Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Oct 05, 2025 11:02 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
streetcars wrote:
captain cab wrote:
http://www.taxitalk.co.uk/pdfs/Taxi%20Talk%20December%202006.pdf

Pages 16 /17

Yeah well done...another fabulous expose :lol:

CC
Well why was it not, head lines October 2007 :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: It should have been . I rest my case .

Streetcars


Try resting your mouth as well..... and put your brain into gear.. Ha Ha

_________________
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: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37397
Location: Wayneistan
Quote:
Well why was it not, head lines October 2007 It should have been . I rest my case .

Streetcars


In so far as I am concerned the NTA membership will discuss various matters during its AGM the week after next in Eastbourne.

Every member association had the opportunity for input, every association has been informed as to the progress by each regional officer / director, indeed its even mentioned in minutes.

But the following is posted on another website for your information;

As those in the NTA are aware, this thing has been in the process of being organised since the conference in Carlisle...all members were asked to contribute ideas...on three separate occasions via mailshots. I even mentioned the meeting and the need for input during regional meetings in number 5 & 2 regions.

I trust people will know what non contentious changes actually are?

If an idea is mooted that some cannot agree with, it cannot proceed through the group.


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: Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:45 pm
Posts: 270
MR T wrote:
streetcars wrote:
captain cab wrote:
http://www.taxitalk.co.uk/pdfs/Taxi%20Talk%20December%202006.pdf

Pages 16 /17

Yeah well done...another fabulous expose :lol:

CC
Well why was it not, head lines October 2007 :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: It should have been . I rest my case .

Streetcars


Try resting your mouth as well..... and put your brain into gear.. Ha Ha
OH dear me, what has this site come to. eusasmiles.zip eusasmiles.zip


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
MR T wrote:
CC.. JD was always bad with his maths,


Quote:
Mr T

Stake holder is a phrase that the Government uses when it is referring to bodies who represent certain majorities,

the NTA is a stake holder, I am trying to clarify the meaning of the word.


So you think that representing a minority of taxi assocations that have less than 1250 members between them out of more than 70,000, is a majority? I think you might consider going back to school for years or at least until you can add up?

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: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
captain cab wrote:
http://www.taxitalk.co.uk/pdfs/Taxi%20Talk%20December%202006.pdf

Pages 16 /17

Yeah well done...another fabulous expose :lol:

CC


The article to which you refer was a written appraisal in your Taxitalk magazine Casey column of the 2006 NTA AGM conference. You made reference in the article that the "NTA is to begin dialogue with interested parties towards bringing forward positive changes to the licensing system."

I'm not sure of the timetable of discussion on TDO but that was the first the readers of Taxitalk new about it. There was no meat on the bones of these discussions and apart from the delegates at the NTA conference no one else new about them, except for perhaps a chosen few?

I'm at a loss as to who gave you power to negotiate changes to legislation on behalf of the majority of the Taxi Trade when you hadn't even put forward any ideas or proposals of what you or your minority NTA group thought needed changing?

Some of us think it a bit rich that a minority group such as yours with only 1250 members should inform the silent majority in a taxi magazine article that you intend to change legislation?

Wouldn't it have been customary to present a shopping list of changes agreed by your members before you embark on an exercise that effects everyone in the cab trade? Or even put your intentions and proposals up on your website with a facility for comments from your membership and even others.

Where's this dialogue with interested parties you talk about or does that only relate to "self interested parties"? Why was Mr Flanagan excluded? Didn't he also express a willingness to be part of this meeting of minds? Do you exclude someone just because you don't like the cut of their jib? You might not like his demeanor but surely his opinions are every bit as valid as your own and the fact that his organisation has more members than yours would in my opinion suggest he had just as much right to be a part of these discussions as anyone else?

Streetcars made the point about inclusion of the whole Taxi trade, in these discussions, but it is obvious that you and the rest of the organisations involved in the meeting of minds exercise apart from NALEO believe the discussions should only involve your LIMITED membership.

Perhaps you might wish to provide us with the shopping list for change your members decided upon before you and they embarked on this process? On the other hand unlike most other democratic organisations I suppose you didn't consult your membership on what they think needed changing? You just went blindly into the negotiating chamber with nothing more than an agenda to set the cab trade back a 100 years.

Considering the only issue to come out of all this is the proposal to amend the 1976 act to make us all have private hire operator licenses and to stop us from accepting a job outside our own licensed area, maybe you can inform us of What is it you are trying to achieve in amending these specific sections of the 1976 act and why? I've asked that question several times before, of both you and Mr T and so far you seem to have had a little difficulty in answering? From my point of view and everyone else in the Taxi trade the question is straightforward but I suppose we will never get an answer because even though there is always a reason for change, in this case it is fairly obvious that the reasons for these changes as they stand are unnecessary and detrimental to the Taxi trade.

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: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37397
Location: Wayneistan
sorry JD I have a low attention span....could you put the post above into a couple of paragraphs?

England are playing football, rugby and cricket today and I cant be ar$ed reading war and peace.

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: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
captain cab wrote:
sorry JD I have a low attention span....could you put the post above into a couple of paragraphs?

