Kaiser Soze wrote:
I know what you mean. There are a few in the "bunnet" wearing crew!
You've got to laugh at Jasbar, full of self importance. Does anyone know if Jasbar has ever held his own plate? I've heard he has. If he has how can he justify his views regarding de-restriction etc. if he did have one he's also sold one so is hypocritical to say its illegal to own a plate or they have no value. He should give the money he received for his plate to charity.
I think his best bet is to list the letter he gets from Alex Salmond on eBay and buy a plate with the profit. You don't always have to buy a set of plates, you can get a single plate from M&S etc.
F&ck me I'm still laughing.
I've never owned a plate, and even if I had, I would have the same rights of possession as everyone else (Note, not ownership).
Self important? So what. I do what I do for me and mine. You any different?
I justify my views on de-restriction, whether I possessed a plate or not, because it is right and proper that we are ALL treated equally, each with an equal opportunity to address our needs and market, just the same as every market sector.
Licensing exists to maintain proper standards, not so councils can play God with restriction. And we all know that we're not talking about trade interests with restriction, we're talking about the interests of owners who haven't a commercial bone in their body, and who need the bonus of protectionism to operate. Which doesn't happen in other market sectors. So why should it happen with taxis.
What really disappoints me is that half the trade is already de-restricted, its called private hire. They're pseudo cabs taking away the work which should be done by a proper taxi fleet and reaching the critical mass where they are now dictating terms.
Tell me, when was the last time a private hire was done for using the Greenways? They're already in, because the council really knows that they are taxis in all but name. The deputy leader of the council having private hire interests (to the best of my knowledge) favours his ilk. Anyone doubt he's promoting PH interests over taxis?
Meters in PH. Radios removing the need to return to base. Discounted tariffs. Vastly increasing numbers. The doughnut effect where the cab trade surrendered the suburbs. Plating of PH. promoting company names on PH. These are just a few of the things the PH inspired council has allowed to limit the growth of the taxi trade and deny the rights of drivers to at least compete with their own licences.
But what your post proves is that you don't have a scooby about anything to do with the trade. You know nothing about me, although the merest glance on this forum would tell you all you need to know.
I've argued long and hard for justice in this trade. I've been assaulted, threatened, my family has been threatened and denigrated for just being my family. Attempts have been made to sour my working relationship with the owners I've driven for. And despite being a model driver, one succumbed to the pressure and irrationally sacked on the excuse that I said to him that customers were complaining that the heater wasn't working . A thirty bucks heater valve he wasn't prepared to pay for. (Even waiting for hours for the AA in sub zero temperatures and freezing my borlocks off, and having to get my wife out of bed at 2 in the morning so the taxi could be returned to that owner). Yet he was an owner and I'm not allowed to be. He's no longer an owner, he's off doing little or nothing, another taxi trade failure because he couldn't sit in the saddle and his night shift driver's rental wouldn't finance his lifestyle. Yet he was allowed to be an owner and I am not.
All drivers have the right to aspire. It's a national right in a free market economy. taxi drivers in Edinburgh are being denied a fundamental right.
It doesn't get any more complicated than that. And that's why existing owners maintain the status quo. And that really is about self interest.
Login
Register
FAQ
