Taxi Driver Online

The links below relate to pdfs of the FoI material I requested from the DfT.

You should all find them quite interesting.

Freedom of Information reply to BC

A table listing all relevant meetings

DfT meeting with OFT November 16th 2009

Meeting with multiple organisations re PHV Guidance note 5th March 2010

Meeting with British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association 10th March 2010

Meeting with WSP Consultants 27th May 2010

Meeting with Secret External Stakeholder October 2010

Meeting with Law Commission 17th May 2011

E-mail from DfT to Law Commission 2nd August 2011

Meeting with Law Commission and Stakeholders 4th August 2011

Meeting with John Griffin - Addison Lee 13th Oct 2011

Meeting with Law Commission and Stakeholders 22nd Nov 2011

Immediate notes made of meeting with Law Commission and Stakeholders 22nd Nov 2011

Note of meeting with Unite 6th Dec 2011

Written notes of meeting with Law Commission 18th July 2011

Typed version of written notes of meeting with Law Commission 18th July 2011

Meeting with DIPTAC 8th Dec 2011

DfT case made to the Law Commission 2010

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

The deals have been done.

All it needs now are the i's to be dotted and the t's to be crossed.

_________________
IDFIMH

I don't know so much after reading all the above stuff.

I do get the feeling that The Law Commission are their own people.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

I fully agree with that.

Interesting that they gave you the inns and outs of the meeting with Addison Lee and the rental people, but not with the secret stakeholder.

Makes me think it either the Institute of Licensing or NALEO.

Of course if you appealed that decision to refuse you access, then we might all find out.

_________________
IDFIMH

It was neither of those.

What galls me most about the secret external stakeholder [individual] are two things;

Firstly, the cheek of withholding the information under section 38 of the FoI Act 2000 [amongst other sections] and stating as a reason for withholding the information that it;
‘would be likely to endanger the safety of an individual if they [some comments and opinions of the participant] were disclosed.’

That implies that licensed people who have been adjudged as 'fit and proper' are likely to become naughty overnight just because someone has, what appears to be, very strong opinions about the trade.

That does not sit well with me and casts a dark shadow on the many hundreds of thousands of 'fit and proper' drivers, proprietors and operators in the trade.

Secondly, because we have no idea what this contributor to the debate said, we cannot judge whether the DfT explored this participants obviously controversial views [they must be controversial otherwise why block their release] and whether a BALANCED VIEW was taken by the DfT in further exploring those views with other stakeholders.

The greatest worry I have with the information is the lack of any notes or minutes for the great majority of the meetings attended by the DfT.

It is just inconceivable that so many meetings have been attended without any record of them whatsoever.

Government departments can't surely function on an individual's or a group of people's memory of what was discussed in a given meeting 6 or 18 months ago or whatever.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

If the cab trade dont realise this entire thing is a hatchet job they are more deluded than I thought they were.

CC

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

Time will tell, you may yet be surprised.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Indeed it might, and why shouldn't it? After all, there are numerous criminals driving taxis - including convicted killers and the violent - and there are still plenty others in the trade who are capable of violence, threats and damage to property who have no kind of criminal record whatsoever.

And that's not to mention others without a licence - friends, relatives, business associates - who may have some kind of stake in the trade, direct or indirect.

Indeed you only have to read some of the threatening messages posted on here ocassionally to realise that there are plenty in the trade willing to use physical intimidation to get their way.



No, it "casts a dark shadow" on those in the trade willing to use threats, intimidation and damage to property to further their own ends.

Of course you actually know all this, but your point is merely intended to discredit this "external stakeholder" because you're assuming their views are unpalatable as compared to your own perspective.

But you never know, they could actually be in agreement with you.

By the way, Brummie Cabbie, I'm not sure what you mean by the person in question having 'controversial views' or 'strong opinions on things', but having thought about what the whole thing may have been about I doubt if the views that have been witheld have to be particularly controversial or strong.

For example, they may have been about things like drug dealing or money laundering, or other patent illegality such as unlicensed drivers and vehicles. Or other regulatory issues that don't involve such obvious criminality but which can often lead to threats and violence, as indeed demonstrated online. That category could include things like quantity controls, fare discounting and the black economy.

There are other slightly more mundane issues that can nevertheless set pulses racing such as cherry-picking and queue-jumping.

And some people even get uppity about softer issues still such as dress codes and advertising.

Of course, it all comes down to money, and the first time I was expressly threatened was due to a contractual dispute; basically I decided to end our relationship, but the numpty in question thought he would help himself to the money he owed me. The second time was after the only official complaint I've ever made in relation to someone else in the trade.

And this is in a small town, so I'm quite sure in a big, mean city like Birmingham you must be well aware to these kinds of thing.

Thus I suspect you're trying to spin the issue here because things like money laundering or drug dealing aren't really what could be called 'controversial', unless of course you're one of those benefitting from these things.

And for the avoidance of doubt, the individual in question isn't me. I sent something to the DfT when they were consulting on the OFT report around eight years ago, and didn't even receive an acknowledgement.

So I've never actually received any kind of communication from the DfT at all, never mind meeting up with them.

By the way, Brummie Cabbie, why don't YOU disclose your identity on here.

Paranoia Я us!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Those are just views that can and have be expressed by many in the trade. Views to stimulate discussion. All relevant to the person making them and to all sane licensed people. What is ther not to discuss in that list? What is there in that list to get violent about?


We don't get much of the mean and nasty stuff in Brum. But the one and only guy who tried it on me about five years ago had his licence suspended for six months. Driving a taxi at another cab and trying to force it into a six foot high wall with 3 CCTV cameras recording events wasn't very clever.


'Controversial'? You must mean criminal; don't you? And the rest sounds a bit 'Rumsfelfdy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=_RpSv3HjpEw


Your right, it isn't you. That is a fact! The individual's identity has been alluded to in another TDO thread.


Then I suspect you couldn't have written to them nicely enough.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Probably for the same reason you and most on TDO don't disclose their identity.

But I did slip up badly the other day and if you are who I think you are, you already have the answer to your own question, or rather the question within your question.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

He's not.

Back to the thread.

I don't for a second believe the secret meeting was between the DfT and an individual. In fact I would be amazed if an individual had a private meeting with DfT officials. No, this meeting was with an organisation and my money is on the Institute of Licensing.

However if it was an individual representing himself, then that person is fully entitled to a) have his/her view heard, and b) remain anon if they so wish.

That doesn't apply to an organisation, and any personal info could have be blanked out, as happened in some of your other FoI replies.

_________________
IDFIMH

But the DfT are a public body, so perhaps without taking minutes the reason for the meeting should be made public?

CC

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