Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat May 02, 2026 3:57 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
Skull wrote:
Jasbar wrote:
gusmac wrote:
stationtone wrote:
Yes Gusmac after i long feght :D




I think we all knew the operation was illegal.
Getting someone to give a sh*t and enforce the law - that's always the hard bit.
Yes, a very long fight but worth it in the end. Congrats to all involved BTW.

My point in respect of PH taking over the rank at Edinburgh Airport was that although similar schemes have been set up south of the border, their laws aren't the same as ours.
I don't think it would be legal here.


The trade's problem in Edinburgh is that the driving force in PH is run by two bright boys, backed up with shedloads of cash and a fount of trade knowledge spilling his guts in the background.

Anyone doubt that, given time, they can make ANYTHING happen?

So far the trade's response in the face of a price war is to advocate putting taxi prices up.

To take two inefficient and cumbersome co-oiperatives with self-interested committees and merge them into a bigger coioperative with a larger self-interested gravy train committee.

And topay whatever tithe to anyone who demands it.

Quality :lol:



I've got to disagree with you on that one Jim. The committees of both companies are only interested in what's good for their members. It has nothing to do with them filing their pockets by fleecing a bunch of numpties. I don't know how you could believe otherwise. Dod, Les, Murray and Bill, are all men of integrity. :roll:


PH, should be shaking in their shoes at the mere prospect of a merger with such, sharp cookies all getting together under one roof.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


For Brutus is an honourable man

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
tx_op wrote:
gusmac wrote:
I thought the fat sams operation had been shut down?


Yeah but they now ply for hire at the Gala Casino ! Which (according to Tayside Police) is private ground ! only problem is....the public have 24hr access to it ! ](*,)


If the public have access, it's a public place.
Who owns the ground is irrelevant.
Only taxis can accept unbooked fares in a public place.

CGSA 1982
23(1) In sections 10 to 22 of this Act:-
“taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; and
“private hire car” means a hire car other than a taxi within the meaning of this subsection.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
toots wrote:
Quote:
The only thing that matters is market share. 800 taxis out of a fleet of 1400 represents a huge market share. Factor in the companies' opposition to new entrants to ownership within the trade and we have a good case for monopoly.


Taxi aren't the only ones in that market though are they. If they ever did consider the market they would consider ALL of the other players of which taxis are the minority in most cases


But they don't take account of increasing private hire as a demand indicator for increasing taxi numbers. Over the last 15 years or so PH has increased by 400%, taxis by less than 50%.

In other words the increased demand in the market has been given to PH. Councils have deliberately been promoting PH. This means that taxi trades have been losing their market share, losing the critical business mass. To the point where there is a vastly increased section of the customer base which when it thinks taxi, calls PH.

Can't have it both ways can you?

And this is why the skull and I are so agitated about the rights of drivers to access their own vehicle, to offer the best servie against the price cutters.

Readily available taxis driving past your door? Why fone a PH?

Perhaps this is what inflames you Toots?

:wink:

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 14152
Location: Wirral
Jasbar wrote:
toots wrote:
Quote:
The only thing that matters is market share. 800 taxis out of a fleet of 1400 represents a huge market share. Factor in the companies' opposition to new entrants to ownership within the trade and we have a good case for monopoly.


Taxi aren't the only ones in that market though are they. If they ever did consider the market they would consider ALL of the other players of which taxis are the minority in most cases


But they don't take account of increasing private hire as a demand indicator for increasing taxi numbers. Over the last 15 years or so PH has increased by 400%, taxis by less than 50%.

In other words the increased demand in the market has been given to PH. Councils have deliberately been promoting PH. This means that taxi trades have been losing their market share, losing the critical business mass. To the point where there is a vastly increased section of the customer base which when it thinks taxi, calls PH.

Can't have it both ways can you?

And this is why the skull and I are so agitated about the rights of drivers to access their own vehicle, to offer the best servie against the price cutters.

Readily available taxis driving past your door? Why fone a PH?

Perhaps this is what inflames you Toots?

