Taxi Driver Online

This was a good one




So anyone who buys something is greedy?

You must have been pretty greedy buying that car to license as a PH.

Andy P must have been greedy buying his plate in Brighton.

Wait a minute Mick, you bought a saloon plate in Gateshead Mick - you greedy barsteward!

I'll have to buy the papers and fuel before I start work, greedy people these bins!

Dusty

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I was certainly right about this one, and Mick was wrong





I think the one certainty from the OFT will be that they won't endorse having quotas in some areas and not in others.

The only question is whether they endorse quotas at all - I very much doubt it.

Dusty

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Well look Mick, we can't roll back the clock. The council made a decision, which they were entitled to make. They removed numbers control, which you didn't like, so you campaigned to get numbers control reinstated. That is your prerogative, we don't have a problem with that on TDO. It's you guys who want restrictions that scream and shout when you get hurt. You should be looking at the bigger picture, if your council wants to imitate Dublin when they deregulate then more fool you for not advising them of the consequences.

How long do you think restricted numbers will last in England and Wales? I'll tell you, less than 18 months. How long do you think councils will have control over licensing? Less than four years! We are entering the winter of discontent my friend and change is rapidly approaching, you either swim with the tide or get swept away, Mr Fingleton has you in his sights.

Oh by the way? You made such a song and dance about Gateshead getting bombarded with literature that I must inform you that only one copy of my quota list was ever sent to Gateshead and that was at their request. TDO never sent any copies to Gateshead so it just goes to show that your accusations and innuendoes were a lie and meant to damage TDO. In future keep your accusations to fact because this site doesn't take kindly to false accusations

Regards

JD

Mick actually saw the light at one point.

Or for about five minutes, at least




Eureka!!

Dusty

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I think Mick has finally seen the light. He advocates quality control of drivers, it would seem Myth and Reality has finally had an effect on Mick? lol

Regards

JD

Perhaps, but that was a good while before M&R

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I think the archives of TDO could reveal some very interesting contradictions, as you well know.

I hope we don't have to use them.

Regards

JD

Yes, these quotes are from the Taxi Forums UK, which was the first big trade forum, about four years ago.

I was just looking to confirm that I was advocating QC in those days, but was browsing a few other posts.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

lol I can't go back that far. I bet you have some classic footage?

Regards

JD

Which members of the trade do u represent?

JD

Whoa there .................. hang on a second .................. stop the press.


You claimed that I had never advocated quality controls.

You have scoured old forum pages looking for where YOU first advocated quality controls and ONLY came back with confirmation that I was arguing for quality controls as far back as 2002.

I will explain why I believe your whole argument is contradictory.

You are opposed to the idea of paying for a HC vehicle licence on the basis that at some point (many years ago) it was given by the council to the original applicant.

However if the council has no restriction on numbers but has a brand new purpose built vehicle policy you have no problem.

You see, BOTH examples restrict numbers, both examples require large investment which, in many cases involves a greater financial investment in a purpose built vehicle.

When I bought my saloon plate I made the decision based on the fact that I would be paying a PH operator £5,200 a year to work from their office, and I would be paying that as long as I was PH. On the other hand I could pay a one off payment of £5,500 for a HC plate and have no further expenditure.

I know that plate values are massively different across the country, but that is wholly dependant on which vehicle the plate is attached to, a point not covered within your list. High plate values are generally in areas where a purpose built vehicle is required and therefore included within the purchase price .............. after all when these plates were given out for nothing they didn't include the cost of the vehicle.

Even so I do not condone or support plate values, I do believe that drivers and vehicles should meet high standards but these standards need to be enforced.
That is why I think a councils responsibilities is to properly and fully manage the HC trade and greater penalties should be imposed on PH operators who don't do the same.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

I don't think I quite said that?

Where exactly?



ONLY you? No, it's you that's currently making claims about some kind of scorched earth policy, thus I checked back to confirm that I'd always been making the QC argument.

I've never claimed that you haven't made some kind of QC argument, have I? Indeed, I think it was myself and others making a case for an age rule that persuaded you to make that case your LA back then - presumably they didn't listen, but I was certainly making the QC case, and I've never claimed that you haven't.

