Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Tue Apr 28, 2026 12:24 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
will2learn wrote:
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.... :wink:

Four posts in 27 minutes........ and your a new poster 8)

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 8998
Location: London
MR T wrote:
A extremely good and manipulative post, just the right touch of concern. Old fashion thinking though..... you remind me of someone.... :wink:

Four posts in 27 minutes........ and your a new poster 8)


I was just thinking that . . . again

:D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:20 pm
Posts: 124
Location: commonsense country
will2learn wrote:
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 very well constructed post. I think it actually makes a lot of sense what has been written here. "come clean and be straight with those seeking answers otherwise it might just look as though you really do have something to hide" a very good sentence to use to end a post that leaves room for thought.

Steve

_________________
The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Sussex wrote:
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.


Manchester T&G haven't been consulted either so it is not a north west driven agenda in fact as far as the T&G is concerned it is a Liverpool driven agenda and the rest of country are excluded. However the Liverpool contingent has no authority on its own to do anything in the name of the T&G although I'm sure some would like to think they do.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Sussex wrote:
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. :?


Berwick license 339 hackney carriages. there are 67 thousand hackney carriages in england and wales with 73 thousand hackney carriage drivers.

There are approx 81 thousand private hire vehicles and 84 thousand licensed p/h drivers. There are 57 thousand dual p/h hackney driver licenses.

That about puts the issue in perspective.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:31 pm
Posts: 1761
Location: Commonsense Country
So are we saying here that it is only in the benefit to the trade to stop something ............... or try and stop something ................. after it has taken over and effected everyone.

The situation is not just that a HC as the right to work a certain way ............. the further implications are what concern me more .............. but JD and the witch-hunters seem to condone the fact that anyone (regardless of their fitness and propriety) can open an office anywhere in the country and use HC vehicles from anywhere in the country to conduct any bookings that come through that office ................. IS THAT RIGHT ............. IS THAT NOT A POINT WORTHY OF DEBATE.

JD hides behind his alias ............... he doesn't allow the people he attacks the same right as he thinks it gives him power and protection.

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?

B. Lucky :D

_________________
"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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Quote:
I want to know ........................... to which government department have these proposals been made to :lol:
None


Quote:
In fact I would go further .................. who voted for these proposals at the last meeting?
No one :lol:

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57343
Location: 1066 Country
MR T wrote:
Quote:
In fact I would go further .................. who voted for these proposals at the last meeting?
No one :lol:

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

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Sussex wrote:
MR T wrote:
Quote:
In fact I would go further .................. who voted for these proposals at the last meeting?
No one :lol:

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


Er...You??

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
I just absolutely love the way this is going, it has become absolutely clear that certain people know nothing at all about how associations work or unions.... it is only a discussion document.... at this moment...... :lol: :lol:

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57343
Location: 1066 Country
MR T wrote:
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.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Sussex wrote:
MR T wrote:
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 contibute towards funding the labour party.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57343
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
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. :roll:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Sussex wrote:
captain cab wrote:
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. :roll:


Tony Blair, John Major and Mrs Thatcher were'nt my MP's so I never got the chance to vote them in either.

I'm actually quite concerned by a point JD made...

Manchester T&G haven't been consulted either so it is not a north west driven agenda in fact as far as the T&G is concerned it is a Liverpool driven agenda and the rest of country are excluded. However the Liverpool contingent has no authority on its own to do anything in the name of the T&G although I'm sure some would like to think they do.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:20 pm
Posts: 124
Location: commonsense country
Sussex wrote:
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. :roll:


Well this could not make more sense if it was printed on your forehead !
I think this actually supports my thought on the matter..AND put in layman's terms makes perfect sense.

Great point Sussex.

Steve

_________________
The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 791 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