captain cab wrote:
Yep the £250k wasted by the oft was much more umpressive than that
but as with anything, is the glass half empty or half full?
Interesting figures are coming out, that are not worth a toss when given to these idiots.
39% of councils dont issue licenses, yet 61% do, of the 61% there is an 11% that carry out regular surveys.
the findings naturally tell us 89% of councils do it wrong and the 11% that do check unmet demand are leading lights and their example should be followed.
Of course it fails to point out that the 11% constitutes the highest plate values in the country, in areas without an unmet demand? or is it a dodgy survey system? I leave it to you to decide
It also says that best practice is to carry out regular surveys, I wonder why, they dont do surveys themselves do they??
Statistics suggest, is a phrase they use, wouldnt be because they actually do show that taxis are more common in unlimited areas would it.
Then they draw a conclusion from the thin air, although the reality is that in areas that limit taxis the service is better due to intensely used vehicles, I presume they mean double shifting. But draw a conclusion from no evidence.
They obviously went the the same school as the oft.
I am quite sure that these survey/statistic companies could at some point demonstrate that the extermination of innocents proves unmet demand, if they were being paid for it.
The survey market is a racket and always has been.
Quite simply the report fits what the council officers want, and as a bonus you get an expert witness to bamboosle a judge.
one thing the oft did get halcrow to admit is that suds are a load of codswallop.
I could show you 2 surveys one by me to proove unmet demand, one by Halcrow to do the opposite, mine was a license application and was given to halcrow as thier survey was to proove me wrong.
both use the same language throughout, the unmet demand was not aggreed to by halcrow but warnings were wriiten large.
and I got my plates.