Taxi Driver Online

Well it was a template process, if that's what she means, although the word 'petition' was also used, as I recall it. And it was obvious from the agenda paper that 395 of them had been accepted by the council under that template. So if the other couple of hundred were submitted under the same process, where are they?

It surely doesn't matter if it's called a petition as long as it conforms to the format required by the legislation. But it didn't

So the problem isn't the word 'petition', but that neither the petition organisers nor the council noticed that the format didn't conform to the procedural requirements.


Maybe 'reviewing the process' means deflecting by calling it all a petition, and kicking it all into the long grass

So according to the EFTA Uber template page, 639 signatures were collected as what EFTA called a 'legally valid objection'

https://eastfife.scot/campaigns/uber/


But the council's agenda paper clearly showed 395 signatories under the template (pages 34-49).

So there's something like 200 missing. But if they've all been submitted under the same template, the council's attempt to characteristic them as a petition is surely a red herring.

(That's Template 2 - there's also a Template 1 above it in the agenda paper, but that's just 17 signatories. And not entirely clear why there are two templates - maybe Template 1 was organised by someone else, but pretty sure Template 2 is the one organised by EFTA).

https://www.fife.gov.uk/_services/share ... emId=85031


And EFTA via their new Uber Fife website initially didn't dispute the total of 431 objections - the figure in fact appears on the homepage of the new site. "431 objections thrown out" in huge letters halfway down the page.

So they accepted the 431 figure and what was in the agenda paper, and didn't dispute the numbers until several days after the meeting. And thus hadn't realised that the 431 figure was hugely inconsistent with the figure on their own website

https://uberfife.com/