Indeed, on the contrary, in the years since then I've read quite eloquent and persuasive posts by yourself regarding QC, and I've not argued otherwise, have I - I was trying to refute YOUR arguments re TDO's stance, not saying anything about your QC stance. The only thing I've said recently is that I support your QC advocacy but not numerical restrictions, which has been my consistent and only stance since I started in the trade.




Can't say I've ever said that exactly, but it's worth noting that every purpose built taxi has to be bought by someone in the trade. Agree?



Well it ensures a more level playing field, and it also keeps numbers down, thus to an extent it pays for itself.

And, as I said above, the cost of PB vehicles has to be borne by someone in the trade, so how can you blame others for that?





Yes, it's up to each driver to choose, and surely they should be able to do this on the basis of a level playing field? In Brighton you buy a decent saloon for £10k, but a plate is several times this, and while most people can raise the cash for a decent saloon, a plate is a different kettle of fish - if they don't have a house as collateral they're knackered, and how many new and young drivers have this - thus they're in a catch 22 since they are kept down financially by not having a plate, yet can't get a plate because they're kept down finacially



Well it's not my list, for the hundreth time, but the vehicle is never included in any figure that I or others quote for the plate, that's why it's called the plate premium.



Totally contradictory - you can't have restricted numbers without plate values.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Oh but you can.

and when we have, you will see how its possible

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

No you definitely don't remember me contacting councils to tell them how to run licensing.

Secondly if I were to have contacted a council "on behalf of people" those people would have been members and would have spoken or written to me to request some help or advice.

I have never published a document which is bias in favour of derestriction and then tried to pass it off as a fair appraisal of the HC trade.
M&R is a fantastic document, it is well written but it is bias toward derestriction ............... I know you don't accept that, but it so clearly is.


Listen ...................... I learn new things every day .............. I do not nor have I ever claimed to know everything ................... I consider myself to be experienced but not an expert ............... I am always ready to hear new ideas and I'm always man enough to state my opinion which has changed as my knowledge has grown.
You claim that some of the statements I made 4 years ago contradict what I state now ................... but that's because I have continually learned and sought new information. You say that you still have the exact same opinion that you had 4 years ago which is sad as it indicates you have learned nothing.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

So you mean the whole thing fell apart before you got round to it? I certainly remember at least one other regional rep who announced to the forum that they had been contacting councils - it was probably either Peter, Alan or Nidge. Not that it bothered me, of course, because while it never really good going it was not a bad idea in principle.

But your stance on this smacks of the good old Taxi "talk" syndrome - spouting their message for all to hear, which I don't object to in principle, but then if anyone else does likewise then they cry foul, particularly when those others are doing a better job of disseminating their message or what they say is contrary to the accepted wisdom.

We do live in a democracy with freedom of expression and all that, but listening to some people we'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise.



And why, for example, do you come on forums such as this if you want Gateshead to exist in some kind of licensing bubble? And why have did you run at least on similar forum yourself? And invited LOs from all councils on to it (for a small fee)?

I really can't see what the problem is - I certainly have no objection to you or anyone else contacting any council or anyone on any matter, which is in fact what living in a democracy is all about. But as usual it seems to be more about the wrong message being communicated rather than the methodology; thus clutching at straws instead of engaging in substantive debate.







We've been here a hundred times before as well. M&R has not been 'passed off' as anything. It's clear from the first page that it's anti-restricted numbers, so what stance did you expect the rest of the document to take?

And, as I've repeated umpteen times before, the word bias is inappropriate because that implies that the document was not supposed to take sides, while it's actually fairly obvious what side it's on.



Well I've learned a lot in the past few years as well, and I'm learning all the time. But this is just in relation the the details; as regards the overriding principles I've not changed one iota, and why should I - you don't change your mind on fundamental principles merely due to the passing of time, surely?

A person's values and principles may evolve over time, and their knowledge will certainly grow and to that extent change their principles to some extent, but fundamental change is a longer process, and might even indicate inconsistency, or even opportunism or hypocrisy but, on the other hand, there's nothing wrong with a reasoned change of mind, which may come due to greater maturity and experience, for example.

It's like strategy and tactics in battle or management - the strategy remains largely the same except in the long term or in response to a fundamental change of circumstances, whereas tactics change more readily in response to less important day-to-day events and happenings.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk