Taxi Driver Online :: View topic

Rest assured If the gov wanted rid of all three clauses it would have happened yesterday.

The gov got rid of the 'any driver when not working' clause because of pressure from the women/rape/etc groups, who have been fed misleading nonsense from sad elements of the trade.

Let's face facts all the anti Dereg bill stuff is about the cross border issue, and if they had stuck to that then they would have had got the support of good old me, for what that's worth.

But Instead the idiots blurred matters with lies linking it to the safety issue.

Now 10s of 1000s of ph drivers will be out of pocket, having to continue buying second cars for their partners.

But hey who gives a f*** about them, as long as the spivs get their way.

The latest email update from the government regarding the deregulation bill does not mention this change.

there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem

You would if you lived here. Buses to the villages are almost none existent any more. So have been replaced by demand responsive transport solutions whereby the passenger has to book a seat on the transport the day before they need it. If the transport is full they can't travel.

grandad wrote:

But in fairness its illegal now and isn't going to change - so there's no issue - its not as if all of a sudden people will deprived of driving licensed vehicles.

No but it means that they will still have to run more than one car. Rural public transport is disappearing at an alarming rate and everyone in rural locations are suffering.

there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem

toots wrote:

there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem

That is like the old (miss) quote attributed to Marie Antoinette. "let them eat cake." remind me, what happened to her?

grandad wrote:

toots wrote:

there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem

That is like the old (miss) quote attributed to Marie Antoinette. "let them eat cake." remind me, what happened to her?

They chopped her head off, and, your point? My point is these vehicles are work horses not family cars so I don't see the problem.

My point, they can't use the car so let them catch the (non existent) bus. off with your head. :mrgreen:

toots wrote:

there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem

grandad wrote:

toots wrote:

there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem

What do other spouses do when their partner doesn't have a licensed vehicle?

gusmac wrote:

What do other spouses do when their partner doesn't have a licensed vehicle?

They drive the family car. #-o

Author:	toots [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
Sussex wrote: Rest assured If the gov wanted rid of all three clauses it would have happened yesterday. The gov got rid of the 'any driver when not working' clause because of pressure from the women/rape/etc groups, who have been fed misleading nonsense from sad elements of the trade. Let's face facts all the anti Dereg bill stuff is about the cross border issue, and if they had stuck to that then they would have had got the support of good old me, for what that's worth. But Instead the idiots blurred matters with lies linking it to the safety issue. Now 10s of 1000s of ph drivers will be out of pocket, having to continue buying second cars for their partners. But hey who gives a f*** about them, as long as the spivs get their way. Taxi drivers have to do that in a lot cases anyway, there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
grandad wrote: The latest email update from the government regarding the deregulation bill does not mention this change. I cant find anything official either

Author:	grandad [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
toots wrote: there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem You would if you lived here. Buses to the villages are almost none existent any more. So have been replaced by demand responsive transport solutions whereby the passenger has to book a seat on the transport the day before they need it. If the transport is full they can't travel.

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
grandad wrote: You would if you lived here. Buses to the villages are almost none existent any more. So have been replaced by demand responsive transport solutions whereby the passenger has to book a seat on the transport the day before they need it. If the transport is full they can't travel. But in fairness its illegal now and isn't going to change - so there's no issue - its not as if all of a sudden people will deprived of driving licensed vehicles.

Author:	grandad [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
captain cab wrote: grandad wrote: You would if you lived here. Buses to the villages are almost none existent any more. So have been replaced by demand responsive transport solutions whereby the passenger has to book a seat on the transport the day before they need it. If the transport is full they can't travel. But in fairness its illegal now and isn't going to change - so there's no issue - its not as if all of a sudden people will deprived of driving licensed vehicles. No but it means that they will still have to run more than one car. Rural public transport is disappearing at an alarming rate and everyone in rural locations are suffering.

Taxi Driver Online https://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Lords letter. https://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=25295	Page 2 of 3

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
grandad wrote: No but it means that they will still have to run more than one car. Rural public transport is disappearing at an alarming rate and everyone in rural locations are suffering. But it means if they do drive a PHV they can work

Author:	grandad [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
toots wrote: there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem That is like the old (miss) quote attributed to Marie Antoinette. "let them eat cake." remind me, what happened to her?

Author:	toots [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
grandad wrote: toots wrote: there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem That is like the old (miss) quote attributed to Marie Antoinette. "let them eat cake." remind me, what happened to her? They chopped her head off, and, your point? My point is these vehicles are work horses not family cars so I don't see the problem.

Author:	grandad [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
toots wrote: grandad wrote: toots wrote: there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem That is like the old (miss) quote attributed to Marie Antoinette. "let them eat cake." remind me, what happened to her? They chopped her head off, and, your point? My point is these vehicles are work horses not family cars so I don't see the problem. My point, they can't use the car so let them catch the (non existent) bus. off with your head.

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
Just license it elsewhere grandad, that silly LO of yours wont be able to touch you then.

Author:	toots [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
Grandad wrote: My point, they can't use the car so let them catch the (non existent) bus. off with your head. They could if they got themselves a licence and lets be honest a licence is cheaper than another car. If they was the spouse of milkman would they want to drive that. Ffs it's not that inconvenient you can get a little run around for a few hundred quid, the problem and serious cost only occurs if the spouse wants a bigger, better and more expensive vehicle.

Author:	gusmac [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
grandad wrote: toots wrote: there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem You would if you lived here. Buses to the villages are almost none existent any more. So have been replaced by demand responsive transport solutions whereby the passenger has to book a seat on the transport the day before they need it. If the transport is full they can't travel. What do other spouses do when their partner doesn't have a licensed vehicle?

Author:	grandad [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
gusmac wrote: grandad wrote: toots wrote: there's always public transport for the spouse so I don't see the problem You would if you lived here. Buses to the villages are almost none existent any more. So have been replaced by demand responsive transport solutions whereby the passenger has to book a seat on the transport the day before they need it. If the transport is full they can't travel. What do other spouses do when their partner doesn't have a licensed vehicle? They drive the family car.

Author:	toots [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
So does everybody else just have one family car because I don't know anybody that shares a family car

Page 2 of 3	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	gusmac [ Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Lords letter.
grandad wrote: gusmac wrote: What do other spouses do when their partner doesn't have a licensed vehicle? They drive the family car. Then get a family car. If their hubby was the undertaker, would they use the hearse to go to ASDA?