Taxi Driver Online

Bryan Roland has never driven a cab in his life.

True or false?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Is this get at Bryan week?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

The answer is no he hasn't.

Some people including me are wondering Who he represents at this meeting of minds gathering of the North West taxi trade? I've come to the conclusion he represents no one but himself. The NPHA is just name, it has no democratic structure of representation of the private hire trade therefore what the hell is it and why should he be a party to changing hackney carriage legislation?

Considering he prefers not to answer those questions himself perhaps you can come to his aid and answer them for him?

The answer to the question is no, he has never driven a licensed hackney carriage in his life.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Gives you a rest.

_________________
IDFIMH

JD

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet here.

Bryan represents the hundreds of companies, organisations and individuals that pay him an annual subscription to belong to the organisation he fronts. These subscriptions are substantial enough to support Bryan, his staff and pay for the office.

I think that is his justification enough.

Bryan certainly has a background in the trade (whether he was a PH driver or despatcher I don't know details). I have never heard Bryan claim to be a former Hack driver.

The fact that Bryan spends much of his time helping operators negotiate with their local councils demonstrates his worth to me.

_________________
A member of the Hire or Reward Industry

I'm not questioning his ability to represent those persons who pay him for a service and I'm not questioning his integrity, the only think I'm questioning is who gives him a mandate to act as a representative of the taxi trade?

Obviously from what you are implying his mandate comes from you and others like you who are mainly radio circuit operators. The funny thing is that the organisation to which you subscribe would appear to have no democratic structure from bottom to top. Is it a case of pay your money and take your chance on the advice being right? Every solicitor will do that for you so why wasn't Jim Button invited along to this meeting of minds exercise What does the NPHA do that Jim Button can't do?

You are telling us that you and those who sign up the NPHA association blindly give them a mandate to do whatever they want in their name? Is that part of the written contractual agreement? If so it would seem we have you to blame for theese proposals coming from the NPHA and others , that all hackney carriage drivers require a private hire operators license if they wish to take private hire bookings within their own area. We also have you to blame for making hackney carriage drivers criminals if they take a mobile phone booking for a private hire job when outside their licensed area. We also have you blame for stifling innovation by killing off the likes of taxi-call.

I suppose under the democratic regime of the NPHA you were asked your opinions before they entered into this North West "tate a tate" on how to screw the hackney carriage driver? Or is it the case that when you sign up to the NPHA you automatically give them carte blanche to act on your before without any prior consultation with you?

The question I asked was quite simple, "who gives the NPHA a mandate ", further to that I would like to know how the democratic process of this organisation is that's what it can be called, operates.

If no one gives the NPHA a mandate then put me out of my misery and just say so. If anyone wants to put their head on the block and tell me that the NPHA gets their mandate from them, then tell us "how".

It is my opinion that the NPHA did not consult you in any way shape or form about this meetings of minds exercise or what was being proposed and whether it met with your approval?

It is also my opinion that at no stage did the NPHA ask you for a mandate, which suggests to me they don't need a mandate from you or anyone else.

It is also my opinion that when these proposals were recently hurriedly signed in order that they could be whisked away to the DfT without any consultation with those members who supposedly gave these representatives a mandate, that you weren't informed or consulted about what had been agreed? In fact no one was consulted.

Apart from the GMB these cowboys all signed on the dotted line as though they had a god given right to do so without telling their membership what these proposals mean for them.

I just wonder why this motley crew find it so important to circumvent the natural democratic process of consultation of whether these proposals should even be submitted to the DfT?

[b]It proves to me that these representatives think they are law unto themselves and decidedly uncountable.


Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I haven't the time to go through all this just two quick points.

Button is so hooked into councils it is impossible for him to represent hardly anyone in the trade. I talked to JB about a year ago and my 8 closest councils are all on his customer list so he can't act against any of them.

Where does Bryan claim a mandate? Where does he claim to be democratic. He has set up an organisation and receives funding from many various types of organisation involved in the taxi trade.

Bryan has volunteered his opinion on different subjects regarding the trade every month for the last decade plus.

Now he says something you don't like you get arsey about it? You weren't questioning his mandate when he was campaigning about CRB's, or London PH licensing.

I am not aware of the proposals you are talking about but..... why shouldn't a hack need a PH operators licence if accepting phone bookings?

A punt here...but I reckon the vast majority of Hacks in the UK actually live of telephone bookings. The major cities apart very few hacks can live of ranks and streets. I have always maintained that any one in this industry who claims tobe self employed should hold an operators licence to demonstrate that fact to the tax man.

_________________
A member of the Hire or Reward Industry

Something is clearly wrong with the information you had been supplied JD.. is somebody giving you bullets to fire... or are they trying to make you look incompetent.....

The documents you have are still only a draft... and that draft document has been, or at least should have been by now sent out to all members of the appropriate associations, and as for secrecy, Mr BB I am informed was given permission to place the minutes on the Web. that document still has a long way to go.... I have a strong feeling somebody is mischief-making with you.

The last time you wanted the minutes, you simply popped round the corner and got them did you not.

And one last thing, if the draft does eventually get presented to the DFT, it will be so with the understanding that it then goes out to consultation with anybody and everybody who would be interested.

Now would you like to make a little bet... about whether or not we ever see the minutes of the GMB Meetings..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

And most welcome those consultations would be, but I think we all know that if the DfT are given the impression that these proposals have the full support of the NTA, the GMB, the NPHA, the T&G, the NGGT or whatever they are called today, and NALEO, then they will get passed.

