Taxi Driver Online

After failing to make contact with Andrea Winder of Pink ladies I was asked to respond by email. I wrote an email and then decided rather than make it private I would make it public. I did this so there would be no misunderstanding as to the impartiality of the author, namely me. The invitation is open to Andrea Winder to respond to this email in any way she wishes but the email request is for a simple explanation of why her company believes they do not need to be licensed?

The link to this post was sent to Andrea Winder of Pink ladies.
___________________________________________________________

Dear Andrea,

I’ve tried to contact you several times by telephone but all attempts have proved fruitless.

I am writing to you because of the unique situation in which you find yourself in respect of operating unlicensed vehicles and drivers for the purpose of hire or reward.

No doubt you feel that you do not need to be licensed and that may well be the case, however this email is not meant to criticise the way you operate it is designed to offer you the opportunity to advise all those who think you should be licensed, why you don’t need to be licensed?

I have an open mind on the way you operate and I sincerely hope your business succeeds but at Taxi Driver online we report the news, views and events of the Taxi trade and are adept at dissecting licensing irregularities. If you have found a way to operate without the need for a license then we would like to give you the opportunity to bring it to the attention of all those that are somewhat discontented with your business model.

Taxi Driver online is without doubt "one of your best hopes" of determining the legality of your operation without having to resort to costly court action. I am under the impression that you are already aware of the skilful legal team that is being organised against you and that court action is inevitable. I don’t know if you are aware of the consequences of such legal costs should your operation be found to be illegal but I can tell you they will probably be substantial.

I would not like to see you go to court on a wing and a prayer and end up bankrupt. You should realise it is you who will have to convince the court that your operation does not need a license and not the other way around.

If you wish to avail yourself of our facilities then you are most welcome but being evasive will only add to the flames and limit your access to well grounded opinion. Above all else, complacency will not only alienate you from those who might wish to help you but it will also place you in a position where court action is inevitable.

It is fine being wise after the fact but it won’t remedy the financial loss sustained in a fruitless court case.

I look forward to your reply and if you care to outline the details of your current business model then I’m sure the Taxi trade and all those concerned with the hire or reward business will thank you for your openness.

Regards

John Davies

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

As previously stated Joanna Connolly of the National Taxi Trades Group is reported to be advising Pink Ladies on how to circumvent the 1976 act with respect to carrying on a business of hire or reward for profit. As far as I'm concerned there is no lawful way in which to conduct unlicensed hire or reward for profit so it will be interesting to see the legislation which will allow all you licensed people the opportunity to operate unlicensed.

No doubt the scheme revolves around the membership club model but I'm afraid that approach is dead in the water because any business that carries passengers for hire or reward for profit, has to be licensed and there are no exceptions. However our minds remain open and if there is such legislation that has escaped us then like I said, "those of you who wish to operate unlicensed can follow in the dainty footsteps of Pink ladies".



The firm she works for is MSB solicitors.

http://www.msbsolicitors.co.uk/index.ph ... &Itemid=33

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I wonder if she would be willing to advise people in Liverpool that they don't need a taxi or PH license to work.

Seems a tad hypocritical to fight delimitation, yet welcome deregulation.

_________________
IDFIMH

If my memory serves me well she wanted to change legislation so all private hire drivers had to return to their own area once completing a job. The thing she didn't realise is that the same law would also apply to hackney carriage drivers.

Coupled with that she wanted no one to be able to accept a radio job outside of their own area and that also included hackney carriage drivers. So I wouldn't place too much reliance on any loopholes coming from this quarter.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

JD you constantly amaze me..... Joe had nothing whatsoever to do with the Liverpool delegation that went to London..... totally incorrect as usual .... which in turn leads me to beleave that your allegations regarding the pink ladies is simply a figment of your imagination, you need now to provide proof of both the allegations you have made or retract them with an apology seansexton@msbsolicitors.co.uk

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

She and her association were part of the Liverpool meeting of minds exercise weren't they? In fact rumour has it that the meeting was held at her place?

I never said she went down to London and I'm not really interested if she did or she didn't. This meetings of minds crowd dominated by Mersey-siders and Mancunians produced their so called blue print of a draft amendment to current legislation and oddly enough her organisation namely the NTTG has been part and parcel of this meeting of unsound minds from the very beginning, therefore I have nothing to apologise for.

I only deal in what's black and white so even though this amendment was written by one of the meeting of minds jokers are you now trying to deny it? I think we are all extremely interested in who wrote this work of art?

By the way, are you questioning my observation that Miss Connolly has advised Pink Ladies?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I thought the Pink Ladies were no more??

