Taxi Driver Online

I'll tell you what, you tell me the case that has approved a 5 year survey cycle, and I will run around anywhere of your choosing naked for as long as it takes me to get arrested.

Can't be fairer than that.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well I have to put my hands up and say in all honesty "I don't drive a taxi, and never have".

But in all honesty I wont be able to say that for much longer.

_________________
IDFIMH

He might just tell us to have you thrown in jail for a day or two? lol

Regards

JD

ha ha ha

If its any consolation Mr T I think you know who it is. In fact I bet you were even there? lol

Regards

JD

J.D. First of all I would like to say that damien is only a mere mortal. and as such is capable of making mistakes, in this case, it is a mistake of interpretation of a sequence of events, which stems from a court case involving a MR Holmes and sefton m.b.c in 1999 I believe, if you wan't to know more I will oblige...mrT

J.D. May I ask why have you changed this....??..mrT

you are right...

So I can keep my clothes on then?

It was just a case of mistaken something or another.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex....A bath and a change of clothes might do you the world of good , make a new man of you..mrT..P.S ..BURN THE DRESS

Most people will be aware that Jacobs Consulting recently undertook a survey on behalf of Liverpool City Council, the survey report was finalised on 4/3/05, It was then presented to the licensing Committee on 24/3/05 and accepted by them.

A few days ago I had cause to read part of that survey in connection with an entirely different matter, it is a good job I did because an item of information in the report was factually incorrect.

I subsequently made enquires to find out how these facts could have found themselves into a report which might ultimately be relied upon as being accurate in a court of law.

Having unravelled the reasons how it came about I'm satisfied that it was due to a misunderstanding on behalf of Jacobs Consulting. Market research companies such as Jacobs often use unqualified information in survey reports because they haven't the time to verify the accuracy of the information given. There are many instances where companies such as Jacobs are supplied with information such as was the case in Liverpool where individuals had stated plates had been handed back in to Liverpool city council but when asked by Jacobs to back up their statement with facts they couldn't.

The information they did publish which is factualy wrong came from a reliable source, Jacobs had no reason to doubt its authenticity. However, as I have already stated the information from the third party did not remotely resemble what Jacobs wrote in their report.

To be fair to all concerned this mistake can only be put down as unintentional but perhaps this should be a warning to all those market research companies who conduct these types of surveys to be diligent and verify every item of third party information.

The factually wrong information found in the report is highlighted in bold type and is as follows.

Knowsley and St Helens are both currently undertaking studies to assist their policy review, whilst Sefton has court backing for a review by survey every five years.

Sefton do not have court backing for a survey every five years and neither does any other Authority. Anyone experienced in the legalities of the Taxi trade would have known straight away that this information was incorrect. However, Jacobs were not given that information, what they were given was information that suggested Sefton licensing committee had proposed a survey every five years and not the courts. It is easy to see how the mistake could have been made but never the less, it wasn't picked up by Jacobs and it wasn't picked up by Liverpool council. However, "it was picked up by yours truly".

The matter is now closed but we can all learn a lesson from this mistake by making sure we read these surveys and they are what they are meant to be.

Regards

JD

If you read my latest post on how it came about you will see that although Mr Edwards wrote the report for the committee meeting it was Jacobs who actually supplied the information so it was only right that I removed Mr Edwards name and inserted that of Jacobs. Don't you agree?

You will no doubt see that the information supplied to Jacobs by you know who did not mention the courts had said they could undertake a survey every five years, as I'm sure you know. However the committee said they would conduct a survey every five years probably on the advice of you know whom?

Sussex and I already new that but we thought we would have a little fun with you seeing as how you like to play? You did however get the case right which precipitated the committee decision but then again if you hadn't you would never have been able to live it down. If you have the case? Which I don't, you can always send it to TDO. Perhaps it might even get published in the legal section? If ever we have one? lol

Regards

JD

J.D. A long time ago the issue of plates being returned to Liverpool was raised, and I was not forthcoming with a reply, I think I will now ,when Liverpool was de-reged and the plates went from 300 to 1400+ the system that was used was poor, for E.G. if you were issued a plate and handed it back in it simply went on the shelf and was handed back out to the next person who came in , so Liverpools records only show a transfer of licence.mrT.....

I think Dusty has previously stated that like you he is of the opinion that it is hard to envisage plates not being handed back but Jacobs found no evidence of this and neither has Mr Edwards, so unless you know of a specific case it has to remain hearsay.

Regards

JD

I am working on this,will have a new system soon...mrT