So the mayor hasn't actually specified any legal grounds under which Uber would be banned in Liverpool, instead simply saying that it's threatening the local trade and little more than that he doesn't like the company.

Thus basically his case is political rather than legal, therefore a hostage to fortune for Uber's lawyers if any ban was forthcoming.

Who advises these people?

These people who claim they are allowed to operate under appeal must not know their ar** from their elbow,you cannot appeal against something that is illegal,and they should close down U*** immediately.

Does not matter what U*** claim they are operating illegally,driver accepts job before the operator end of story,

I'm not 100% convinced of that, I wish I was.

I don't have an operator's license, but say someone asks me if I'm availbele to take them to the airport on Sunday and I check my diary and I can, I then say either they contact the operator I work with, or I do it myself on their behalf. Whichever option is taken a licensed operator takes that booking and dispatches it to me.

What is the difference (other than the time it takes to book and dispatch) to that scenario to the Uber way of doing things?

I'm not 100% convinced of that, I wish I was.

I don't have an operator's license, but say someone asks me if I'm availbele to take them to the airport on Sunday and I check my diary and I can, I then say either they contact the operator I work with, or I do it myself on their behalf. Whichever option is taken a licensed operator takes that booking and dispatches it to me.

What is the difference (other than the time it takes to book and dispatch) to that scenario to the Uber way of doing things?

The passenger has to make the booking with the operator,driver cannot do it on their behalf otherwise they can fall foul of plying for hire.

But the passenger doesn't, IMO, make the booking with the driver, the driver just makes the operator aware he is available to take a booking, should the operator accept said booking.

As much as I wish this was Uber's Achilles heel, sadly it's not.

Uber driver accepts booking before operator according to their own admission.

But so do many other PH drivers, me included.

People ask me if I'm available for a job at a certain time, if I am they then book me via a licensed operator.

The Uber way is also similar to what happens when someone wants a WAV.

Customer rings up asks if their is one available for a certain time, the operator then asks WAV drivers if any will be out at that time.

If yes the booking is taken, if no the customer is told they cannot take that booking. Same with 8 seaters or low saloon cars for old dears.

The above happens 1000s of times each day throughout the country.

Lawbreaker.

But so do many other PH drivers, me included.

People ask me if I'm available for a job at a certain time, if I am they then book me via a licensed operator.

The Uber way is also similar to what happens when someone wants a WAV.

Customer rings up asks if their is one available for a certain time, the operator then asks WAV drivers if any will be out at that time.

If yes the booking is taken, if no the customer is told they cannot take that booking. Same with 8 seaters or low saloon cars for old dears.

The above happens 1000s of times each day throughout the country.

Whilst your example is clearly common sense Mr Sussex, and probably happens many times a day as you say, I feel it is illegal in the eyes of the law. A private hire driver can only accept bookings from an operator licensed in the same district as themselves. As a PH driver you should not be allowed to accept a booking direct from a customer, no matter what actions you take to makeit look lawful.

I seem to remember court cases about a driver ringing his office and handing the phone to the customer to request a booking.

For many years I have felt that there needs to be another 'operator licence' for a single operator, this would help the 'self-employed' debate for sure.