Taxi Driver Online

I thought Parliament were our legislators. (Or the European Parliament)

Now, Now Mr T, As a licensed H/C and P/H driver and representing a few more, surley you can't deny me representation at meetings which will effect the trade that I work in? Can you?

Enlighten me Jimbo, what legislation have I tried to alter? I don't ever recall writing or contacting the DfT asking for legislation to be changed? Perhaps you know otherwise, or is this just another opportunistic moment to make unfounded allegations against me based on nothing more than your dislike for facts?

I suppose you will point to some past comment I made about your pet subject deregulation and cite that as your misguided inference as to me failing to convince the DfT to change legislation.

No doubt you are aware that the Liverpool contingent met with Rupert Cope and did everything in their power to try and convince him to ask the Minister of Transport to change legislation. If ever I had a meeting with such persons I would be in no doubt that my powers of persuasion might have been a little more influential than those of the Liverpool contingent? lol

Just jesting of course.

JD

Well they are our legislative body but what is being proposed is the "tinkering" with legislation that You, Mr T, Mr Captain Cab and Mr Gateshead Angel so much favour. This cess pit of ill conceived proposals is a direct consequence of your fixation with tinkering with legislation. Therefore you can hardly criticise the process when you support its format. Or are you saying you no longer support the Tinkering process?

Perhaps we can count the Lincoln Taxi trade out of Mr T's preferred method of legislative change?

JD

Was this actually one of the schedule meeting and why wasn't Mr T invited along as a partial observer? Who took the minutes?

Regards

JD

When did the GMB PDB tell the likes of Naleo and the DfT that they represent all GMB licensed drivers on a national basis?

And when did the GMB PDB get authorisation by all local GMB sections to have national licensed representation?

My guess is that hasn't happened, or at least not prior to MoM 1, thus it's a tad rich having a pop at folks who didn't know such a GMB hierarchy existed.

It's no secret that the Sefton LO is Secretary of Naleo, hence the Merseyside connection which you conveniently pointed out. Along with the Liverpool T&G and NTTG, the Sefton LO is one of the main driving forces behind this particular issue. He has been a party to the meetings of minds exercise from the very beginning and as Secretary of NALEO he has every right to do so. He's a congenial fellow and more than willing to discuss these proposals, more so than any of the so called representatives of these taxi organisations who have self appointed themselves as head cook and bottle washer on behalf of the Taxi trade.

Being congenial doesn't mean the message is right, in fact the message is not right and that is why you have this nucleus of minds predominantly harvested from the North West who want to stop Sefton P/H waiting in Liverpool for pre booked jobs at any price, even if it means taking away certain existing rights from hackney carriage drivers?

Liverpool council and the local cab trade tried unsuccessfully to convince the DfT to alter legislation in order to prevent Sefton P/H parking up in liverpool awaiting pre booked jobs so now they are trying a different route. I'm wondering when the rest of the UK cab trade will wake up and realise just how big a rabbit this is, that they are trying to pull out of the proverbial hat?

Mr T once told us the Liverpool T&G has no more than 25 members and you would have thought Mr T would be in a position to know that type of thing? I suppose 25 members might give you a mandate to speak on behalf of those 25 members but it certainly doesn't give you a mandate to speak on behalf of the Taxi trade as a whole?

Regards

JD

Was this actually one of the schedule meeting and why wasn't Mr T invited along as a partial observer? Who took the minutes?

Regards

JD

The issue with MoM1 is not weather GMB PDB national representatives were invited, it was the fact that GMB Manchester branch representatives were portayed as National GMB representatives.

Enlighten me Jimbo, what legislation have I tried to alter? I don't ever recall writing or contacting the DfT asking for legislation to be changed? Perhaps you know otherwise, or is this just another opportunistic moment to make unfounded allegations against me based on nothing more than your dislike for facts?

I suppose you will point to some past comment I made about your pet subject deregulation and cite that as your misguided inference as to me failing to convince the DfT to change legislation.

No doubt you are aware that the Liverpool contingent met with Rupert Cope and did everything in their power to try and convince him to ask the Minister of Transport to change legislation. If ever I had a meeting with such persons I would be in no doubt that my powers of persuasion might have been a little more influential than those of the Liverpool contingent? lol

Just jesting of course.

JD

The way I see it is the GMB should be happy that some of their members were invited, and the fact that the GMB hadn't told the likes of Naleo/DfT that the GMB has now got some sort of national committee isn't the fault of Naleo/DfT.

Clearly now that problem shouldn't arise.

Apparently this was a scheduled meeting, Mr Fanagan was invited at the last moment by Mr Rowlands.
The GMB PDB have a meeting of National Reps this Friday and we are looking forward to a report from the Manchester lads who attended the previous meeting and from Terry.
Apparently Terry informed Naleo who the GMB PDB represent and their interest in any proposed change of Taxi and P/H legislation.
I now understand why Mr T said Naleo were not impressed

Regards
BB

I think you'll find that Rupert Cope had retired when Liverpool went to see the minister

Apparently this was a scheduled meeting, Mr Fanagan was invited at the last moment by Mr Rowlands.
The GMB PDB have a meeting of National Reps this Friday and we are looking forward to a report from the Manchester lads who attended the previous meeting and from Terry.

Apparently Terry informed Naleo who the GMB PDB represent and their interest in any proposed change of Taxi and P/H legislation.
I now understand why Mr T said Naleo were not impressed

As far as I know the GMB have not been officially invited, and it has been made clear continuously from the very beginning by members of this site that nobody has or is officially representing the GMB... so how can there be any confusion......