Which is why IMO all those above should get the full support, or as near as dam it, of their membership before they sign on the dotted line. And if they operate on a Zanu-PF democratic mandate, then they shouldn't sign up to anything.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex... more smoke and mirrors I see....

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Rather that than beer and sandwiches.

_________________
IDFIMH

Are you suggesting these SO CALLED REPRESENTATIVES are going to ask their diluted membership to vote on these proposals? I don't think so do you?

I don't know what information you are thinking of when you suggest it could be wrong? In this particular case my comments are aimed at the minutes available to me at this moment in time. There is no mention in these minutes of consultation aimed at obtaining a mandate from the membership to carry these proposals forward to the next stage. There is also no mention in these minutes that the membership should have these changes fully explained to them and how it will have a drastic effect on the way they do business in the future.



The document is not on draft in fact all participants have been asked to sign on the dotted line the letter which John Thompson drafted to the DfT dated 15th April 2008 and which can be found on page 8 of the minutes which have been formatted by TDO for the GMB.



The document in its present form is complete and the proposals are being sent to the DfT, I suspect this will happen even if the GMBPDB take the decision not to sign the letter. In my opinion if that were to happen, it would highlight the fact that this exercise was not a valid exercise in trying to improve the lot of the taxi driver but to put another tier of shackles on them just like NALEO did when they persuaded the DfT to remove a taxi drivers right to work until such time they were proved not to be a fit and proper person by the courts.



I'm not going to say you are out of touch Mr T but when people read these minutes later today I'm sure they will instantly realise that on this occasion you are somewhat detached from pole position in this event.



If everyone who disagrees with these changes writes to David Farmer and the secretary of state, then these proposals hopefully won't see the light of day.



I suppose the GMBPDB is consistent with every other UK taxi organisation in that they retain the option of whether or not to make such information available in the interest of the public? You can't really round on the GMBPDB for being more open than most every other taxi organisation in the UK.

Anyone who openly empowers UK taxi drivers with information and knowledge that others secretly hide must have a lot of respect from those individuals who benefit from such openness.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

And one last thing, if the draft does eventually get presented to the DFT, it will be so with the understanding that it then goes out to consultation with anybody and everybody who would be interested.

Now would you like to make a little bet... about whether or not we ever see the minutes of the GMB Meetings..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

The minutes are now up in the mom minutes post in the news section, you can see whether your observations were correct and whether mine were wrong?

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/files/momminutesgmb.pdf

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

So from your answer, I can conclude that the answer I am looking for, is that he has no official mandate, only an opinion. Having established that fact we can move on.



The reference to "democratic", only applied to an organisation that represents a body of persons who under a structure of accountability are able to elect and remove officers, officials or representatives by way of a democratic voting system. Considering the NPHA is not a democratic organisation in that sense and is not a representative body of the Taxi trade then it will not fit into the niche of a democratic organisation.

I was merely trying to clarify that fact for the interest of all and I thank you for confirming the democratic status of the NPHA.



That's fine, as I previously stated, my enquiry only centred on "where the NPHA got its mandate" to change taxi legislation that effects us Taxi Drivers. I wasn't questioning the ability or business model of Mr Roland in fact I hope he has great success but us taxi drivers need to know who is trying to change legislation to the detriment of all taxi drivers.



We all have opinions whether they be about the taxi trade or anything else but opinions don't give us the right to change legislation to the detriment of taxi drivers.



I'm totally nonplussed at what he says, he can say what he likes. Its what he and others are trying to do to the detriment of taxi drivers that gives me the right to question who gives a mandate and so should everyone else.



What's London private hire licensing got to do with it, or CRBs?

Give me a reason why I or any other person licensed outside of London should be concerned about licensing private hire vehicles within London?

Politicians knew of the dangers associated with some unlicensed minicab drivers for decades and they had ample opportunity to license them if they so desired. They chose not to but that was there prerogative and what's more their decision didn't effect us drivers outside of London one little bit.

The bottom line is that politicians didn't give a chit and London Cab drivers didn't want minicabs licensed in way shape or form. So what does licensing of minicabs have to do with us cab drivers outside of London?



Well Tom that doesn't surprise me in the least because 99.9% of the combined taxi trade doesn't know either. Considering these meetings have been going on since 2007 it shows how desperate these clowns are to keep these discussions secret.



Exactly, why?

I'll tell you why, its because region 2 of the NTA have a problem with the fact the Gladen judgement highlighted the fact that hackney carriage drivers were not bound by the 1976 act unless specifically stated. The NTA, Mr Rolands, the Liverpool T&G, NTTG and the organisation that every taxi driver should be wary of that known as NAPHLEO all decided to change the Gladen judgement by bringing hackney carriage drivers into the net of private hire.

Now these guys will dress it up as something else but the implications for all taxi drivers is substantially to their detriment.



Not in this town they don't but I'm not going to has at a guess as to how many who do but that's not point.



I suspect that's right but what has it got to do with these changes in legislation?



What industry? Are you referring to private hire operators or Taxi drivers?

If you want all cab drivers like this meeting of minds mob to have operator licenses then you are in huge minority.

In respect of Taxi Radio circuits needing an operators license I would like to point out that hackney carriage radio circuits were established long before the introduction of the 1976 act and that act didn't change a thing in respect of hackney carriage radio circuit operators. I didn't see a problem then and I don't see a problem now.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.