"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 17:40, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 20:48, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 22:21:04 +0000, said:
We couldn't find a mechanism to manage this, even from the station
with its legendary taxi queues.
At the station might it have just about worked to put up a sign saying
something like "Why not ask others if they will share your taxi to keep
costs down and keep things moving? Wait here if you'd like to do
this."
- leaving it to the passengers to get together to hire a taxi and split
its fare, and thus making it legal?
That might work, though there is a real risk that unlicensed touts
would interpose themselves and start offering "service".
Incidentally, there is a working system at Newark Airport where a
despatcher (employed by the airport) allocates passengers/groups of
passengers to taxis with a flat fare (flat by the vehicle, not per
capita) to specific places. That's places, not addresses. The last
time I used it I paid $45 from the airport to a NJ city on the Hudson.
Oh, so it's all right for you to take advantage of it in the US.
Indeed. And if LHR decided to do the same here, I'd support that - mainly
because it would be lawful, whereas allowing the driver to do it would not
be.
So why have you spent the last 4 days saying that the law forbidding this
operation is a good law and should be kept?
but it not all right for me to use this method in London,
It's *perfectly* alright for you or anyone else to use such a system
(where an independent third party does the matching and pairing).
but that's exactly what I have be arguing for, that you keep on saying that
I can't have (the independent third party in my scenario being the marshal
of the rank at e.g. the airport)
I keep on saying that this is what I want and you keep on saying "you can't
have that because it's illegal,. the fact that it's illegal is good law and
the law should stay that way")
for no other
reason that because you don't think it should be allowed to be offered.
Oh dear...
You weren't thinking, were you?
I don't understand in the slightest
I can only repeat:
what a hypocrite!
That must be a self description, because it certainly does not describe my
logical and consistent stance.
So it's consist to say: the system in NY is so good you "used it twice", but
that operating the same system in the UK being illegal is a good thing?
what a load of inconsistent ********
what a ****** you are.
tosser
tim