Taxi Driver Online

I think I should clarify this proposal.

At first sight it would appear to be a dogs dinner and you would be right but what it means is this.

An individual hackney carriage driver will not be able to take a telephone booking at home unless they have an operators license. Neither will his wife or any of his family or friends. You will not legally be able to take your next door neighbour as a paid fare unless you have an operators license. You will not be able to take any booking outside your area whatsoever and it is debatable if you will be able to take telephone bookings while you are stood plying for hire within your area. It will be an offence for any hackney carriage driver from the City of London or Scotland to take a private mobile telephone booking while they are travelling anywhere within England or Wales, outside of London.

The section really is a dogs dinner as I said, simply because these clowns couldn't clarify in legislative terms what they actually meant to achieve.

For instance, where is the definition of "future date"? What's the alternative to "Future date" Why couldn't these clowns have just said

Operate” means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle or hackney carriage save for any occasions where the driver of a hackney carriage accepts a private booking whilst plying for hire within their own district.

Or if these clowns wanted hackney carriage drivers to take bookings at home or anywhere and at any time they could have said this.

Operate” means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle or hackney carriage save for any occasions where the driver of a hackney carriage or his agent makes provision for a private booking.

Obviously these guys are dead set on bringing hackney carriage drivers into the private hire fold. What will these barmpots think of next?

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.... why don't you ask if you could attend the meeting.... you have to admit... it's making you think.

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

Remind me what was/is wrong with what Mr TF said?

He has just confirmed that, unlike some, the GMB will consult the folks they represent before signing on the dotted line.

Thank f*** we have some organisation that don't bend over and take it up the ar**.

_________________
IDFIMH

When these proposals first came to light back in 2007 I pointed out how detrimental they were to the cab trade and nothing has changed.

I don't have to be prompted to think about these proposals but it would appear that many of those attending these talks don't understand the relevance of what they are being asked to agree?

When you get a group of people who at one time or another have all been part of the same organisation and know each other on first name terms, it sometimes becomes hard to swim against the tide so what they do is just agree with those who have the most persuasive delivery. I think that is what has happened in this case.

The exercise is and was a Northwest conspiracy, they wanted to put another link in the shackles that already bind beleaguered taxi drivers and the main protagonists are NAPHLEO, the Liverpool T&G, the Liverpool dominated NTTG, region 2 of the NTA and the unrepresentative NPHA.

There is no way of getting away from that no matter how you care to dress it up?

The Liverpool T&G had no National mandate, Pat Connor of the Manchester GMB had no National mandate or any local mandate, certainly not until the National GMB stepped in.

The NPHA had no mandate from anyone National or otherwise, the NTTG went there without a mandate, the NTA said they had a mandate but that is debatable. One thing is for sure and that is none of these organisations had a mandate to sign on the dotted line without first consulting their membership and explaining what these proposals mean to them.

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.

It would appear that whatever decision the GMBPDB makes it will be made democratically with proper consultation and input from its members. None of the other so called organisations in this exercise come close to that democratic process. The GMBPDB are probably wondering "why the almighty rush to get this done and dusted"?

Did George Simms explain the nuts and bolts of these proposals to the 50 or so members of the Manchester TOA before he signed on the dotted line? Did the Liverpool T&G explain the nuts and bolts of these proposals to their 50 or so members, before they signed on the dotted line? Did the NTA explain the nuts and bolts of these proposals to their members before they signed on the dotted line? Mr Taxi Talk and Mr NPHA have no members to consult so what they were doing there in the first place is a mystery.

The GMBPDB are doing what every cab driver in the country would expect them to do and in case you don't realise, that is to consult with their membership and present the proposals on a factual basis in the terms of what it means to them.

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.

Please see letter sent to Mr Farmer from the GMB PDB today 23 April 2008.

Dear Sir.

Re a communication from one J Thomson NALEO sent recently on the Meetings of Minds.

The GMBPDBs [Professional Drivers Branches] National Organising Ctte has been pleased to send delegates to this groups discussions.

However we wish to dis-associate ourselves from the referred to communication, our Ctte has not discussed ANY of the proposals included therein and are not empowerd to support any of the requested actions. If and when we have reached a conclusion on the suggested policys we will inform you of the result of our deliberations.

Yours faithfully

T. P. Flanagan
National Organiser GMBPDBs

_________________
Mick Hildreth (07814 032002)
GMB PDB P39 Southern Region Branch Secretary
mick.hildreth@gmbtaxis.org.uk
www.gmbpdb.org.uk

I'm sure you have, but just for the record what is the view of the proposals from your very good self?

_________________
IDFIMH

JD it would appear that somebody is trying to make..... and has I might say.... a complete fool out of you.... why the GMB would be writing to Mr Farmer.... is a complete mystery.

maybe you would like to explain who it is..... that is making the fool of you.... and what their motives are....??

_________________
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 suspect this is just one of the 1000.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex... to criticise is the easiest thing in world.... and is usually the tool of the thickest people I have ever met...... the proposals that are on the table at the moment are simply the beginning.. they will go out to all members of association's and unions... from that
input will be received back.. and then they will be discussed again... and may be again..

At the moment nothing will be sent to Mr Farmer and nor is there any intention to... it is still a long way away.... everybody else understands this..... it would seem the only person having problems understanding is Mr BB....

I find the accusations about the T&G laughable.... especially as the last meeting was held at T&G Transport House Liverpool..... and they even provided the butties..... as I've said before smoke and mirrors.....

_________________
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 couldn't agree more, and I give 10 out of 10 to all those folks behind the starting up of these meetings.

That said if I was doing it, and with a bit of hindsight, I would have got the gov via the DfT to do all the arranging. A sort of 'Taxi Reform' conference.

Then everyone would have come, well not everyone cos their are 250,000 of us, but every association/union could have been invited, and I believe every would have turned up, including the IoL, and a few unions/associations that don't reside in the North West.

_________________
IDFIMH

That might well be the case, but if my sources are correct, some folks wanted some other folks to sign on the dotted line.

Else why draft the letter dated the 15th?

_________________
IDFIMH

Nobody has been asked to sign any document as yet.... and the letter to Mr Farmer is purely a sample letter for those attending to take back to their members.....

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

Sussex.... it must be a very cloistered existence in Brighton...... for many many years there have been many articles in the Taxi Press.... asking for the national associations to get together. and work for the better of the trade...... and now they are starting to talk together..... but that is not good enough for some people.... it would seem the GMB through Mr BB and TDO intends to spread rumours for their own interests.... and those interests in the views of many many thousands are not the views of the taxi trade....

_________________
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 think anyone who claims to represent the trade as a whole is a big fat liar.

And there is nothing wrong with anyone agreeing with all the MoM proposals, good luck to them.

But out of the 250,000 licensed drivers how many do you think know about the MoM, and what is being discussed for their so-called benefit?

Maybe 1% or 2%?

_________________
IDFIMH