Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri May 01, 2026 4:00 am

Board index » General » News

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Chris the Fish
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
Burger - wrong there, that is it should be there not their.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related
Top
 Profile  
 
captain cab
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Chris the Fish wrote:
Their could be a case to support them, wanted support or not!


What do we support......the drivers over ranking, the abuse of section 52, the fact the council issued too many taxi licenses?

I note the GMB have been quite vocal on this.......how many GMB members were suspended in Tendring?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
MR T
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Skull wrote:
MR T wrote:
Ignorance.... stupidity...... are words that describe certain people.... on here...... councils operate round rules..... and unfortunately for trade reps.... we have to have permission off the people involved before we can act for them...... we cannot just go sailing in.... the council will not deal with any one who is not authorised..... but as trade reps we know all this... that's why we do not make ourselves look stupid...... sometimes our hands are tied by the very people we are trying to help.... not insulting anyone.... just stating a fact.... :shock:


What these guys needed was Legal Representation and the funding to make it happen. I can't believe that had this been offered almost immediately, all 21 would have decided on a holiday instead.

As I have said before it is not about the 21 suspensions in isolation but how it affects all of us in the long term.

Ashfield council is making a statement.

:-|
what these drivers need... is a backbone.. unfortunately you can't buy that with money, I have a sneaking suspicion that they could well have got legal aid....

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
Top
 Profile  
 
Skull
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 10460
Chris the Fish wrote:
Their could be a case to support them, wanted support or not!


The 21 Ashfield numpties are strutting around pretending that it's no big deal being suspended for a month.

It won't be that when they are back driving and shi**ing it to put a foot wrong. I wonder how long it will be before the council slaps them down again?

:-|

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"
Top
 Profile  
 
Chris the Fish
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
captain cab wrote:

What do we support......the drivers over ranking, the abuse of section 52, the fact the council issued too many taxi licenses?

CC


We surely object, with every means possible, the abuse of section 52.

I have previously said, used in the proper way I want section 52 even though in Plymouth we do not have it. But, open to abuse I do not want it at any cost.

I wonder what the DfT position is, so far I find them pretty damn silent?

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related
Top
 Profile  
 
MR T
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Chris the Fish wrote:
captain cab wrote:

What do we support......the drivers over ranking, the abuse of section 52, the fact the council issued too many taxi licenses?

CC


We surely object, with every means possible, the abuse of section 52.

I have previously said, used in the proper way I want section 52 even though in Plymouth we do not have it. But, open to abuse I do not want it at any cost.

I wonder what the DfT position is, so far I find them pretty damn silent?
They expect councils use common sense.... and then thought I was joking when I said commonsense and councils do not mix...

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
Top
 Profile  
 
captain cab
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Chris the Fish wrote:
captain cab wrote:

What do we support......the drivers over ranking, the abuse of section 52, the fact the council issued too many taxi licenses?

CC


We surely object, with every means possible, the abuse of section 52.

I have previously said, used in the proper way I want section 52 even though in Plymouth we do not have it. But, open to abuse I do not want it at any cost.

I wonder what the DfT position is, so far I find them pretty damn silent?


The abuse was IMO only to be expected......the LA already had similar provisions via the 1972 Local Government ACT and this was hardly ever used........what we have now is delegated powers to licensing departments to use section 52 at their leisure and no clear guidance from government in how to use it.

I did make my fears pretty clear at the NTA conference last year, the DFT asked for proof of abuse and it is now just starting to come through......indeed in Ashfield there are 21 good reasons LA's cannot be trusted with this power.

There were similar abuses last year, thats why I asked the question......in taxitalk and not a single response to a request made for proof.

I am begining to believe we actually deserve this cr*p.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
Skull
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 10460
MR T wrote:
Skull wrote:
MR T wrote:
Ignorance.... stupidity...... are words that describe certain people.... on here...... councils operate round rules..... and unfortunately for trade reps.... we have to have permission off the people involved before we can act for them...... we cannot just go sailing in.... the council will not deal with any one who is not authorised..... but as trade reps we know all this... that's why we do not make ourselves look stupid...... sometimes our hands are tied by the very people we are trying to help.... not insulting anyone.... just stating a fact.... :shock:


What these guys needed was Legal Representation and the funding to make it happen. I can't believe that had this been offered almost immediately, all 21 would have decided on a holiday instead.