Alive and well in Warrington I think

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

I shouldn't really amaze you after all this time but if the truth is out there then we will find it. Do you think the voice of the professional taxi driver namely Taxi Talk will write an article exposing the secretary of the NTTG or ex secretary if that's what she is now, of working hand in glove with an unlicensed outfit namely Pink Ladies? I don't think so do you?

I suppose the revelation was news to you as it was to everyone else but just because you are ignorant of the facts don't accuse others of falling into that same category.



It always amazes me how people like you can quote text that was never written. I never said Connolly went down to London did I, so will you retract that blatant inaccuracy pleeeeze?



Yes you are totally incorrect so how are you going to remedy it?



Which allegations are they? The fact that Pink Ladies are operating illegally or the fact that it is my understanding they have had contact with Joanne Connolly?



You type in the allegation in this little box and lets see



Absolute meaningless to me, I have never suggested MSB solicitors have had anything to do with Pink Ladies which is infinitely different than saying J Connolly has.

It is obvious that you don't know what's going on so until you do I would keep your own counsel.

And one more point, if it turns out that my impeccable sources are somewhat off key and it turns out the delectable miss Connolly hasn't had any contact with Pink Ladies then I shall say so. In the meantime watch this space.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

If my memory serves me well she wanted to change legislation so all private hire drivers had to return to their own area once completing a job.




Obviously you're getting confused... is it your age.... or just one of your funny turns......... it was theT&G and Liverpool licensing that were asking for private hire to return to their own areas..... and you keep referring to Joe as Miss.... I have always known her as Mrs....

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I suppose the revelation was news to you as it was to everyone else but just because you are ignorant of the facts don't accuse others of falling into that same category.

I don't proclaim to know what everybody is doing all of the time..... I leave that to you.... if I was vaguely interested I would speak to the person in question..... not some clerk..... office cleaner...... or a friend of a friend that knows a friend..... and I would do it openly using my real name

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I'm not remotely concerned about Liverpool licensing and the T&G, my reference to J Connolly didn't mention London, the T&G, Liverpool licensing and there was a good reason for not doing so. I knew someone like you would indulge themselves in misquoting what I said and low and behold it turned out to be you.

I think you should stick to the meeting of minds exercise and forget all about the Merseyside delegation that toddled off down to London on a Fruitless exercise. Is it now your stance that the NTTG weren't a party to the meeting of minds exercise? Are you going to be a good member of the Taxi trade and tell us who wrote the abortion of an amendment to the 1976 act? I don't think so, too embarrassing by far.

What does this say?

Representatives

National Taxi Trades Group:

"Joanna Connolly Chairman NTTG Taxi owner (Liverpool) "

George Sims Secretary Manchester TODA Taxi owner (Manchester)

Barry Carter Taxi owner/driver (Manchester)

Pat Connor (NTTG & GMBU PDB) Taxi owner/driver (Manchester)

What gets me is how the hell can Pat Connor represent both the GMB and the NTTG?

I suppose each area of the GMB has its own policy depending on which side of the fence you sit on, which only highlights the great divide within the GMB between Hackney carriage and Private hire.

Comments from J Connolly.

J. Connolly believed that “over-restrictive” entry into the taxi trade would push drivers into the illegal trade.

That's an interesting comment because 100% of the Taxi trade believes Pink Ladies are operating illegally and yet here we have a woman who frowns on the idea of pushing possible entrants into the illegal trade. That statement would appear to me to lend itself to a double negative when you consider that Pink Ladies is operating illegally and my sources advise me that she has advised them. Don't you think?

We haven't yet had an official opinion from the so called NTTG in respect of Pink Ladies and I don't suppose we ever will.

Another observation is that the over restriction of drivers that she frowns upon will mean she might have to driver her fleet of vehicles herself? While we advocate higher quality driver controls she advocates less. I don't think she likes the idea of putting the emphasis of control firmly back in the hands of those taxi drivers who actually work the vehicles.

Mrs Connolly obviously wants less restrictive controls on driver entry and more quantity controls on vehicles, just like you.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

JD... you need to cut down on those funny cigarettes.. they are playing with your mind.... or maybe you'd gone on to something stronger...... as you can see I am not taking you seriously.... but then who does.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Translated that means you have no defence to what I've said, which just about sums up your misguided diatribe about my comments in respect of Joanne Connolly and this meeting of minds exercise.

Perhaps next time you will read the script and refer to what I said and not put your own interpretation of what i didn't say.

You are the second person in a week who has intentionally misinterpreted what I said. I'm beginning to think you guys can't read or you wish to prove a point by presenting false facts.

It doesn't wash with me and I would have thought you would know that by now.

If Joanne Connolly has any problem with my criticisms of her or the organisation she belongs to, then she knows where to state her case.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.