Taxi Driver Online

Andrew Mitchell
Community Safety, Senior Manager
City of Edinburgh Council

"The current position is that the Council has adopted a taxi limitation policy and unless and until the regulatory committee decides otherwise that policy stands. The taxi limitation policy was last reviewed by the council in October 2007. the Scottish Government recommends that Councils periodically reviews a decision to maintain such a policy.

At this point there are no immediate plans to review that policy although it is likely that a demand survey will be carried out before the end of the current financial year. Should the Committee decide to review the policy appropriate consultation will take place and your contribution to such a consultation would be welcomed"

Nice one Mr Mitchell.

Yes I would respond to a consultation, but we all really know such consultations are a sham. And that consultations only ever deliver what the politicians want it to.

Meanwhile Mr Mitchell, consider this:-

As one who is supposed to be charged with public safety:-

What part of women have been raped because they couldn't hail a cab don't you understand? In your professional role you must be aware of lady Smith's judgement when she sent the perp down for 5 years?

What part of the council artificially restricting cabs, making it more difficult than it need be for vulnerable women to hail a cab don't you understand.


The fact is Community safety doesn't mean anything when it competes with the council's own vested interest. Mr Mitchell has just proved this.

We couldn't possibly allow the small matter of women being harmed to affect our bus and tram interests can we?

Or the small matter of women being harmed get in the way of a Masonic influence, can we?

And, what part of Sarah Boyack's article that 30% of women are afraid to go out at night doesn't the council understand?

How does deliberately making it harder to hail a cab improve community safety?

What's a couple of women being harmed when it comes to making sure your empire is affected?

What we need to see, and what I am now going to be asking, is what representations our alleged COMMUNITY SAFETY OFFICER has made to the RC in respect of impact that the limitation of taxis has on public safety. And if he hasn't asked the question, then we need to know why he hasn't.

The last evaluation of the limitation policy was in 2007. It was a sham. Inch put around 120 pages of documents before councillors for a meeting with around 50 items on the agenda. They couldn't possibly read all the guff before them, even if they were interested. And we know they weren't. Yet, despite not having full knowledge they decided to maintain the restriction. They did this because they followed the lead of the men in grey suits who are programmed to maintain privilege.

Yet, women being harmed because they couldn't hail a taxi failed to trigger a policy rethink. How can that possibly be? Shouldn't it have been the first thing to do?

Councillors should be ashamed. But they won't let shame get in the way of their expense claims and exercising their little bit of power to lord it over the rest of us.

Imagine an RC with women on it failing to protect other women as best they could? How far does one's fundamental morality have to slip for that to be the case?

I remember the zeal which Councillor Lang showed when she stiffed the licence applicants and refused their licences. She was almost visibly "wetting" herself with the excitement of it. And her little excitement jolly just made it harder for women to hail a cab, to be safe in the city where 30% of women don't even go out at night because they're afraid.

And those women staying at home is harming the taxi trade's business, as well as every other commercial outlet desperate for their business in these harsh economic times.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

What's safer for females,

Walking out in the dark and trying to hail a cab OR staying exactly where they are indoors and calling a cab/PHC to come to the door and pick them up thus removing the element of having to go out into he street?

jasbar: you're talking shiiit again.

Regardless of Restriction or de-Restriction, there is going to be a shortage of Cabs when the Clubs come out.

You've spent too much time reading the Star, The Sun and The Mail. Cut the emotive language and produce a well reasoned argument and you may get through the the Councillors who are not producing the answer that you want.

_________________
Don't dream it ~ Be it.

What, so everyone should remain in the club or pub they patronize until some fuc*ing arse like you finds the time to pick them up.

Yeah skull, some arse like me

You do know that the average waiting time from the 2 major cab firms is 6 minutes

Much faster than waiting on a rank. And much faster than someone leaving their friends house in say, costorphine hill and having to walk the dark streets of the estate to get to the main St Johns Rd

And do you know a 6-minute average doesn't mean anything at peak time on a Friday or a Saturday night? I know, because we used central's own figures up at the council, and some people were kept waiting over 15 minutes at peak times, and that doesn't include those that couldn't get through on the phones, to make a booking in the first place.

Oh and as for your stupid analogy, of phoning a taxi in corstorphine, the St, Johns road is a main artery between the town centre and the airport. It's hardly the same as walking out of a club or pub at peak times and trying to hail a taxi.

You make the inference that if things agree in some respects, it's the same for others. A 6-minute average means, fu*k all, to some wee lassie coming out a club and walking the street because she can't find a taxi.

Longshanks, have you always been a fu*king arse?

Broken women is all the reasoned argument that's needed.

I've long known I'll NEVER persuade the council to de-restrict.

Because the council is corrupt. It is morally bankrupt.

Edinburgh will de-restrict when it is forced to. When despite the Masonic influence it has no choice.

I await the next rape. This time I will be doing everything possible to encourage the council be sued.

Now, if you doubt what I say, ask the council why the restriction piolicy is in place.

They won't tell you. Because they can't admit to their corruption. I know, I've asked them many times.

But you ask them. Then tell us all so we can laugh at YOU.

BTW Don't you think that in a supposedly democratic and accountable democracy we should be told?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

You make out that every female that goes out at night wants a taxi home. I see them walking about every night, even if I'm for hire, sometimes they want to walk.
Is it not the case that majority of rapes are carried out by people the victim knows and happen indoors? Random attacks in the street aren't that common. There are nutters that go out looking for victims but putting extra taxis on the street won't really affect them.

If you're so concerned about people having to wait for taxis at peak times why not put your efforts into lobbying the council to allow bars and clubs to shut when they choose? Surely that would be a better solution

Why don't you do the lobbying?

The two girls we know were raped because they couldn't hail a cab didn't know their assailants.

It gives me the boak that vested interests will accept any potential, yes even only potential harm, to the public, and not just women, because they can't survive in a free market.

Deresrtrict FFS and let's all get on with our lives. Like most councils have. Like more councils are as we speak.

We have mass unemplkoyment and our government is protecting the bozos in the taxi trade from competition.

Why? And why won't they tell us why.

One of the key influencers on the council is Cardownie. He has PH interests. You saying he's not workming that interest?

The council competes with public transport. They not working a vested interest?

The masonic handshake has more power than a worker's right to work. We're supposed to live in a free society, in a free market and enterprise is supposed to be encouraged.

So why does our politically bankrupt council restrict our right to work, if they are not corrupt?

It only needs one person to be harmed for the restriction to be untenable.

We had two extremely serious cases and the council didn't ever ask the question.

That's powerful corruption.

Especially when you have a Community Safety Officer who only functions insofar as the corrupt policy of the council allows him to.

And that's why this council and this community safety senior manager are a bad joke.

No council can claim to be protecting public safety unless and until it has EVERYTHING it can to ensure public safety. Artificially restricting the supply of taxis available on the street falls well below this fundamental.

People have been and will be harmed by this council artificial restriction policy.

Just to protect vested interests.

Isn't it truly shameful?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"