Taxi Driver Online

I can't be any fairer than to say to you show me where I said "spencer didn't or doesn't exist" Mr Scanner found a D Spencer in Fountain street. In fact he was that taken by him he even put his name in lights on his website lol

I don't know how you became involved because I thought you were man of integrity but you proved me wrong. I can see why Captain Cab got involved because there is more to Captain cab than meets the eye but thats another story. The top and bottom of it is that you all got busy hunting around for a guy that doesn't exist and to satisfy your hunger for a victim you came up with a solicitor from Manchester lol

I only have one word to say and that is pathetic.

In respect of the document? What does it have to do with you what happens to it? It's my document and no one els's. Why it concerns you I have no idea?

JD

Be fair JD, it wasn't THAT good

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

you contradict yourself earlier you was saying whats owned by the site!

why does it concern me? because its changing policy never meant to do that.

open councils are now putting barriers on entry, and the lies told on here yes you did say spencer did not exist!

your document eh!

truth is an injury here truth!

you must think we dont have accessinto las

I was feeling charitable. lol

Regards

JD

Your local TOA is in reference to the article that I believe was written by Mr Wayne Casey and which you sanctioned. The article was a misrepresentation of a particular database of restricted Councils that I produce and was featured in the last issue of your magazine. It carried the Nom de plume "Your local TOA".

You, along with the Deputy editor, have responsibility for the content, which goes into your magazine, therefore you are accountable for any in-house anonymous journalistic material that you publish. It doesn't matter how many anonymous in-house articles you produce the buck stops at you.

Yourself and the Editor set the professional benchmarks for Taxitalk magazine, it is somewhat unfortunate but not surprising that on occasions you don't feel it your duty to maintain the highest professional standards.

It is also your duty as a responsible editor or deputy editor to take the utmost care in not publishing inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. This you failed to do. You intentionally failed in this particular article to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact.

The gentleman in question Mr Wayne Casey is or has been a high ranking official in the Carlisle TOA, I might remind you and Mr Casey that Carlisle have never received a copy of my database. Mr Casey is also an official of the NTA, he was the main instigator who caused the NTA to write an open press release regarding the dissatisfaction in councils that are exercising their democratic right, to apply Taxi policy as they see fit in their own back yard. The only reason why Mr Casey or anyone else for that matter is able to assess the present situation in respect to councils that have or have not de limited is because of my hard work in producing the evidence.

It is no secret that Wayne Casey subscribes to this forum and it is no secret that most of his information is derived from what is written on TDO. Hence the publication of the Gladden case on the NTA website directly after it was so expertly dissected on TDO.

It is no wonder Mr Casey asked for anonymity.

I reserve the right to a fair opportunity to reply to the inaccuracies of MR Casey at a future date of my choosing.

That is why I referred to you as "Your local TOA".

I'm sure with Taxitalk being the professionals Magazine you will no doubt rectify the anonymity of Mr Local TOA in your next edition and perhaps apologise to your readership as to why you found it necessary to mislead them.

Regards

JD

No you're wrong, I personally do not care what plate values are in restricted authorities but I embarked on an exercise to cut out the Myth by some that plate values do not exist. Are you saying you haven't read the database that Mr Casey featured in your latest Edition, or the 2003 OFT report? Don't you enquire of your Journalists the authority on which their information is based?

I suspect you know very well what the plate value is in Manchester, just as you know what it is in Liverpool. Some might think you intentionally quoted twenty grand but if you say it was a figure off the top of your head then so be it. For future reference the next time you quote Manchester the figure is 50 grand.



My criticism is of your interpretation of Section 64. For those who have not read what you wrote I will append the Text to the end of this post. Your interpretation as everyone will see is fanciful.

Section 64 relates to the obstruction of drivers, the emphasis is on "Wilful Obstruction" of drivers. That means if another driver wilfully commits any obstruction mentioned in section 64, then it is an offence.

You made light of section 64 by suggesting any vehicle not giving way to another vehicle exiting from a side road was an offence under section 64. You also suggested that a vehicle overtaking another vehicle and picking up a passenger someway down the road is also an offence. It might be poor etiquette but I can assure you it is certainly not an offence as you suggest under section 64.



