On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:52:01PM -0000, Basil Jet wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
And there's nothing "shifty" about minicab drivers. Not, at least, if
you use a minicab instead of a random stranger touting for business on
the street illegally. If a minicab driver rips you off on your Oyster
card, well, you and TfL will know who it was, or at least which
company it was, and they'll be strongly incentivised not to do that.
Like the way Lewis Day Minicabs were strongly incentivised not to swindle
quarter of a million quid out of the NHS?

It would, obviously, rely on people bothering to complain, and having a
personal incentive to chase TfL if they don't sort it out pronto.

And in any case, Lewis Day did get caught, and didn't they have to pay
the money back, with interest?

--
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat

engineer: n. one who, regardless of how much effort he puts in
to a job, will never satisfy either the suits or the scientists

David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:52:01PM -0000, Basil Jet wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
And there's nothing "shifty" about minicab drivers. Not, at least,
if you use a minicab instead of a random stranger touting for
business on the street illegally. If a minicab driver rips you off
on your Oyster card, well, you and TfL will know who it was, or at
least which company it was, and they'll be strongly incentivised
not to do that.
Like the way Lewis Day Minicabs were strongly incentivised not to
swindle quarter of a million quid out of the NHS?

It would, obviously, rely on people bothering to complain, and having
a personal incentive to chase TfL if they don't sort it out pronto.

And in any case, Lewis Day did get caught, and didn't they have to pay
the money back, with interest?

How would that disincentivise them from trying it again? No-one's been
prosecuted AFAIK. Lewis Day still have the NHS contract and are still
TfL-approved. The man responsible is now at another TfL-approved minicab
company. The NHS managers who awarded the contract to Lewis Day and then
told the whistleblower to take no notice of the 250k gone AWOL still have
their jobs and pensions AFAIK.

I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. If an NHS manager is
paying double the going rate for beds or biros, it sticks out like a sore
thumb on the balance sheets, but "taxi" contracts for unmetered vehicles can
be awarded for way above the going rate without it being noticeable unless
you study a map. After all, metered fares in taxis were introduced because
the potential for exploiting taxi customers who are in an unfamiliar area
was so much greater than the potential for exploiting mars bar customers or
shoe customers, so the corruption potential of allowing non-metered vehicles
to perform "taxi" services under contracts awarded by public service
managers is obvious. One of the non-existant journeys in the Lewis Day scam
was 105 pounds for 21 miles in the daytime (Hammersmith Hospital to Gerrards
Cross), which is nearly twice what a ride in a hailed £33,000 taxi would
cost - this would be robbery of the taxpayers even if the journey had been
performed.

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that
much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all
of whom will vote Labour.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!


When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!


When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

Mizter T wrote:

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I don't mind being called "simply ****ing mental",
in fact, I wish my psychiatrist would be as polite as you.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Mar 3, 1:59*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I don't mind being called "simply ****ing mental",
in fact, I wish my psychiatrist would be as polite as you.

Though wasn't calling you that, that was what how I was characterising
your comments - important distinction! Probably an unnecessary
outburst on my part anyway, as I don't really take your comments such
as those upthread to literally mean what they say... but perhaps I
should... and maybe sometimes I do... aah the delights of ambiguity,
all adds to the entertainment value I suppose...

Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:59 pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

I don't mind being called "simply ****ing mental",
in fact, I wish my psychiatrist would be as polite as you.

Though wasn't calling you that, that was what how I was characterising
your comments - important distinction! Probably an unnecessary
outburst on my part anyway, as I don't really take your comments such
as those upthread to literally mean what they say... but perhaps I
should... and maybe sometimes I do... aah the delights of ambiguity,
all adds to the entertainment value I suppose...

My words meant what they said (except for the bit about me having a
psychiatrist, which was joke). I did say it was a suspicion rather than a
proven fact. But as we found with immigration, Labour is very good at
feigning incompetence while achieving exactly what they secretly wanted all
along.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:





On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on
setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of
backhanders, although not to managers particularly, who are just
employees of the dodgy companies.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote:

On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on
setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of
backhanders

True. Did you mean to suggest that they have been keen to do it *in order
to* facilitate the giving of backhanders? And by 'backhanders', do you
mean money illegally diverted to individuals, rather than, say, subsidies
by another name to the contracting industry? My impression was that Brown
saw PFI as a way to borrow money without it going on the balance sheets,
which made him look better. It's fraud, rather than corruption.

tom

--
But in the week its like Urbino under the wise rule of Count Federico,
only with a better football team and the nations most pleb-infested
Waitrose. And shops selling size 12 stilettos. -- Jelb, on Holloway

On 3 Mar, 20:49, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote:
On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on
setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of
backhanders

True. Did you mean to suggest that they have been keen to do it *in order
to* facilitate the giving of backhanders? And by 'backhanders', do you
mean money illegally diverted to individuals, rather than, say, subsidies
by another name to the contracting industry? My impression was that Brown
saw PFI as a way to borrow money without it going on the balance sheets,
which made him look better. It's fraud, rather than corruption.

They have found ways of making backhanders legal.

It's not just hiding the borrowing, it's also borrowing much more and
giving much more of it away to companies (from which individuals get
rich) for less work getting done.