Taxi Driver Online

To add to what Andy7 said:

- The passage that you quote quite clearly said that the plate was granted in a restricted area, thus the premium, and as you impy it's effectively gratned for free.

- The term 'free' would have been used without qualification, but then someone would have been jumping up and down saying that it's not free, since a fee has to be paid to the LA. But in relation to the premium, this fee is nominal, which Andy7 points out means "free or effectively so". The term 'free' is then used, and the inverted commas are intended to show that it wasn't meant to mean literally 'free' and the reader should be able to deduce what the term means from the preceding paragraph. The term is then used several times later in the document as shorthand for 'nominal cost'.

- what do you mean by "If the individual got a plate he could not have got one from an area where the council adopted a policy of restricting numbers."

Haven't you heard of the unmet demand test and managed growth and suchlike? Of course you have, so please explain your point.

- As for your point about the £40,000 figure not representing the national average, this is quite correct, but the term 'say' in brackets mean that it was intended as an example, not the average. There are clearly more and less valuable plates in the UK. Moreover, the document does go on to say that the cases cited do not represent the norm.

By the way, you seem to have forgotten the Wirral case fairly quickly.

But it will be implied though.

You have done nothing, within the report to suggest that it isn't written after consultation even with the members of the site, so why put the sites name on it. Its a blatant abuse of privalige.

B. Lucky

Well no doubt you will imply it, but the standard is surely that of the man on the 'Gateshead omnibus' (suchlike), not someone who can't argue on the merits of the case and has to cook up these things to undermine the case.

As was said yesterday, it's a very familiar ploy on here.

the report has some views from here Mick and could not have been written without this site

I find your accusation that there has been an abuse of priveledge highly ammusing comming from someone, bullied threatened and barred prople for not toeing the line.

in the end , it destroyed your site.

You really have to laugh.

A detailed paper is produced on the workings, and some may say corrupt workings, of the taxi/PH trade. This paper is perhaps more detailed and researched than any other I have ever read, and what to the dinosaurs ask about it?

What type of driver(s) wrote it?

Why did you confuse the issue of nominal and free?

Clearly M&R has hit the nail on the head, if that's the best the past can come up with.

_________________
IDFIMH

Substanciate the allegations as I only ever removed peoples access to the site after repeated warnings.

No wonder you don't name yourself, you couldn't cause you don't even believe what your writing.

B. Lucky

So is that why it has more members and equal activity to this one then.

Think before you drink, DON'T DRINK AND TYPE.

Presuming that was young Michael from Gateshead then;

You are a liar sir. You barred me from your site with no warning and declined to say you had barred me or give me reason.

When you did state a reason it was simply that I predicted you were saying ill-advised things on your own website.

_________________
A member of the Hire or Reward Industry

repeated warnings? dont make me laugh you tried to rell me what to write!

dont upset Andrew Peters dont say this dont say that, if you upset anybody its abuse.

finaly I was warned about you I did not take it but it became horibly true,

Mick you are a bully, now please get off my case.

Dear oh dear... I am very disappointed that you have taken the comments to be a wind up. That was certainly not the intention.
Please expalin what is so wrong in endorsing someone else view????

Strangely I thought that the concept of the forum was to express views... but perhaps if posters dont agree on certain points that the admin are expressing, and in turn, the admin do not like those views, then what is the point.

I do think that perhaps a raw nerve has been touched judging by your posting " Put up or shut up" & I think totally unjust. Perhaps others on here would like to express a view about this.

Of course if you do not want people posting their views on here, either endorsing a comment or expressing another, then perhaps you should make it clear in the rules.

Absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing someone else's views Mr Guest, but the point was that I'd addressed the view expressed, therefore since you just endorsed the initial view without addressing the response it was a bit of a waste of time and made it look as if you were dodging the issue, and it certainly now looks as if you actually were.

The point about the wind up Mr Guest, is that the points being made are so weak that it looked as if you were deliberately trying to avoid the real issues (as per usual) and make some barely credulous arguments that most reasonable people wouldn't care less about unless they weren't bothered about the real issues, and a reasonable person might therefore think that you were just trying to wind people up.

Of course you are welcome on here to express your views, but they might be a bit credible if your main tactic wasn't just to completely ignore the real issues.

No nerves have been struck, indeed the fact that you've haven't even ATTEMPTED to land a punch re the substantive arguments in the document says a lot, so keep up the good work!

As for the ... err ...what was it again? Oh yes, that TDO's document may be claiming to represent the views of the forum. Well it's funny that no one has ever complained about this before in relation to the any other articles on the site representing the views of TDO.

Presumably if you'd been that worried in the past then you would have said, or at least stopped posting.

Well, you have stopped posting several times, but have always come back!

So what's the evidence that TDO has been claiming that the document represents the views of the forum members? We've not seen it yet!!

OK, so 30,000 word on restricted numbers and the main counter points so far have been:

- that the personal details of the authors aren't in the document, nor is it disclosed whether they are taxi or PH drivers

- a spurious claim that the document claims to represent the views of those posting on the forum

- that it should have been in .pdf rather than Word format to stop people editing it.

Hey, that's it, someone has edited the document to say that it represents the views of forum members and sent it to Mr Angel as a wind up!!!

Oh, what fun!!!!!

PS, put it in the bin Mr Angel, the real version is on the site!!!

What I would like to know Angel, is how many Cab drivers are members in your Branch of the T&G? Or is that a secret?



I admire a man who can disseminate fact from fiction but are you actually saying the other reports you refer to are biased because of the false-hoods contained in the reports, or are you saying the reports are factual but portray an in built bias?

In reference to the recent report submitted by the executive of TDO, are you implying some of the facts contained in that report are incorrect and if so, are you also saying they are intentional?

Finally, if the facts do stand up to scrutiny? Could it be said that the only thing bias about this report is that it gives a factual assessment as to why councils should not be allowed to refuse applicants a licence to do a job of work that they a equally qualified to do. To add to that point, apart from city traffic congestion and rank space, can you give me one other reason why a council should reasonably refuse a qualified applicant a proprietors licence?

Best wishes.

John Davies.