As I have said before it is not about the 21 suspensions in isolation but how it affects all of us in the long term.

Ashfield council is making a statement.

:-|
what these drivers need... is a backbone.. unfortunately you can't buy that with money, I have a sneaking suspicion that they could well have got legal aid....


I've witnessed all this before. I've seen grown men turn to jelly up at the council. I don't believe that all 21, with the right kind of support on offer would accept a suspension unjustly. The real problem is, there is no support mechanism for such a thing happening. I would take a bet that most of the 21 haven't got a pot to pi** in, but this shouldn't mean the council is allowed to get away with it.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"
Top
 Profile  
 
captain cab
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Skull wrote:
I would take a bet that most of the 21 haven't got a pot to pi** in, but this shouldn't mean the council is allowed to get away with it.


I would bet your right......I would also bet we differ on the reasons why they have no pot.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
MR T
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Skull wrote:
MR T wrote:
Skull wrote:
MR T wrote:
Ignorance.... stupidity...... are words that describe certain people.... on here...... councils operate round rules..... and unfortunately for trade reps.... we have to have permission off the people involved before we can act for them...... we cannot just go sailing in.... the council will not deal with any one who is not authorised..... but as trade reps we know all this... that's why we do not make ourselves look stupid...... sometimes our hands are tied by the very people we are trying to help.... not insulting anyone.... just stating a fact.... :shock:


What these guys needed was Legal Representation and the funding to make it happen. I can't believe that had this been offered almost immediately, all 21 would have decided on a holiday instead.

As I have said before it is not about the 21 suspensions in isolation but how it affects all of us in the long term.

Ashfield council is making a statement.

:-|
what these drivers need... is a backbone.. unfortunately you can't buy that with money, I have a sneaking suspicion that they could well have got legal aid....


I've witnessed all this before. I've seen grown men turn to jelly up at the council. I don't believe that all 21, with the right kind of support on offer would accept a suspension unjustly. The real problem is, there is no support mechanism for such a thing happening. I would take a bet that most of the 21 haven't got a pot to pi** in, but this shouldn't mean the council is allowed to get away with it.
I don't think anyone on here would disagree with you...

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
Top
 Profile  
 
MR T
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
some of them haven't got a pot only a Skoda... same thing really :wink:

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
Top
 Profile  
 
Chris the Fish
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
In the ideal world no Taxi (or PH) driver would ever do wrong. If the problem is with section 52 mis-application, perhaps what is needed is for a different approach.

Would it be better to repeal section 52 as it is obvious that one (and now possibly two) Local Authorities can't be trusted with it.

Make it compulsory that all attempts at immediate suspension are dealt with by a bench of Magistrates within 24 hours. The Licensing Officer would have to have enough of a case to involve the Police (first barrier), the custody Sergeant (second barrier) the Bench (third barrier). The bench would have to find a case to be answered and could then set as bail conditions "Thou shalt not drive a licensed vehicle". Of course if it really was "putting at risk" the public, remand in custody is a really good way of achieving an instant suspension.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related
Top
 Profile  
 
Chris the Fish
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
MR T wrote:
some of them haven't got a pot only a Skoda... same thing really :wink:


If they have a Skoda, they do have something to P155 in!

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related
Top
 Profile  
 
MR T
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
The National Private Hire Association, the NTA, and the unions, have all asked the Ministry of Transport to give Clear directions as to when this clause should be used.. the Ministry for Transport have declined to do so....

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
Top
 Profile  
 
captain cab
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
MR T wrote:
The National Private Hire Association, the NTA, and the unions, have all asked the Ministry of Transport to give Clear directions as to when this clause should be used.. the Ministry of Transport have declined to do so....


I think they asked the DfT too :wink:

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Board index » General » News

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 635 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group