Taxi Driver Online

This is on the Sheffield Star's website, and contains a slightly unusual feature for the mainstream press, and not difficult to spot it.

But sounds like the car was booked (via Veezu, which I think bought local firm ABC a year or two ago?) by the perps, presumably with the intention of robbing the driver

Although the Star's report makes it sound like he was just approached by two randoms, so who knows if they were the pair who actually made the booking?

Sounds like knives and/or a hammer, so pretty full on


Fir Vale: Taxi driver attacked in car on Sheffield street by armed men wearing ski masks

A taxi driver was set upon in his car in Sheffield by two robbers wearing ski masks and armed with weapons.

The driver was sitting in his vehicle on Skinnerthorpe Road, just off Barnsley Road, Sheffield, on Monday, February 3, when he was reportedly approached by the men at around 8.45pm.

Police said he was attacked with weapons, and a knife was reportedly brandished during the robbery, with the victim’s phone and cash being taken.

The Private Hire & Taxi Monthly newspaper reported that the two men had fled the scene after members of the public intervened.

It said the driver’s face was badly bruised face and he was bleeding heavily following the assault.

Anyone with information is asked to contact South Yorkshire Police online or by calling 101, and quoting incident number 911 of February 3.

So it's unusual for the mainstream press to quote PHTM, as opposed to PHTM using articles from the mainstream press.

Can't find any mention of the incident on the South Yorkshire Police website, but this is the PHTM piece. It's a bit mysterious as well - reads like someone on the ground sent PHTM a message of some kind, but it's not clear who the source is...


SAD TO SHARE THIS MESSAGE TAXI DRIVER VIOLENTLY ATTACKED IN SHEFFIELD

https://www.phtm.co.uk/news/7382/phtm-n ... -sheffield

“I wanted to inform you about a disturbing incident that occurred last night.

A taxi driver, who is 40 years old and of Asian descent, was attacked, robbed, and severely beaten at around 8:45 pm on Skinnerthorpe Road Barnsley Rd, near Tesco Express.

The driver had received a booking via Veezu for two young lads, aged between 16 and 18, who were fully masked.

The perpetrators took the driver's phone and money, and proceeded to physically assault him.

As a result, the driver sustained a badly bruised face and was bleeding profusely.

It is believed that a weapon, possibly a hammer, was used in the attack. Fortunately, some locals intervened and the two youths fled the scene.

The police arrived promptly, within 15 minutes of the incident being reported.

In light of this shocking event, I urge you to exercise extreme caution and remain vigilant, especially when accepting bookings from unfamiliar clients. Safety should always be a top priority.

Please stay safe and keep a lookout for any suspicious activity. Let's all work together to ensure the safety and well-being of our community. Take care.”

While since I've read PHTM, but just had a quick skim through the 'Reflections of an Industry Expert' piece in the February edition.

OMG, as they say on social media

The trade has 10s of 1000s of licensed folks who view themselves as industry experts and millions of punters who also share that view.

We are so fortunate to have those people.

_________________
IDFIMH

I certainly don't deny the author's status as an 'expert', Sussex, but he's an insider/vested interests/boss class type - an exemplar of the sort represented by the NPTHA (and the type who reminds me of the likes of Steve Wright MBE ).

And he obviously knows his target audience. But reading the article, one thing stands out for me - he clearly doesn't like 'worker' status, and obviously his target audience won't like it either.

But he does absolutely zero to address the substance of the legal arguments - he just doesn't like the consequences. That's neatly encapsulated here:


And which kind of underlines what I've been saying for years about Uber being a bit of tall poppy in this regard

The other slightly bizarre thing about the article is that basically he laments that operators haven't done enough to address the issue, but he doesn't really say what they should do in that regard

Although, reading between the lines, maybe he means that the government needs to do it via legislation.

If so, that too confirms what I've been saying about it all, and about Uber being a tall poppy and easy target. Basically, as the law stands, the vast majority are just lucky they've not been targetted in the employment tribunals and courts yet - which again is what he seems to be saying in the second sentence of the paragraph quoted above

I struggle to understand why a so-called industry expert would object to drivers having medical and holiday pay, and not having to work 60-80 on average to earn a reasonable wage.

Maybe when such so-called industry experts wonder why the likes of Uber are taking over everywhere, and drivers are joining them on mass, they should look in the mirror to see who shares some of the blame.

_________________
IDFIMH

Could easily write a few thousand words dissecting the article, but it's basically propaganda for the legacy circuits. Who obviously don't like the thought of 'worker' status for drivers. Who knew?

But, to repeat, he does nothing at all in the article to challenge the substantive legal case, or, in particular, why the Uber Supreme Court ruling shouldn't apply to many legacy circuits.

I mean, check out the, er, lack of nuance here:


Earlier in the article he claimed to run 'what was at the time the largest taxi company in
Europe'.

I'd guess that's something like when he was 'head of regulatory affairs' at Addison Lee. And we all know what happened to Addison Lee as regards this kind of thing

A quick search throws this up via Google AI:


Another quick search throws this summary up:


So, no, Mr Industry Expert - to be a private hire driver you can't just 'wear what you want' etc. Or, even if you can, that's hardly the end of the story as regards the substantive law on worker status

Problem is, it IS quite complicated. But then the essence of spin and propaganda is often to make complex things seem straightforward

Also meant to mention that little nugget regarding why the employment tribunal decided Addison Lee drivers should have 'worker' status.

The PHTM piece kicked off with the likes of this:


So a former Addy Lee bigwig is saying that the standard legacy operator has the same policy as one of those that meant Addy Lee's drivers were deemed 'workers' by the employment tribunal...

Way to go

(Should really have started a new thread with this, but thought that once I'd started I'd spend hours and hours on it...which would no doubt be even more pointless and a huge waste of time than this thread is already )