Taxi Driver Online

My point is that no-one, not even myself, should alter the meaning of anyone's words. "One mechanical safety check per year" is all that I said.
Question meaning by all means but don't impose a meaning. (O.K. this isn't always necessary but contentious and developmental debates do give rise to the need!) I didn't attempt to include any other meaning into the words, I don't have the right to and nor does anyone else.
I merely declared a fact that others decided to alter.

Facts are the tools of credibilty, don't distort them as the GMB do.

_________________
The Seventh Saint

Yes BUT!

I just don't feel thet the word apathy applies. It is extremely unnatural that no-one responds. I am part convinced that they are unaware.
It's weird, from my experiences anyway.

The bane is that we all want each others job because everyone elses job is BETTER!

_________________
The Seventh Saint

and HAD means .................. you ommitted the beginning which stated that the council USED to have a policy .................... it was an example started and ended in the past tense ..................... so Mr SS ............. HAD MEANS



My name .................. my firm ..................... what are you on ................ is your supposed great grandson not there to help you or give you your tablets.



What on earth are you going on about ................ I informed the LO of this activity .................. he requested they attend the Civic Centre, I don't believe the LO would have told them what for ............... but if the LO did then surely that highlights the stupidity of the LO .................. the fact that you would suggest that such an activity would have taken place raises the same questions.



Reported it right ................. I gave the required information ................ I'm not responsible for the enforcement of the requirements of licence ............. thats the job of the LO and the reason we pay the council a licence fee.



"were" yeah were and they were because the regulations were changed some time ago ................. as I said the tyre thing was used as an example ........................ you chose to focus on it ................ you chose to comment on it .................... you failed to ask if it was still happening .................. you just assume .................. and then berate people without checking incidents are current.



Ludicrous is what your assumptions are ....................... the MOT tests are done with notification ....................... people therefore maintain their vehicles immediately prior to the test and then don't bother until the next one .................. so if a CV boot split (this is just an example I don't know anyone who this actually happened to and is only mean't to give some referance to a hypothetical situation which I never whitnessesed or took part in even though it never actally occured in the first place.)on leaving the test centre it would be 6 months before the whole CV joint would be changed.

Your rants ................ colourful posts ............. and constant referances to the GMB (dunno what they have got to do with owt) do more to confuse issues than anything else.



So what you are saying is that 2 pre-determined tests per year are more of an assurance of public safety than 1 pre-determined test per year and a number of spot checks or stings.

Having laws in place is all that we need ............... we don't need anyone to enforce them ................... exactly what colour is the sky where you live.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

I have had so many problems posting this I am not checking for errors. Who's not a rebel?


You conflate your tenses. "I know" is just one example of present tense used by you.
HAD MEANS You have this obscurity here for a reason but I know not what. Is it to allow you to alter or amend something later by conferring presently undisclosed meaning on these words?


You did the travelling public a great service by notifying your LO of the actions that these miscreants undertook (<=Past Tense.) in order to pass mechanical safety checks. You deserve recognition for this action. I've already stated that my Great Grandson is essential to my current existence, leave him alone. I'm too old to swallow tablets these days, in fact my medication consists mainly of injections and intravenous drips, but I thank you for your concern.



"I informed the LO of this activity ..."
That's what I said, You informed the LO about these miscreants, probably in the time honoured fashion of naming names and/or plate numbers and possibly even the companies they worked for. At least one or more reference point is needed to resolve what you saw as a threat to the travelling public.
"...he requested they attend the Civic Centre"
You see, this is where incredulity seeps in. ".. he requested they attend ...". You have given the LO the names, and/or some other particulars of the drivers for identification purposes, together with the detail that they substituted sets of tyres for the usual remoulds that they used, but shouldn't be, in order for their vehicle to pass a mechanical safety test.
Do you see the anomaly, no? I'll try to explain anyway.
You gave the LO details of people who changed sets of tyres in order to pass a mechanical safety check, s/he then decided to invite them to the civic centre to investigate the complaint. It's just not quite real is it?
After being told that these people adapt aspects of their vehicles in order to avoid a standards inspection, s/he invites them to come down to the Civic Centre.
The mere invitation would be enough to send jacks and wheel braces into a flurry of activity.


