to its study, and I know the STF contributed to that. When the OFT reported the DfT and Scottish Executive invited responses from the trade before they responded. And at the LA level there's an obligation to consult on major change under basic administrative law principles.

So what's the problem, and why bang on about this directive which has nothing to do with the trade?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 221 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 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