Taxi Driver Online

Interesting debate and a congenial name, “meeting of minds”.

The reps from every trade organisation that I’ve been associated with have always got their mandate from their members. It seems unorthodox for a trade organisation to enter into discussions on a subject or matters of which they have no mandate and then submit proposals of these discussions to their members in the hope that the members might agree to change something that they didn’t want changing in the first place.

Something that stands out like a sore thumb and should raise some concern is why are trade representatives involved in discussions with a body whose sole aim it would appear is to regulate the way taxi drivers work? Have licensing officers ever had the best interest of Taxi drivers at heart?

Couldn’t and shouldn’t these trade bodies have formed their own collective forum excluding enforcement officers?

It is a very interesting discussion as one reader said but it would seem that apart from a handful of people looking to find a few answers no one has yet given any reasons why these proposals should have got off the ground and why they need to be discussed?

What makes it even more confusing is that someone said “non contentious issues” were outlawed, yet apparently it would seem that this is one such contentious issue that has been given the all clear for discussion. It was also said that the issue was proposed and discussed at the first meeting does that mean the issue wasn’t originally classed as contentious?

From the document that has appeared on this website it appears to me that those responsible for making these proposals were of the opinion that this particular issue was far from being viewed as contentious. The document produced is not about discussion of a future proposal, it contains the actual amendments to legislation. I don’t believe anyone would go as far as to produce a document that altered legislation if they weren’t given some kind of approval by other members of this forum.

I get the impression that you people looking for answers to the questions you seek should ask those who were involved in the discussion process and you people involved in the discussion process instead of playing games should come clean and be straight with those seeking answers, otherwise it might just look as though you really do have something to hide?

Will

A extremely good and manipulative post, just the right touch of concern. Old fashion thinking though..... you remind me of someone....

Four posts in 27 minutes........ and your a new poster

Interesting debate and a congenial name, “meeting of minds”.

The reps from every trade organisation that I’ve been associated with have always got their mandate from their members. It seems unorthodox for a trade organisation to enter into discussions on a subject or matters of which they have no mandate and then submit proposals of these discussions to their members in the hope that the members might agree to change something that they didn’t want changing in the first place.

Something that stands out like a sore thumb and should raise some concern is why are trade representatives involved in discussions with a body whose sole aim it would appear is to regulate the way taxi drivers work? Have licensing officers ever had the best interest of Taxi drivers at heart?

Couldn’t and shouldn’t these trade bodies have formed their own collective forum excluding enforcement officers?

It is a very interesting discussion as one reader said but it would seem that apart from a handful of people looking to find a few answers no one has yet given any reasons why these proposals should have got off the ground and why they need to be discussed?

What makes it even more confusing is that someone said “non contentious issues” were outlawed, yet apparently it would seem that this is one such contentious issue that has been given the all clear for discussion. It was also said that the issue was proposed and discussed at the first meeting does that mean the issue wasn’t originally classed as contentious?

From the document that has appeared on this website it appears to me that those responsible for making these proposals were of the opinion that this particular issue was far from being viewed as contentious. The document produced is not about discussion of a future proposal, it contains the actual amendments to legislation. I don’t believe anyone would go as far as to produce a document that altered legislation if they weren’t given some kind of approval by other members of this forum.

I get the impression that you people looking for answers to the questions you seek should ask those who were involved in the discussion process and you people involved in the discussion process instead of playing games should come clean and be straight with those seeking answers, otherwise it might just look as though you really do have something to hide?

Will

I also know quite a few T&G lads, and I very much doubt the lad from Liverpool has asked any of them if he speaks in their name, or has advised them what is being discussed under their union's name.

I think the problem is quite the reverse.

In my view the Berwick opt-out, be it there or anywhere else, concerns less than 100/200 cars. Maybe up to a 1000 throughout the country.

If the proposed amendments went through (chances IMO 0%) then they would effect 100,000+ cars.

I want to know ........................... to which government department have these proposals been made to

In fact I would go further .................. who voted for these proposals at the last meeting?

No one

But how many people voted for Gordon Brown to be PM?

Er...You??

Er... No.

Just like every other mush in this great country of ours I didn't vote for Gordon Brown to be our PM.

Even Mrs Brown didn't get a chance.

I thought she would if she was a card carrying labour party member....anyway I thought all the unions got a vote too because they contribute towards funding the labour party.

My point is that no-one got a chance to vote for the PM of this country, not even himself.

Which leads me back to the point, re: the 1976 act review, just cos no-one around the table voted for it doesn't mean we wont get it.

My point is that no-one got a chance to vote for the PM of this country, not even himself.

Which leads me back to the point, re: the 1976 act review, just cos no-one around the table voted for it doesn't mean we wont get it.