England are playing football, rugby and cricket today and I cant be ar$ed reading war and peace.

CC


Don't worry, it wasn't just for your benefit.

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: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:31 pm
Posts: 1761
Location: Commonsense Country
So the NTA "speak" on behalf of its membership.

JD speaks on behalf of ......................... sorry I've asked around JD, and no-one has heard of you let alone asked you to speak on their behalf.

Short and sweet for CC.

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: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 56476
Location: 1066 Country
JD wrote:
Why was Mr Flanagan excluded?

Image

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
GA wrote:
So the NTA "speak" on behalf of its membership.

JD speaks on behalf of ......................... sorry I've asked around JD, and no-one has heard of you let alone asked you to speak on their behalf.

Short and sweet for CC.

B. Lucky :D


In case you hadn't noticed I don't speak for anyone but myself, however, I and 70,000 others haven't given the NTA permission to speak on our behalf and there is a probably a very good reason for that, as can be seen by the mess that currently presents itself.

If the 1250 affiliated members of the NTA want the likes of Mr Deagan and Mr Brent to act on their behalf then thats entirely up to them but they don't have a mandate to act for the rest of us.

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: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:31 pm
Posts: 1761
Location: Commonsense Country
JD wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed I don't speak for anyone but myself, however, I and 70,000 others haven't given the NTA permission to speak on our behalf and there is a probably a very good reason for that, as can be seen by the mess that currently presents itself.

If the 1250 affiliated members of the NTA want the likes of Mr Deagan and Mr Brent to act on their behalf then thats entirely up to them but they don't have a mandate to act for the rest of us.

JD


You mean they don't have a mandate from you ...................... how many of the 70,000 others have you asked.

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: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
GA wrote:
JD wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed I don't speak for anyone but myself, however, I and 70,000 others haven't given the NTA permission to speak on our behalf and there is a probably a very good reason for that, as can be seen by the mess that currently presents itself.

If the 1250 affiliated members of the NTA want the likes of Mr Deagan and Mr Brent to act on their behalf then thats entirely up to them but they don't have a mandate to act for the rest of us.

JD


You mean they don't have a mandate from you ...................... how many of the 70,000 others have you asked.

B. Lucky :D
A mandate needs to be obtained, not just assumed.
BTW They don't speak for me either.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37397
Location: Wayneistan
gusmac wrote:
GA wrote:
JD wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed I don't speak for anyone but myself, however, I and 70,000 others haven't given the NTA permission to speak on our behalf and there is a probably a very good reason for that, as can be seen by the mess that currently presents itself.

If the 1250 affiliated members of the NTA want the likes of Mr Deagan and Mr Brent to act on their behalf then thats entirely up to them but they don't have a mandate to act for the rest of us.

JD


You mean they don't have a mandate from you ...................... how many of the 70,000 others have you asked.

B. Lucky :D
A mandate needs to be obtained, not just assumed.
BTW They don't speak for me either.


Yes but your in Scotland and that place doesnt really matter :lol:

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: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
captain cab wrote:
gusmac wrote:
GA wrote:
JD wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed I don't speak for anyone but myself, however, I and 70,000 others haven't given the NTA permission to speak on our behalf and there is a probably a very good reason for that, as can be seen by the mess that currently presents itself.

If the 1250 affiliated members of the NTA want the likes of Mr Deagan and Mr Brent to act on their behalf then thats entirely up to them but they don't have a mandate to act for the rest of us.

JD


You mean they don't have a mandate from you ...................... how many of the 70,000 others have you asked.

B. Lucky :D
A mandate needs to be obtained, not just assumed.
BTW They don't speak for me either.


Yes but your in Scotland and that place doesnt really matter :lol:

CC
Nor do you

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:31 pm
Posts: 1761
Location: Commonsense Country
gusmac wrote:
GA wrote:
JD wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed I don't speak for anyone but myself, however, I and 70,000 others haven't given the NTA permission to speak on our behalf and there is a probably a very good reason for that, as can be seen by the mess that currently presents itself.

If the 1250 affiliated members of the NTA want the likes of Mr Deagan and Mr Brent to act on their behalf then thats entirely up to them but they don't have a mandate to act for the rest of us.

JD


You mean they don't have a mandate from you ...................... how many of the 70,000 others have you asked.

B. Lucky :D
A mandate needs to be obtained, not just assumed.
BTW They don't speak for me either.


A mandate on this was obtained ...................... points to be raised at these meetings were requested at the NTA conferance 2006 in Carlisle and via various emails to members.

I know this to be fact because I was there.

Now, gusmac ..................... I believe that other orgaisations attend these meetings (officially or un-officially) and if the organisation you are a member of are not there, and if the legislation which covers England and Wales effects you, then I would be more interested in finding out why they do not attend.

Only legitimate representatives can, or should attend such meetings ............... after all if every taxi driver in the UK was consulted then I doubt you would get less than 1000 proposals and the people who would be charged with collating all the information would need to be employed full time. (even though that would never happen as the trade couldn't agree on who should do the job)

Don't worry though ................ JD will contact anyone on behalf of everyone on here ................ and then only propose what he wants.

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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bulldogdrummond and 66 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