cheshirebest wrote:
Very prompt reply indeed.
You're more than welcome.
cheshirebest wrote:
Yes, it is justifiable in the public interest.
And who speaks for the public? Is it the Consumers Ass, because they supported the OFT's report to the hilt. Or have you evidence which supports the view that fewer cabs available to the public is a good thing?
cheshirebest wrote:
Manchester hackneys run the best fleet outside london.
Do they then insist on brand new TXs, like Birmingham, Solihull, Nottingham, Mansfield (

), and many other councils?
cheshirebest wrote:
As soon as the drinking hours are changed next year there will be taxis for all almost on demand.
Your evidence for this is what? Because even those in power don't really have a clue as to what will happen. A little birdie told me that there is even talk of a third tier of taxis being licensed. Maybe just for the hours of 11.00pm to 6.00am. Now if your views are right and there will be ample supply of cabs to meet any demand from the new licensing hours, then one has to wonder why those at the very top are quite worried.
cheshirebest wrote:
Restrictions exist in all matters.
Doesn't make them always right.
cheshirebest wrote:
Chemists are restricted from opening near an existing one.
Read the report again. A new chemist can open if it opens a certain number of unsociable hours.
cheshirebest wrote:
There are restrictions on the no of MOT stations that are allowed.
Try getting a licence to open one in Manchester.
Two wrongs have never made a right.
cheshirebest wrote:
Apart from all that there are areas like Liverpool that de-limited and had to go back to limiting licences.
They will not be in a hurry to de-limit again will they ?
I expect there are a few councils that will be forever gutless. But I think the gov will do the job for them in a few years.
But isn't Liverpool the place where there were so many cabs that it caused massive traffic jams. Pray tell me how many of those plates which caused all that terrible traffic have been returned to the council?