Realcabforceforum wrote:
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/lol.gif)
He has been stirring it,
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/confused.gif)
"people don't like an opposinging argument?"
Your an absoulute star "tdo",maybe we as in "edinburgh" do not like the lies you spout from this site, indeed, today your cohort spouts more rubbish, he has undoubtly spent hours trying to pick holes in the jacob survey, but to what end? the FACT of the matter is that "jacobs" fullfilled their contract with "cec", they worked to the criteria they were given and supplied the results, so whats the problem, wrong results for you? Give it a go,TAKE THEM TO COURT? , but YOU won't will you
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/lol.gif)
: "put up or shut up" springs to mind, so, I beg to differ, "sirius" is not the stirrer, YOU are!
As for anyone not likeing an opposing argument, Do we really look like we are here to make friends with you wannabee cabbies
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/lol.gif)
I've only ever driven a taxi, so I'm not sure what you mean by 'wannabee'.
As for Jacobs, all these reports are nonsense, that's why they won't answer any searching questions that are asked about them. I had to laugh at Nigel saying that Jacobs had given JD the cold shoulder - that's one way of putting it
I've barely looked at the Edinburgh report, but since the methodology employed is the normal one, there's not really much point. But given the fact that the holes picked in the minutiae by others has elicited little in the way of response, either from yourselves or Jacobs, then there's clearly more holes in it than the Meadowbank Thistle defence (what happened to them again?)
Perhaps you could answer a fundamental question of the type that totally discredits Jacobs, Halcrow et al.
If it was concluded that an identified SUD meant that supply had to be increased by 5%, and the released 63 new plates (ie 1,260 x 5%), how much would supply actually increase?
I'll give you a clue - it's a lot less than 5%.
![Think :-k](./images/smilies/eusa_think.gif)
Your conclusions on the "jacobs report" are about as lame as your observation on the said football club, still, thats what comes from knowing nothing of the area and sticking your oar in where it is neither required nor wanted.