Taxi Driver Online

Again your use of the word "grass" within the context of your satement suggests that you believe Nidge let out information you personally didn't want disclosed.

You may think the silence is deafening Dusty, but neither my PM or my email inbox contains information as to where evidence should be forwarded.

You may think the silence is deafening Dusty, but neither my PM or my email inbox contains information as to where evidence should be forwarded.

I would also like to take this opportunity to state that some evidence has been provided, the banning of Nidge and MRT, the unfounded allegations that "someone" is writing something that another posts, are all contributing factors that this site and very possibly you in particular have something to hide.

I will clarify for anyone interested that I have agreed to send the information I'm fully aware of, to the administrators of this site, they have to date failed to supply it.

I would also say that allegations have been made on here, along with evidence relative to the membership of this site, I do not wish to dictate which side of the argument they should believe, if either, as I would much rather they made up their own minds.

So I reiterate, an allegation was made that a person had contacted local authorities using the name Taxi Driver Online, this person had claimed that information and opinion had been gathered from the membership of the site, all working taxidrivers, and the administrators had written a "paper" based on that information under the heading "Myth and Reality". Alongside this "paper" a list had been produced showing plate values in all restricted councils throughout the UK.
Along with this list and the Myth and Reality document, councils were also sent "mis-quoted" passages from both the OFT investigation and the DfT review.

Initially I had concerns that M&R would be used to express the views of the membership of this site, but at that time membership to the site was "open", and I knew from previous experience that councils questioned the credibility of such sites as they had no form of record on which to base their credentials. Then all of a sudden, about 9 months after the release of the M&R document the site decided to insist that in order to contribute registration was required and further "papers" were circulated.

At that time people who had shared my concerns started to notice other things, some from within their own area other from what they had been told. Some of these people decided to collate the varied information with the same name being mentioned time and time again.
This name was then published on this site, the post was deleted and the poster banned, subsequent posts mentioning the same name are still being automatically altered, with the question as to why remaining unanswered.

This evidence alone should be sufficiant at least to question the real intentions of the administration of this site, again I'm asking NO-ONE to believe me, all I ask is that you ask the questions.

The administrators of this site have admitted to contating councils, offering the M&R document and subsequently published lists, they claim however that they have NOT claimed to have published "on our behalf" but at best they imply that it was all compiled by us, even if the final document was written by them.

Who exactly are these people, does it matter that they are possibly using your details to promote what they believe is the way forward without your permission or knowledge, even if you disagree.

A number of prominant posters have reduced their contribution since this issue was raised, to the point that they still visit and read but do not actually post at all.

The admin want the evidence, they claim that it hasn't been offered but as I've said the evidence is contained within the pages of this website, if anyone cares to look.

B. Lucky

[long with this list and the Myth and Reality document, councils were also sent "mis-quoted" passages from both the OFT investigation and the DfT review.

[A number of prominant posters have reduced their contribution since this issue was raised, to the point that they still visit and read but do not actually post at all.

[At that time people who had shared my concerns started to notice other things, some from within their own area other from what they had been told. Some of these people decided to collate the varied information with the same name being mentioned time and time again.
This name was then published on this site, the post was deleted and the poster banned, subsequent posts mentioning the same name are still being automatically altered, with the question as to why remaining unanswered.

That's hardly surprising given that you're contacting people and spreading mis-information.

I've wasted a lot of time on this nonsense, and it will all be deleted next week, so I would hurry up with your 'massive amounts of evidence'.

You make us doing what the site was set up for as some sort of sinister plot to bring down the world, but the reality is that it's just part of a plot to discredit this site, unless, of course, you can produce evidence to the

contrary.

That's hardly surprising given that you're contacting people and spreading mis-information.

T.D.O. ANSWER PLEASE YES or NO was this site set up to gather information, to send out to councils and govt depts........mr T..

Not true, I was contacted about the issue.

As far as spreading mis-information, the only information I have passed on concerning this site was confirmed by yourself, that being that this site had sent information to councils under the TDO banner, consisting of the M&R document and lists previously submitted within the site.

What I have QUESTIONED is the motives behind these actions, what I have QUESTIONED is the issue of credentials.

You see, your reaction is because of whom asked the questions rather than the content of them, your reactions have raised more issues and therefore further questions.

My belief is that anyone who either claims or implies that they represent or speak on behalf of any individual or group should have their credentials included within any argument they make, should they choose to take that argument to a third party for further consideration.

What I mean by that is that TDO the site is right to allow people to post anonymously within its site if it so wishes, however I would want to know who is sending out information I have contributed should they wish to publish outside of the site.

That is why I believe the questions need to be asked, if your not willing to answer them then thats fine but you must then expect people to start coming to their own conclusions, particularly when there is evidence to support such conclusions, even if that evidence is circumstancial.

You seem to think that I'm heading this "investigation", I repeat this is not the case, this thread has developed into an argument to which people OTHER THAN me have resorted to personal insults to which I have responded in a similar manner. The only reason this has been done, as far as I'm concerned, is to deflect from the original questions raised.

I will supply the information as I have it, which is in "hard copy" good old fashioned paper so that you can see where the information has been obtained, as per letterhead. I will not type a post containing extracts nor will I type a post containing all of the information as because I cannot prove to everyone that what I have written comes from the people who have written it within such posts. If I were to do this, I believe you would make an attempt to discredit the information by questioning its validity.

You can try all you like to provoke a response TDO but I will not fall into the trap you are trying to set, the information I have is available to you, but you must allow me to provide it to you in the same manner I've recieved it.

B. Lucky

See that's where you are wrong again. Nigel thought he had some confidential info on someone, and decided he should give it out to all.

The fact that he was 100% wrong is not the issue, as he would have found out today if he went where he said he was going. It's the fact that he thought he would look good spouting off peoples details on here, but inturn has made himself look a bigger pillock than normal.

What I can't understand is why you were taken in by it all?

What I have QUESTIONED is the motives behind these actions, what I have QUESTIONED is the issue of credentials.

That is why I believe the questions need to be asked, if your not willing to answer them then thats fine but you must then expect people to start coming to their own conclusions, particularly when there is evidence to support such conclusions, even if that evidence is circumstancial.