Reported it right ................. I gave the required information ..
That's what I said, now there's a coincidence. You gave the detailed information necessary for the LO to properly check on these miscreants, and banish them from the trade. That's good. More people should be like you. Concerned and ready to act.
...I'm not responsible for the enforcement of the requirements of licence... In truth this is so, but, collectively we all are, responsible that is. To not pursue your chosen path of informing the authorities is a just a nonsense having reported it in the first instance. You certainly are more tenacious on this forum at least, and I expect you apply this same tenacity to your life situations. The Chronicle is a fine vehicle for achieving the respect you deserve, go forward, continue to name the names you have already disclosed and the duplicity undertaken. (Below you will see why this sentence is included.)
You, your company, whatever, deserve praise. The Chronicle would get you the accolade you deserve. Especially, of course, if it is only ...the stupidity of the LO ... that denied a proper conclusion to your revelations and the removal of licences from these drivers that actually posed a threat to public safety.
Oops, sorry wrong again. Can't be just the LO can it? This person has a Supervisor... Report the LO... Report the LO's Supervisor. And so on...
Now I know that the postings of Ernesto (Che) Guevara and other GMB misrepresentatives may well demonstrate the belief that life stops at the bottom of the pile but it is a fact that, if truth is used, the higher the contact, the more thorough the investigation and the more reliable the conclusion can be deemed.


"...the MOT tests are done with notification " Yes, good isn't it. It allows for the poor folk to properly budget for it. Cool really.
"...people therefore maintain their vehicles immediately prior to the test and then don't bother until the next one " (Ditto CV joint) You seem to suggest that known defects aren't attended to. Drivers don't want to feel safe? Is that a breed of toughies you suggest exist in the North East?
(this is just an example I don't know anyone who this actually happened to and is only mean't to give some referrance to a hypothetical situation which I never whitnessesed or took part in even though it never actually occurred in the first place.) Wow, be careful, your GMB paranoia shows through.
Your rants ................ colourful posts ............. and constant referances to the GMB (dunno what they have got to do with owt) do more to confuse issues than anything else.
Ahhh! The blessed GMB raises it's ugly head. Let me remind you, this thread relates to the lies used by the GMB to malign hundreds of people. Hundreds.
The document that these untenable allegations are made in could, in your words, have been worded better. You don't condemn this document for what it for what it is. A fact-less document aimed at discrediting one company for the benefit of another. The other being favoured by a particular GMB representative whose alias is Ernesto (Che) Guevara! A particularly nasty individual who was possibly responsible for the deaths of more revolutionaries than enemies.
You show the same contempt the hundreds maligned as you do for your duty to protect the public safety, in terms of travel, "Oh it was the LO's fault..! Not mine. I'm not responsible!" How many more buckets of it can you come out with I ask. AND...
Yet you say, in some condescending way probably, that the GMB Publicity Document could have been worded better! Yet, quite simply, the document should not have been produced, would not, had these, what can I say, simple folk been properly educated, even just in Union terms. If this doesn't explain what the GMB have to do with anything perhaps you could get someone to explain it to you.


So what you are saying is that 2 pre-determined tests per year are more of an assurance of public safety than 1 pre-determined test per year and a number of spot checks or stings.
Nope, I'm trying to say exactly what I said, no embellishment necessary by the reader. Two mechanical safety tests per year as opposed to one = greater assurance with regard to mechanical safety.
One mechanical safety check is = to half the assurance.
I don't believe I mentioned spot checks but I believe Sussex did.

