Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Wed Apr 29, 2026 6:53 pm

Board index » General » Cab Act 201?

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 10
  [ 138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Chris the Fish
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
I can't bet with you - I want the bet that has same winning post as you have taken.

What we have to do is try to keep the bits we like and at the same time try to change the things we don't.

We'll win some and lose some. Just have to hope that we can swing it as far as we can in the direction we want.

Then it starts all over again with the MP's......

....Then the Lords......

....then the MP's again.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related
Top
 Profile  
 
MR T
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Chris the Fish wrote:
I can't bet with you - I want the bet that has same winning post as you have taken.

What we have to do is try to keep the bits we like and at the same time try to change the things we don't.

We'll win some and lose some. Just have to hope that we can swing it as far as we can in the direction we want.

Then it starts all over again with the MP's......

....Then the Lords......

....then the MP's again.

and then a new government

_________________
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
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
The annoying thing about the Law Society's proposals and how closely they are between the sheets with the major private hire companies is the contempt they treat the rest of the trade....

_________________
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
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
MR T wrote:
If you take everything in this document that you don't like, and compare it with what you have to day...... which would you vote for.

I think you mean "stay as you are" or what the "Current Proposals" are.

I'll vote for the status quo in that scenario - but a telling bit is the word "current". I may be naive but I am thinking that this consultation will actually see some changes made. So I won't cast my vote until I see what is presented to Parliament.

As well as the efforts that we make, I really believe the LA's and LO's are distinctly unhappy with the Current Proposals and strangely, I think their concerns are easily allied to ours.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related
Top
 Profile  
 
Chris the Fish
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
Mr T, the Law Society are a completely different mob, they are the Solicitors professional body - a bit like the General Medical Council are for medical Doctors.

We are "dealing" with the Law Commission.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related
Top
 Profile  
 
MR T
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Chris the Fish wrote:
MR T wrote:
If you take everything in this document that you don't like, and compare it with what you have to day...... which would you vote for.

I think you mean "stay as you are" or what the "Current Proposals" are.

I'll vote for the status quo in that scenario - but a telling bit is the word "current". I may be naive but I am thinking that this consultation will actually see some changes made. So I won't cast my vote until I see what is presented to Parliament.

As well as the efforts that we make, I really believe the LA's and LO's are distinctly unhappy with the Current Proposals and strangely, I think their concerns are easily allied to ours.

I don't disagree with you Chris... in the past years the trades biggest enemy has been itself, everyone needs to respond to the Law Society..... but they need to understand what it is they are responding to.... and I personally don't think they do, with a few exceptions.... and they are not necessarily the National association's or union's.....

_________________
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
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Chris the Fish wrote:
Mr T, the Law Society are a completely different mob, they are the Solicitors professional body - a bit like the General Medical Council are for medical Doctors.

We are "dealing" with the Law Commission.

lawyers are lawyers to me...

_________________
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
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Quote:
General Medical Council are for medical Doctors
Another bunch that look after themselves

_________________
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  
 
Brummie Cabbie
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
Sussex wrote:
I'm reliably informed that the group allegedly speaking on the trade's behalf, the Meeting of Minds, had a meeting today.

It appears nearly all agreed that the Law Commission's position, that PH will all be of the same standard and work with any operator no matter where they are licensed, was a view that should be supported.

Really?

I wouldn't like to have your source of information and trust it implicitly!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.
Top
 Profile  
 
Sussex
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57347
Location: 1066 Country
Dusty Bin wrote:
Incidentally, what proportion of the country's PH would have quality controls above the minimum, and thus would be affected in the way you claim?

Well that's part of the problem, no-one knows what the standard will be.

I suspect we will all be spiraled downwards to the London standard, which appears to be held up as a beacon of our future.

This beacon which has produced how many rapists? :sad:

_________________
IDFIMH
Top
 Profile  
 
Sussex
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57347
Location: 1066 Country
toots wrote:
Financial reasons are not sufficient for the Law Commission to consider it a problem, we operate in a free market and as has been said before 'if you can't stand the heat'. The problem caused by having too many earning too little leads to passengers being driven by drivers who are taking risks with passenger safety in so far as the vehicle maintenance may be delayed or drivers will work excessive hours

I have no problem with the Law Commission proposing anything, that's their job.

However I do have a problem with our so-called national reps signing away our futures.

_________________
IDFIMH
Top
 Profile  
 
Sussex
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57347
Location: 1066 Country
MR T wrote:
The N T T G cannot be representing anyone by virtue of the fact that they have held no meetings to discuss the Law Society's proposals.....

Someone needs to tell Mr Conner that then.

More hats than the Queen. :sad:

_________________
IDFIMH
Top
 Profile  
 
Dusty Bin
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Sussex wrote:
Well that's part of the problem, no-one knows what the standard will be.


Isn't it just basic fit and proper, ie a character test and medical for drivers?

The idea being that HC drivers could be anything above that, as decided by each LA, but HC drivers couldn't go below PH standards, because they'd be rock bottom?
Top
 Profile  
 
Sussex
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57347
Location: 1066 Country
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
I wouldn't like to have your source of information and trust it implicitly!!

If my source wasn't a reliable one, then I wouldn't have said it was.

I think you need to open up your eyes and review some of you so-called trade friends.

_________________
IDFIMH
Top
 Profile  
 
Dusty Bin
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm
Posts: 3272
MR T wrote:
The N T T G cannot be representing anyone by virtue of the fact that they have held no meetings to discuss the Law Society's proposals.....


Like that's ever bothered any union, association or other representative group :lol:
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 10
  [ 138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

Board index » General » Cab Act 201?

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 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