:wink:


Firstly, if they considered whether or not the merger caused a monopoly they would consider all forms of transport available so I don't believe they'd see it as a monopoly.

Secondly, as I keep telling you I'm already in a de-restricted LA and there still aren't readily available taxis driving past my door and I live above a pub ffs on a main road. If I want I taxi I have to ring a ph company. Also at the moment taxis and ph drivers are not making enough to earn a decent living so opening up the market at this time isn't the best solution. Flooding a market at any time isn't a good thing especially when you have no control over the costs or the income of running the said business. Whilst I have resevations regarding the selling or the ownership of plates I still don't think that is a good reason to de-restrict. That's just the way I feel about it. I'm not inflamed by any of it

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
toots wrote:
Jasbar wrote:
toots wrote:
Quote:
The only thing that matters is market share. 800 taxis out of a fleet of 1400 represents a huge market share. Factor in the companies' opposition to new entrants to ownership within the trade and we have a good case for monopoly.


Taxi aren't the only ones in that market though are they. If they ever did consider the market they would consider ALL of the other players of which taxis are the minority in most cases


But they don't take account of increasing private hire as a demand indicator for increasing taxi numbers. Over the last 15 years or so PH has increased by 400%, taxis by less than 50%.

In other words the increased demand in the market has been given to PH. Councils have deliberately been promoting PH. This means that taxi trades have been losing their market share, losing the critical business mass. To the point where there is a vastly increased section of the customer base which when it thinks taxi, calls PH.

Can't have it both ways can you?

And this is why the skull and I are so agitated about the rights of drivers to access their own vehicle, to offer the best servie against the price cutters.

Readily available taxis driving past your door? Why fone a PH?

Perhaps this is what inflames you Toots?

:wink:


Firstly, if they considered whether or not the merger caused a monopoly they would consider all forms of transport available so I don't believe they'd see it as a monopoly.

Secondly, as I keep telling you I'm already in a de-restricted LA and there still aren't readily available taxis driving past my door and I live above a pub ffs on a main road. If I want I taxi I have to ring a ph company. Also at the moment taxis and ph drivers are not making enough to earn a decent living so opening up the market at this time isn't the best solution. Flooding a market at any time isn't a good thing especially when you have no control over the costs or the income of running the said business. Whilst I have resevations regarding the selling or the ownership of plates I still don't think that is a good reason to de-restrict. That's just the way I feel about it. I'm not inflamed by any of it


Silly dumpling, you don't have to do ANYTHING. You could fone for a taxi rather than a PH. YOU fone PH by choice, but pretend otherwise.

I don't care whether Taxi and PH drivers are making the mint they thought they would get. But that shouldn't stop others from having the licence that would allow them to determine their own situation.. That you would prevent them is despicable. How DO you sleep at night?

Your complaint about flooding a market shows the need for ALL of us to be able to control our costs, not just the privileged few. selfish cow.
Restriction is immoral. Unfetterered access to the tools of your trade is a RIGHT.

You're one sad cow Toots.

BTW If your daughter was raped because restriction enticed her into an unlicensed vehicle, just to get home, you'd still restrict?

:roll:

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 14152
Location: Wirral
Quote:
Silly dumpling, you don't have to do ANYTHING. You could fone for a taxi rather than a PH. YOU fone PH by choice, but pretend otherwise.


You obviously don't read what I write or you are very forgetful. I have previously told you that the majority of the taxis here now work for PH companies because there isn't enough work for them otherwise, so if I want a taxi I ring a PH Operator and ask for a hackney.

Quote:
I don't care whether Taxi and PH drivers are making the mint they thought they would get. But that shouldn't stop others from having the licence that would allow them to determine their own situation.. That you would prevent them is despicable. How DO you sleep at night?