By the way, I had someone check out your story with your LO but it is not recorded and no-one can remember it. This despite the current policy being that "All complaints received into the licensing section are investigated and recorded as appropriate."
However, they, the department "… are, currently reviewing all of our policies and procedures in relation to licensing, and this will include our complaints procedure.
So should you want to prevent this type of failure to act again perhaps you should contact your LO at:
Gary Callum
Licensing Officer
Regulatory Services
garycallum@gateshead.gov.uk

AND
Should you wish to complain about your complaint not being properly dealt with you should contact:
“If anyone is unhappy with the way a complaint has been dealt with by anyone within Gateshead Council, there is a corporate complaints procedure which they can follow, on the website at www.gateshead.gov.uk.”

Do it, join life, leave the GMB

_________________
The Seventh Saint

If you have contacted my LO to check out my "story" and you actually spoke to Mr Callum you would have discovered that he is an honest man who has never hid from his responsibilities, indeed I believe that if the complaint had been made to him and not a previous LO then the incident or compliant would have had a far different conclusion.

For your information I think my complaint was made approx 10 years ago, with that specific policy being removed about 5 years ago.

I understand that there needs to be regular testing, I support and encourage my council to do more not less, indeed I have called for 3 tests a year for older vehicles, but the fact remains that significantly more vehicle defects are identified through the sting operations than through the normal testing and are so required to properly ensure public safety.

My point is that if a council choose to have a single test but conduct multiple enforcement stings they are doing more to ensure public safety than a council who only rely upon 2 tests a year and people making complaints.

I don't need to be informed that the council are reviewing their policies as it was me that instigated the review back in 2005 ................... I welcome the review as it is based upon heightening standards ................. I applaud my council as they have taken significant strides to regain control of the licensing function .................... I just hope they don't put themselves in a position where they are not in control again.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the thread.

I don't think that the GMB's press release contained anything but facts ............................ I may have said it could have been worded better but the fact remains that the only place people seem to be complaining about the release is on here and other forum, it appears that NO-ONE has complained to the GMB direct, so my opinion of the wording is only that, it seems to have "effected" very few people, possibly even you. I say that because it is possible on forum websites to post under more than one name, the GMB recognise this and so, in order to properly address the concerns anyone MAY have

There has been an invitation to discuss the issue ....................... you have chosen to ignore this as it would mean identifying yourself ................. it has been said many times that anonymous complaints are difficult to investigate ........................ if you truly believe in what your stating on here then I struggle to understand why you wouldn't put your name to it more formally.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

Thanks for your support.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

Didn't the top man get a copy of Mr SS's letter?

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm not too sure about this bit,

I have been concerned that drivers who are licensed outside the city such as in Lewes, Adur and Mid-Sussex can come into our city to operate, and yet those councils don't insist on the same standards that we do.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm sure they will be in touch .................................... with the person who made the original claims and put forward the presentation to council.

The GMB will debate the issue ............... just give Terry a call or go onto their website ............. can't see much thats easier than that.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

That explains the three or four people but the dozen IDs on the GMB's forum then

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Maybe he'd prefer discussing it in public where a few people will read what's said.

Not somewhere that no one's interested in and where he's told:

Simple Mick hes a gutless ponce, that hides in a dark place. I accept no excuse for annonymity. Stand up like a man or F*** OFF 7th ponce

Note that the offending swear word isn't starred on that bastion of democracy where Mr Seventh Saint is invited to debate.

Wouldn't have anything to do with attempting to add some spark to the moribund GMB forum, would it?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Well I'm struggling to see the relevance of the complainant's name in the context of the substantive issues regarding the press release.

Don't forget that the other recent GMB press release was also a monumental cock up, so there's a bit of a track record developing :

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=6284

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

And let's not forget that the GMB is like a bull in a china shop over the restricted numbers issue:

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=6337

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Considering the GMB press release was issued in anonimity isn't it a bit rich to condem the observations of an anonymous poster out of hand? Mr Saint has raised some valid and coherent points in this thread and in the main has put forward a solid reasoned argument in regard to the damaging comments made by people who lack the intelligence to understand how the cab trade works.

I've said it time and time again, you get what you vote in and if those people aren't up to the job then it's down to those that turned up and voted them in.

Now who did write this press release was it Brighton Breezy or Terry Flanagan?

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.