Taxi Driver Online

IMO City Cabs members would probably vote unaimously against the merger now.
Also I think the members that voted last time were more than happy with city cabs current set up, contracts they had and how the company was run. Possibly they saw how CRT was being run and believed a change in committee wasn't in their best interests.

Longshanks, your "opinion" is nothing short of idiocy. I think you were born an ars* and if you live to be a hundred nothing will change. It's what you are, it's in your nature. Now jog on son. I can't remember the last time you made a valid point.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

.

Aye and I bet you and Dod poisoned the well with your loaded proxy votes.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

.

.

This is the one you are trying to dodge Les...



Oh and Les, in-comparison to you, I am a fu*king intellectual.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

.

Aye really!!



Well Les ..?

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

M.

Les you dumb shi*!!



Are you for fuc*ing real?

Les, you and Dod voted on behalf of these ars*holes ... and if anyone should know, it is you?

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

.

So how many proxy votes did you and Dod hold, exactly?

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

Les I’m respectful of your response/opinions, however on a parting note some food for thought for you to choose to accept or dis-regard as you see fit:

I personally do not think it’s right or professional for the Director of a large company to be engaging in ‘tit for tat’ comments about the industry, other companies etc. on social media.

You are as you say entitled to spend your time as you see fit but personally I think social media jousting is ill advised and there are seldom any winners and companies and individuals can easily and unintentionally end up on a ‘sticky wicket’.

With regards to your posts ‘not having any pops’, I quote:

'The real question should be why would an individual or an organisation go to these lengths to appeal against a service that they were willing to provide themselves.
It is not just a sad day for Central Radio Taxis but for the whole of the Edinburgh Taxi Trade. It could have quite easily been avoided with just a little common sense at the outset and a little less self interest from a handful of individuals.
Some people should do a little soul searching and a little less anonymous letter writing. I am not just talking about the CRT Committee members, although they are included.
Taxi driving and providing a taxi service is not the most difficult of professions but we do often go out of our way to make it hard for ourselves.
Will anyone from within the Taxi Trade sit back and look at the causes and failings behind this sad tale to try and prevent the same mistakes happening again in the future?
I doubt it.
There will be a good deal of table thumping, finger wagging and rank talk but how many will take the time and put in a bit effort to find out the full story and the actual cause of this sad story.
Before any CRT member or driver rushes in to look for blame elsewhere a good starting point would be to take time and read their own tender bid then consider the above analysis of hypocrisy'.


As above, you comment on it being a sad day for Central, suggest they did not apply common-sense, suggest soul searching within the Central Committee and advise Central members to read their tender bid.

Central Central Central throughout your post Les.

If you cannot see that this was aimed at Central then you should get someone neutral to read over your posts for feedback before you post them.

A blind man on the street could see/feel the ‘Central’ theme and dig(s) coming through in this post.

Was there really any need for this from a Director in the industry who professes to want to work with your counterparts in other large companies such as Central for the greater good of the taxi trade? Was it really helpful in embracing a good on-going working relationship with Central ?

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

On a final point I take your point re the ballot etc. but what is still massively confusing is how the vote ended up as a NO.

We are both agreed that the City members agreed to fund the study.

At the point of agreeing to the funding (at substantial cost) there could only have been 2 options post study:

a) The study concludes it’s a good idea and will be to my benefit and I should say yes to it.
b) The study concludes that a merger is a waste of time and I will be worse off and should say no to it.


After agreeing to fund the study surely the City members would have then known that they would have to decide yes or no depending on the outcome.

As we all know the outcome was a) as above, so how on earth did the City membership who had agreed to fund the study then decide that they preferred option b) ?

Why the hell did they ever agree to fund the study in the 1st place if they were never going to accept the recommendation and were always going to vote to maintain the status quo?

Les this makes no sense, absolutely no sense at all to me or anyone looking at this from the outside in.

If you are saying that there was NO COMMITTEE INFLUENCE, or that the proxy votes used by the committee were irrelevant to the overall vote then I have to believe you, but most people would struggle to understand what happened here or the logic applied by the City members to vote NO.

No conspiracy theories but it’s also telling that 5 of the 7 man City Committee who all supported the merger at the outset then voted against it despite it being a stick on recommendation from a professional body.

So let’s run this past you again:

We have a proposal, and a professional body (at substantial cost) have carried out an in-depth study and concluded that by accepting the proposal the members of both City and Central will be substantially better off.

You and I are agreed that the merger made great sense and that it would have been massively beneficial for all concerned, and you were as disappointed as the next man that it failed.


So on the face of it the vote looks like a total formality – YES, why would it not be?

WRONG

Central vote YES (approx. 98% in favour).

City vote NO by an overwhelming majority. Was it 95% against?

?????????????????????

NO THANKS I PREFER TO BE WORSE OFF, I was happy to spend a bucket load of cash on the study but I’m VOTING NO as I would hate to benefit from the savings, efficiencies and extra work.

Is that really how taxi drivers behave in Edinburgh? Is that really what the City owners wanted?

That’s for others to decide but I know what I think and I know how/who I think influenced the vote and it looks and feels like self interest at play as opposed to the greater good and wants and needs of the members.

Anyway I’ve said my tuppence-worth and as mentioned I am respectful of your views and thoughts despite us being on different wavelengths Les.

Just a pity that things are now so badly divided and no real light at the end of the tunnel in terms of the trade coming together to fight off the challenges of the APP companies etc.

Divide and conquer or be conquered???????????????????

We had the chance………………………………………

Regards

John Marr