Taxi Driver Online
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Responses to Consultation Paper 203
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19632		 Page 1 of 7
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Responses to Consultation Paper 203
On 25th [July - edited] that should have been June 2012 I had the following email from a trusted source;

In speaking to The Law Commission this morning I have ascertained that they have had 112 replies to the consultation so far – most of them re –Wedding cars!!!!

Is the industry actually going to do the business and shaft themselves with silence once again………………….!!!!!!!!
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
At Exeter RP stated that replies to the consultation can be just on one topic or a multitude of topics.

They don't care how little or how much a contributor to the consultation process writes, they just want views on anything taxi.
Author:  MR T [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
On 25th July 2012 I had the following email from a trusted source;

In speaking to The Law Commission this morning I have ascertained that they have had 112 replies to the consultation so far – most of them re –Wedding cars!!!!

Is the industry actually going to do the business and shaft themselves with silence once again………………….!!!!!!!!

I think you'll find that all the answers will be pulling in different directions... I would say we are doomed. doomed. doomed..... Hail Caesar... the bosses of the private hire
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
MR T wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
On 25th July 2012 I had the following email from a trusted source;

In speaking to The Law Commission this morning I have ascertained that they have had 112 replies to the consultation so far – most of them re –Wedding cars!!!!

Is the industry actually going to do the business and shaft themselves with silence once again………………….!!!!!!!!

I think you'll find that all the answers will be pulling in different directions... I would say we are doomed. doomed. doomed..... Hail Caesar... the bosses of the private hire

Isn't he a TDO member?
Author:  MR T [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
MR T wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
On 25th July 2012 I had the following email from a trusted source;

In speaking to The Law Commission this morning I have ascertained that they have had 112 replies to the consultation so far – most of them re –Wedding cars!!!!

Is the industry actually going to do the business and shaft themselves with silence once again………………….!!!!!!!!

I think you'll find that all the answers will be pulling in different directions... I would say we are doomed. doomed. doomed..... Hail Caesar... the bosses of the private hire

Isn't he a TDO member?

No just God ..ak sussex
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
MR T wrote:
I think you'll find that all the answers will be pulling in different directions...

I don't think that matters all that much.

What I think matters is that every submission that is sent in should have sound reasoning within the reply for the particular point of view expressed.
Author:  MR T [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
MR T wrote:
I think you'll find that all the answers will be pulling in different directions...

I don't think that matters all that much.

What I think matters is that every submission that is sent in should have sound reasoning within the reply for the particular point of view expressed.

don't be silly ... no disrespect
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
MR T wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
MR T wrote:
I think you'll find that all the answers will be pulling in different directions...

I don't think that matters all that much.

What I think matters is that every submission that is sent in should have sound reasoning within the reply for the particular point of view expressed.

don't be silly ... no disrespect

I think they will look at the reasoning and arguments in responses on the same subjects.
Author:  MR T [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
Quote:
I think they will look at the reasoning and arguments in responses on the same subjects.


European law.... freedom of trade.... all they are doing is making hackney and private laws so they fit.... freedom of trade..... not interested in anything else.... Remember you hear it on TDO first.
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
On 25th July 2012 I had the following email from a trusted source;

In speaking to The Law Commission this morning I have ascertained that they have had 112 replies to the consultation so far – most of them re –Wedding cars!!!!

Is the industry actually going to do the business and shaft themselves with silence once again………………….!!!!!!!!

In all fairness it's a lot easier and quicker to address one question than 73. :-s
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
MR T wrote:
No just God ..ak sussex

:D
Author:  MR T [ Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
Just a thought .. part of what is being suggested by the LC. is that private hire companies can use licence private hire vehicles from different areas on the same system.. and that they will be able to accept work passed across from other companies in different areas..

so let's see what this means.. you would have a company say in Sefton... that is capable of operating 10,000 vehicles ... it would be able to accept work from say Manchester... now it wouldn't need a base in Manchester, it would only need Manchester licensed private hire vehicles and drivers... they would never need to come anywhere near Sefton.... this company could subsidise these drivers while it grew its work in Manchester.. Let's say free rent for six months.. undercut the local private hire firms until they go broke... and then go on to the next area.....
Author:  toots [ Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
You forgot to mention that taxis will be left behind when this happens because the local authorities will be able to restrain their taxis by standards, but, not the private hire. So far all I see is a charter for greed by the already greedy private hire operators, but, I guess that's just my opinion. People seem to think it's ok to be greedy because nobody would be so stupid as to work 70hrs + to earn minimum wage as some drivers currently are doing.

It's all well and good that the LC are asking for evidence and then giving the trade a few months to collect that evidence. You can't even get evidence from HMRC who should actually have some of the evidence I was seeking ffs
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
MR T wrote:
it would only need Manchester licensed private hire vehicles and drivers...

It/they wont even need that. :sad:
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Responses to Consultation Paper 203
MR T wrote:
Just a thought .. part of what is being suggested by the LC. is that private hire companies can use licence private hire vehicles from different areas on the same system.. and that they will be able to accept work passed across from other companies in different areas..

so let's see what this means.. you would have a company say in Sefton... that is capable of operating 10,000 vehicles ... it would be able to accept work from say Manchester... now it wouldn't need a base in Manchester, it would only need Manchester licensed private hire vehicles and drivers... they would never need to come anywhere near Sefton.... this company could subsidise these drivers while it grew its work in Manchester.. Let's say free rent for six months.. undercut the local private hire firms until they go broke... and then go on to the next area.....

Exactly! That's a given and I had worked that one out as soon as I read CP 203.

But the real worry is that eventually their drivers would be in a 'ultra-super serfdom' situation spanning hundreds of square miles, earning 'Jack Shyt' per mile because the PH operator sets the mileage rate for his operation and any new PH operation starting up in their area wouldn't have a chance of succeeding.

And if you think renting a cab is a monopoly by plate barons, then just wait until you experience the PH operator monopoly of £150-£200-£250 a week radio / dispatch system settle and you the driver have no choice as to which PH operator you can work for.

AND, swallowed into that huge cauldron will be all PH drivers from all licensing authorities, hence the proposal that one PH operator licensed in Liverpool could have drivers in Birmingham, Newcastle, Leeds etc all licensed locally on one PH system.
Page 1 of 7 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/