No I didn't for one minute think you cared whether drivers make a living never mind a mint. You're like a spoilt bratty child stamping your feet and screaming I WANT, I WANT, I WANT and not shutting up until YOU get what YOU want, feck anybody else it's all about YOU and what YOU want. In answer to how do I sleep at night....... very well I have no reason not to. I have a happy and secure life and I don't have to worry about where the money is coming from to pay my bills, unlike the vast majority of my colleagues trying to make ends meet in a de-restricted area

Quote:
Your complaint about flooding a market shows the need for ALL of us to be able to control our costs, not just the privileged few. selfish cow.


Charming as ever, you just can't debate without sinking to insults can you :roll: How exactly does de-restriction help control costs such as fuel, insurance, vehicle purchases, mortages, food, bills etc etc. If you flood the market you'll have no chance of meeting these costs.

Quote:
Restriction is immoral. Unfetterered access to the tools of your trade is a RIGHT.


I think being given a free plate and selling it is immoral myself especially if the person doing the selling is doing it to prove some kind of deluded point.

Quote:
You're one sad cow Toots.


You think. I'm as happy as a pig in sh*t and the fact that you call me names means nothing to me because you are insignificant to my life :lol:

Quote:
BTW If your daughter was raped because restriction enticed her into an unlicensed vehicle, just to get home, you'd still restrict?


There you go again with your sordid fascination with rape. My daughters would never get into an unlicensed vehicle and if I had your plate number I'd ensure they never got into your taxi when they visited Edinburgh because you are one sick and twisted person who thinks about rape frequently and then uses as an excuse to get what YOU want

Now why don't you be a good little slime ball and go crawl back under the stone from whence you came

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
:lol:

Feeling better for your early Sunday morning rant? I've got a vision of you choking on your pig roll.

:lol:

BTW You are right about one thing. What you write is selfish infantile tosh. Most of it is intentionally skipped.

How does anyone deserve to be taken seriously who'd prefer wee lassies to get raped rather than allow enough taxis in the fleet to help prevent it happening. :roll:

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:38 pm
Posts: 1975
Location: Edinburgh
Jasbar wrote:
:lol:

Feeling better for your early Sunday morning rant? I've got a vision of you choking on your pig roll.

:lol:

BTW You are right about one thing. What you write is selfish infantile tosh. Most of it is intentionally skipped.

How does anyone deserve to be taken seriously who'd prefer wee lassies to get raped rather than allow enough taxis in the fleet to help prevent it happening. :roll:

Jim you don't half write some pash!!!

Your so vain you probably wished you wrote Harry Potter about you and Skull :lol: :lol:

You think that nearly 800 members of a merged company would allow their committee's to walk all over them!!! PASH

A merged company can only proceed with a YES vote and today's vote is on taking the Talks of a merger to the Next level, the legalities JIM

The next stage would see a new constitution put to the members, if we like it we vote YES if we don't we vote NO

The Trade is about individuals, who know how to view and assess proposals for a merger but your comments on this thread proves you are a single minded t***

Now feck off and leave us alone whilst we try and save our Trade from infiltrators like you and Skull who are out to destroy our Trade

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
Private Reggie wrote:
Jasbar wrote:
:lol:

Feeling better for your early Sunday morning rant? I've got a vision of you choking on your pig roll.

:lol:

BTW You are right about one thing. What you write is selfish infantile tosh. Most of it is intentionally skipped.

How does anyone deserve to be taken seriously who'd prefer wee lassies to get raped rather than allow enough taxis in the fleet to help prevent it happening. :roll:

Jim you don't half write some pash!!!

Your so vain you probably wished you wrote Harry Potter about you and Skull :lol: :lol:

You think that nearly 800 members of a merged company would allow their committee's to walk all over them!!! PASH

A merged company can only proceed with a YES vote and today's vote is on taking the Talks of a merger to the Next level, the legalities JIM

The next stage would see a new constitution put to the members, if we like it we vote YES if we don't we vote NO

The Trade is about individuals, who know how to view and assess proposals for a merger but your comments on this thread proves you are a single minded t***

Now feck off and leave us alone whilst we try and save our Trade from infiltrators like you and Skull who are out to destroy our Trade


Getting a tad agitated Dougie? :lol:

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 568 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group