captain cab wrote:
The article to which you refer was a written appraisal in your Taxitalk magazine Casey column of the 2006 NTA AGM conference. You made reference in the article that the
"NTA is to begin dialogue with interested parties towards bringing forward positive changes to the licensing system."
I'm not sure of the timetable of discussion on TDO but that was the first the readers of Taxitalk new about it. There was no meat on the bones of these discussions and apart from the delegates at the NTA conference no one else new about them, except for perhaps a chosen few?
I'm at a loss as to who gave you power to negotiate changes to legislation on behalf of the majority of the Taxi Trade when you hadn't even put forward any ideas or proposals of what you or your minority NTA group thought needed changing?
Some of us think it a bit rich that a minority group such as yours with only 1250 members should inform the silent majority in a taxi magazine article that you intend to change legislation?
Wouldn't it have been customary to present a shopping list of changes agreed by your members before you embark on an exercise that effects everyone in the cab trade? Or even put your intentions and proposals up on your website with a facility for comments from your membership and even others.
Where's this dialogue with interested parties you talk about or does that only relate to "self interested parties"? Why was Mr Flanagan excluded? Didn't he also express a willingness to be part of this meeting of minds? Do you exclude someone just because you don't like the cut of their jib? You might not like his demeanor but surely his opinions are every bit as valid as your own and the fact that his organisation has more members than yours would in my opinion suggest he had just as much right to be a part of these discussions as anyone else?
Streetcars made the point about inclusion of the whole Taxi trade, in these discussions, but it is obvious that you and the rest of the organisations involved in the meeting of minds exercise apart from NALEO believe the discussions should only involve your LIMITED membership.
Perhaps you might wish to provide us with the shopping list for change your members decided upon before you and they embarked on this process? On the other hand unlike most other democratic organisations I suppose you didn't consult your membership on what they think needed changing? You just went blindly into the negotiating chamber with nothing more than an agenda to set the cab trade back a 100 years.
Considering the only issue to come out of all this is the proposal to amend the 1976 act to make us all have private hire operator licenses and to stop us from accepting a job outside our own licensed area, maybe you can inform us of
What is it you are trying to achieve in amending these specific sections of the 1976 act and why? I've asked that question several times before, of both you and Mr T and so far you seem to have had a little difficulty in answering? From my point of view and everyone else in the Taxi trade the question is straightforward but I suppose we will never get an answer because even though there is always a reason for change, in this case it is fairly obvious that the reasons for these changes as they stand are unnecessary and detrimental to the Taxi trade.
Regards
JD
Login
Register
FAQ
