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

Spot Mr Cummins deliberate mistakes.
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1827		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  JD [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:52 am ]
Post subject:  Spot Mr Cummins deliberate mistakes.
Who is bright enough to spot the deliberate mistakes in this article by D Cummings on the Wirral plate issue.

http://www.taxitalk.co.uk/pages/issue10 ... mmings.htm

Lets see if Mr Cummins spots them before you do? lol

Regards

JD
Author:  TDO [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
A fundamental one is that an LA can only stop a plate issue on the basis of NO significant unmet demand, but the article puts it the other way round:

The Government however still wanted market forces to control the taxi trade, but inserted a clause that a LA could only stop a plate issue on the grounds of 'significant unmet demand'
Author:  JD [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
TDO wrote:
A fundamental one is that an LA can only stop a plate issue on the basis of NO significant unmet demand, but the article puts it the other way round:

The Government however still wanted market forces to control the taxi trade, but inserted a clause that a LA could only stop a plate issue on the grounds of 'significant unmet demand'


This is the best, it epitomises the lack of legal knowledge of the author in respect of the Taxi trade. Never let fact get in the way of fiction when you are preaching to the faithful.

This has given rise to the use of surveys, which LA's with a no-deregulation policy use, and abide by. e.g. if a survey suggests 15 plates that is what the council issue. No more no less, because, to reiterate, they cannot issue plates as they see fit, that has been abolished. If you hear the latest rumour that the council are going to issue 15 or 20 plates, ignore it. The only people who can put a number on the issue are judges or a survey.

Regards

JD
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Never let fact get in the way of fiction when you are preaching to the faithful.


Hmm, seems to be the way things are going here dont it? :sad:

Captain Cab
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm glad I came late into this, cos its saved me repeating what has been said. :wink:

But can I just say that a council can issue one plate, or one hundred and one plates, if they see fit. Surveys are there only to ensure councils issue the bear minimum.

In fact the proof in the pudding is in Mr Cummings own manor, or ex manor, Wirral. There the survey found 'no significant unmet demand'. :sad:

Thus if Mr Cumming's article was accurate, then the council could only have issued none. However they decided to issue as many as was required. :D
Author:  JD [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
I'm glad I came late into this, cos its saved me repeating what has been said. :wink:

But can I just say that a council can issue one plate, or one hundred and one plates, if they see fit. Surveys are there only to ensure councils issue the bear minimum.

In fact the proof in the pudding is in Mr Cummings own manor, or ex manor, Wirral. There the survey found 'no significant unmet demand'. :sad:

Thus if Mr Cumming's article was accurate, then the council could only have issued none. However they decided to issue as many as was required. :D


Makes me wonder why the councillors of Hyndburn ignored Mr Cummins sound reasoning. I think we should write to them and advise them that they can't issue 5 plates per annum over 3 years and review their policy in 2008 without first having a survey.

Then again it would be hilarious if they got a challenge anytime soon. lol

Regards

JD
Author:  Guest [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
or the councillors of Brighton that had to issue 19 right away. But decided to issue 5 extra a year until they decide not to.
Author:  JD [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Cgull wrote:
or the councillors of Brighton that had to issue 19 right away. But decided to issue 5 extra a year until they decide not to.


lol or Ribble valley who thought it best not to survey and just go ahead and issue one plate per year until such time they deem otherwise.

Regards

JD
Author:  Flyer [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I know I shouldn't ask this, but what is the point of restricting taxi numbers?

Flyer
Author:  Non D. Plume [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
TDO wrote:
A fundamental one is that an LA can only stop a plate issue on the basis of NO significant unmet demand, but the article puts it the other way round:

The Government however still wanted market forces to control the taxi trade, but inserted a clause that a LA could only stop a plate issue on the grounds of 'significant unmet demand'


That was a typo (and I didn't type it out so blame the proof reader) however that ia just being bithchy because the piece states clearly that delimitation is the natural order the taxi trade has been deregulated/delimited since 1 jan 1986) and if a council is so minded to follow a limited numbers policy the onus is on them to justify it not the applicant. PS I've spelt January with a small j so you can say how twisted and how I distort the facs
Author:  Non D. Plume [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Flyer wrote:
I know I shouldn't ask this, but what is the point of restricting taxi numbers?

Flyer

Go and have a look at Liverpool 21 years after it re-regulated with ranks full to overflowing and drivers getting done by the minute.
They have a local authority court in Liverpool and you get prosecuted for " failing to proceed to the nearest available taxi rank" which is a £100 fine. This is the reason I'm against delimitation in certain areas obviously some ares wont be adversly affected by delimitation so I'm not totally oppossed to it but my aversion to it comes out of being a Liverpool hack and paying one too many failing to proceeds. And it was pressure from the chief constable that stopped the issue in Liverpool not 'vested interests' I'd like to add that the long term affect of the delimitation policy was the rise of the multi-owners(which is consistant with any delimitation/deregulation policy, now if you want to rant and rave about any issue in the taxi trade it's multi-owners.
Author:  Non D. Plume [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:
Cgull wrote:
or the councillors of Brighton that had to issue 19 right away. But decided to issue 5 extra a year until they decide not to.




Regards

JD[/lol or Ribble valley who thought it best not to survey and just go ahead and issue one plate per year until such time they deem otherwise.quote]

This is unlawful read R v Reading ex p Egan
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:46 am ]
Post subject: 
](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

I get them feelings sometimes too DC

Captain Cab
Author:  JD [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:53 am ]
Post subject: 
Non D. Plume wrote:

This is unlawful read R v Reading ex p Egan


You mean its only unlawfull if someone decides to challenge Ribble Valley. Ribble can do what they wan't but if they wish to stave off a challenge they are going to have to have a survey.

I've read the Reading case more times than I care to mention just what are you implying? it might help if you quote Nolan then we might know exactly what you're referring to? No doubt you have it azz upwards as per usual.

JD
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:07 am ]
Post subject: 
Non D. Plume wrote:
This is unlawful read R v Reading ex p Egan

So what exactly is 'managed growth' then? :-k
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/