Perhaps you should have had the conversation with the LO's before you wrote the article.

My interpretation of section 64 is exactly what it implies, "Wilful obstruction of another driver".

The offence is set out as follows.

"Improperly standing with carriage, refusing to give way to, or obstructing, any other driver or depriving him of his fare"

The circumstances to which this offence might apply are explicitly set out in section 64 as follows.

Any driver of any hackney carriage who suffers the same to stand for hire across any street or along side of any other hackney carriage, or who refuses to give way, if he conveniently can, to any other carriage, or who obstructs or hinders the driver of any other carriage in taking up or setting down any person into or from such other carriage, or who wrongfully in a forcible manner prevents or endeavours to prevent the driver of any other hackney carriage from being hired, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding level 1.

The pivotal point as anyone can deduce from reading this section is that it infers, in order to commit an offence the action must be one of a wilful nature.

Wilful obstruction.

Wilfully depriving another driver of his fair by intimidation or force. That means in this modern age if I over take you and pick up a flagger and you pull in front of me blocking me in, then tell me to eject the flagger because you feel it should be your job and you get stroppy about it, then that is intimidation and obstruction. Get the picture.



I don't know what you've been reading but I already have my own plate and have had for quite some time so has TDO the only person of the three you mentioned who doesn't have a plate is Sussex. What you can't seem to grasp is that some people couldn't give a chit about retaining numbers for whatever reason. My reason is based on equality and the fact that people who represent the Taxi trade have one preocupation and that is restriction. You said to Sussex that it pizzes you off when people get the Wirral facts wrong well it pizzes others off when you get Taxi drivers and Taxi organisations spouting bull chit and lies just to feather their own nest.



You better read the last paragraph I wrote, TDO and I already have a plate so your observations are unfounded and misguided. You believe restrictions should be maintained at all costs that’s why you went to court and tried every conceivable avenue to stop Wirral council implementing their chosen policy. Yet you hide behind the sound bite that a council knows best. You think a council knows best because you think you can persuade or intimidate them into your way of thinking. Well what does it feel like to know that there are 73 councils who have yet to decide on their future policy and so far out of the 343 licensing authorities in England Wales only 37 have decided to retain some form of restriction. That’s 10% so far. Makes interesting reading doesn't it. Do you still subscribe to the theory that councils know best?



You were at the wirral committee meeting when all hell broke loose, I can't say you were at the demonstration that tried to block off the Town Hall but its nice to hear you acknowledge that this type of intimidation takes place.

Regards

JD

Taxi Laws And You

By D Cummins

Gentleman's Agreement? I think not

Wherever the authority or area there are rules of the road or a code of conduct in place, and a general rule of thumb is, the more taxis, the more the rules are open to interpretation. Overtaking a cab plying for hire, whilst plying for hire is a universally recognised no-no, and giving way to an oncoming cab is widely practised. Letting a taxi out of a side street or letting them in to a side street (sometimes risking a rear-end shunt) are less well observed in larger Metropolitan areas, but in my area, Wirral it is still the rule rather than the exception.

Less well known, is that the code of conduct has a legal framework and by rights should be part of your licensing conditions. Section 64 Town Police Clauses Act(1847), which is the main legislation regarding taxis, under the heading: Improperly standing with carriage; refusing to give way to, or obstructing, any other driver or depriving him of his fare.

States 'Any driver of any hackney carriage who suffers the same to stand for hire across any street or alongside of any other hackney carriage, or who refuses to give way, if he conveniently can, to any other carriage, or who obstructs or hinders the driver of any other carriage in taking up or setting down any person into or from such other carriage, or who wrongfully in a forcible manner prevents or endeavours to prevent the driver of any other hackney carriage from being hired, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding level 1. -Now that's what I call a sentence!

I understand the somewhat tortuous syntax of Victorian England might look and read like a foreign language, but stick with it. In a nutshell it is stating that any drivers who prevents another driver from progressing, refusing to let him out of a side road etc, or who deprives him of his fare or even endeavours to do any of these things is liable to prosecution, a penalty not exceeding level 1,which is a maximum of £200.

So the next time you are plying for hire and a taxi passes you at warp factor 5, then picks up half a mile down the road, as they say, don't get mad, get even.