| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Transport Committee report (again) http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=425 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Taxi Driver Online [ Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Transport Committee report (again) |
Read the article here: http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/hoctc.htm Discuss the issues below! |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well congratulations om a fact based contribution without opinions. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I quite sure the author will be pleased with such a compliment. 
However if there was ever a more one sided Select Committee meeting, then I hasn't seen it. How can a S/C have a hearing, yet ignore 50% of the trade, and ignore 100% of their voters, and our customers? Democracy at it's worst I'm afraid. 
|
|
| Author: | Guest [ Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex Man wrote: I quite sure the author will be pleased with such a compliment.
However if there was ever a more one sided Select Committee meeting, then I hasn't seen it. How can a S/C have a hearing, yet ignore 50% of the trade, and ignore 100% of their voters, and our customers? Democracy at it's worst I'm afraid. come come Sussex, some are saying the OFT was one sided, sometimes things do not go our way. this time they had a different view. |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex Man wrote: I quite sure the author will be pleased with such a compliment.
However if there was ever a more one sided Select Committee meeting, then I hasn't seen it. How can a S/C have a hearing, yet ignore 50% of the trade, and ignore 100% of their voters, and our customers? Democracy at it's worst I'm afraid. come come Sussex, some are saying the OFT was one sided, sometimes things do not go our way. giving you a plate is not to be seen as in the best interests of uk taxi customers this time they had a different view. |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex Man wrote: I quite sure the author will be pleased with such a compliment.
However if there was ever a more one sided Select Committee meeting, then I hasn't seen it. How can a S/C have a hearing, yet ignore 50% of the trade, and ignore 100% of their voters, and our customers? Democracy at it's worst I'm afraid. come come Sussex, some are saying the OFT was one sided, sometimes things do not go our way. giving you a plate is not to be seen as in the best interests of uk taxi customers this time they had a different view. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Again, I heard you the first time. 
The difference between the OFT and M&R, and the aptly named Select Committee, is that the former are based on evidence, the latter is based on out-dated dogma and rhetoric. |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Thu Mar 04, 2004 4:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex Man wrote: Again, I heard you the first time.
The difference between the OFT and M&R, and the aptly named Select Committee, is that the former are based on evidence, the latter is based on out-dated dogma and rhetoric. the three, were not deliberate it was so bloody slow, I am sorry. |
|
| Author: | Railway child [ Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex Man wrote: Again, I heard you the first time.
The difference between the OFT and M&R, and the aptly named Select Committee, is that the former are based on evidence, the latter is based on out-dated dogma and rhetoric. Surely the other way round - It could not be more obvious that the OfT tried desperatly, and failed, to get the evidence to fit their preconceived ideas |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Fri Mar 05, 2004 1:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Railway child wrote: Sussex Man wrote: Again, I heard you the first time. The difference between the OFT and M&R, and the aptly named Select Committee, is that the former are based on evidence, the latter is based on out-dated dogma and rhetoric. Surely the other way round - It could not be more obvious that the OfT tried desperatly, and failed, to get the evidence to fit their preconceived ideas That comment is unfair, unjust and biased. They started with a clean sheet and idiots in our trade, and some on here got the terms of reference extended to private hire. if you insist on blaming anybody blame the bloody stupid medlers, who have been consistent in slowing the process and putting the most stupid evidence. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Railway child wrote: Surely the other way round - It could not be more obvious that the OfT tried desperatly, and failed, to get the evidence to fit their preconceived ideas
See I can't see why they needed to justify the end of quotas, I think it called the 'real world'. Why should one side of the trade be protected from fair competition? As M&R states, if this was a private under-taking, those involved could be banged up. 
|
|
| Author: | John Davies [ Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Railway child wrote: Sussex Man wrote: Again, I heard you the first time. The difference between the OFT and M&R, and the aptly named Select Committee, is that the former are based on evidence, the latter is based on out-dated dogma and rhetoric. Surely the other way round - It could not be more obvious that the OfT tried desperatly, and failed, to get the evidence to fit their preconceived ideas What Pre conceived ideas might that be? best wishses John Davies |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Fri Mar 05, 2004 2:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Far be it for me to speak for the Wharfie, but perhaps he means preconceived 'economic sense'. In other words, markets seldom work best when competitor are restricted from entry into that trade. So really it's not that surprising that the lads at OFT found quotas to be a bad thing. Perhaps the most surprising thing, is that there are people who think it's a good thing.
|
|
| Author: | Guest [ Fri Mar 05, 2004 4:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex Man wrote: Far be it for me to speak for the Wharfie, but perhaps he means preconceived 'economic sense'.
In other words, markets seldom work best when competitor are restricted from entry into that trade. So really it's not that surprising that the lads at OFT found quotas to be a bad thing. Perhaps the most surprising thing, is that there are people who think it's a good thing. Wharfie did not use the word preconcieved, railway child did keep up with the debate Sussex. |
|
| Author: | Nidge2 [ Fri Mar 05, 2004 6:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anonymous wrote: Sussex Man wrote: I quite sure the author will be pleased with such a compliment. However if there was ever a more one sided Select Committee meeting, then I hasn't seen it. How can a S/C have a hearing, yet ignore 50% of the trade, and ignore 100% of their voters, and our customers? Democracy at it's worst I'm afraid. come come Sussex, some are saying the OFT was one sided, sometimes things do not go our way. this time they had a different view. Not one sided they just didn't have a clue 
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|