On 03/07/2014 14:21, Someone Somewhere wrote:

Hey - and look something relevant to the subject header and London!
Makes a change from Cambridge minicabs (no Uber in Cambridge...)

http://thenextweb.com/uk/2014/07/03/...wfully-london/

TaL is not a judicial authority.

On 03/07/2014 15:12, tim..... wrote:

"Someone Somewhere" wrote in message
...

Hey - and look something relevant to the subject header and London!
Makes a change from Cambridge minicabs (no Uber in Cambridge...)

http://thenextweb.com/uk/2014/07/03/...wfully-london/


I await the return of Mr Nugent to say "sorry" to me

The matter will not be finally decided - or decided at all - until it is
decided in a court.

Transport against London is not a court and their decisions can be
judicially reviewed.

On 03/07/2014 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:10:00
on Thu, 3 Jul 2014, remarked:

The part we discussing is "must be booked in advance".

Something shown on all hire cars in Cambridge but not in London. Other
places have clearer/larger signs than Cambridge.

But when it's 2am and raining and you are trying to get home, who will
remember to look for such a sign?

The concept of "law abiding criminals" rears its head. If someone is
prepared to run an unlicenced minicab, won't they also neglect to put up
the lawfully required sign telling their potential customers not to get
into it?

The only answer that works is tell people that they should only ever
book such cars in advance, and hence be more assured that it's not an
unlicenced one (with all the associated risks).

"Unlicensed minicabs" is a strawman. There are a few knocking about, I'm
sure, but not as many as people think.

The context is very handy for use as a bogeyman by the real offenders:
licensed minicab drivers who unlawfully ply for hire on the streets (and
that's the majority of them).

On 03/07/2014 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2014 14:21, Someone Somewhere wrote:

Hey - and look something relevant to the subject header and London!
Makes a change from Cambridge minicabs (no Uber in Cambridge...)

http://thenextweb.com/uk/2014/07/03/...wfully-london/


TaL is not a judicial authority.

Who are TaL and where did I claim they were a judicial authority? The
linked article claims they have taken legal advice which I assume they
procured from a qualified professional of some sort.

On 03/07/2014 17:12, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 03/07/2014 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2014 14:21, Someone Somewhere wrote:

Hey - and look something relevant to the subject header and London!
Makes a change from Cambridge minicabs (no Uber in Cambridge...)

http://thenextweb.com/uk/2014/07/03/...wfully-london/



TaL is not a judicial authority.

Who are TaL and where did I claim they were a judicial authority? The
linked article claims they have taken legal advice which I assume they
procured from a qualified professional of some sort.

Transport against London (they certainly don't work *for* London) have
taken legal advice.

Whoopee.

Anyone can take legal advice.

In message , at 17:11:58 on Thu, 3 Jul
2014, JNugent remarked:
The only answer that works is tell people that they should only ever
book such cars in advance, and hence be more assured that it's not an
unlicenced one (with all the associated risks).

"Unlicensed minicabs" is a strawman. There are a few knocking about,
I'm sure, but not as many as people think.

The context is very handy for use as a bogeyman by the real offenders:
licensed minicab drivers who unlawfully ply for hire on the streets
(and that's the majority of them).

I'm not sure why using unlicenced cars as a bogey-man, to encourage a
publicity campaign to encourage people to only use pre-booked cars, is
in any way helpful to licenced minicab drivers illegally plying for
hire.
--
Roland Perry

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2014 15:12, tim..... wrote:

"Someone Somewhere" wrote in message
...

Hey - and look something relevant to the subject header and London!
Makes a change from Cambridge minicabs (no Uber in Cambridge...)

http://thenextweb.com/uk/2014/07/03/...wfully-london/


I await the return of Mr Nugent to say "sorry" to me

The matter will not be finally decided - or decided at all - until it is
decided in a court.

Transport against London is not a court and their decisions can be
judicially reviewed.

But who's going to take it to court?

And who's going to prosecute individual minicab drivers (the ones who are,
otherwise, correctly registered and insured).

If TfL think there is no point as they wont win, who's going to do it? In
fact, who else has the right to do it

tim

On 03/07/2014 17:22, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 17:11:58 on Thu, 3 Jul
2014, JNugent remarked:

The only answer that works is tell people that they should only ever
book such cars in advance, and hence be more assured that it's not an
unlicenced one (with all the associated risks).

"Unlicensed minicabs" is a strawman. There are a few knocking about,
I'm sure, but not as many as people think.

The context is very handy for use as a bogeyman by the real offenders:
licensed minicab drivers who unlawfully ply for hire on the streets
(and that's the majority of them).

I'm not sure why using unlicenced cars as a bogey-man, to encourage a
publicity campaign to encourage people to only use pre-booked cars, is
in any way helpful to licenced minicab drivers illegally plying for hire.

I wasn't necessarily linking the subject with this or that news item,
but making remarks about the trade more generally. It's a deflection of
enforcement efforts: "It's not us, honest, guv; it's them pirates".

On 03/07/2014 19:18, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2014 15:12, tim..... wrote:

"Someone Somewhere" wrote in message
...

Hey - and look something relevant to the subject header and London!
Makes a change from Cambridge minicabs (no Uber in Cambridge...)

http://thenextweb.com/uk/2014/07/03/...wfully-london/



I await the return of Mr Nugent to say "sorry" to me

The matter will not be finally decided - or decided at all - until it
is decided in a court.

Transport against London is not a court and their decisions can be
judicially reviewed.

But who's going to take it to court?

Any interested party could. The trade union(s) for taxi-drivers, for a
start.

And who's going to prosecute individual minicab drivers (the ones who
are, otherwise, correctly registered and insured).

If TfL think there is no point as they wont win, who's going to do it?
In fact, who else has the right to do it

The PCO (now operating under TaL) has strong form for this sort of
thing. Anything for a quiet life and to hell with the livelihood of the
taxi industry.

It originally decided to do nothing about Welbeck Minicabs and their
Renault Dauphines. History records that something happened nevertheless.

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 17:11:58 on Thu, 3
Jul 2014, JNugent remarked:
The only answer that works is tell people that they should only ever
book such cars in advance, and hence be more assured that it's not an
unlicenced one (with all the associated risks).

"Unlicensed minicabs" is a strawman. There are a few knocking about,
I'm sure, but not as many as people think.

The context is very handy for use as a bogeyman by the real offenders:
licensed minicab drivers who unlawfully ply for hire on the streets
(and that's the majority of them).

I'm not sure why using unlicenced cars as a bogey-man, to encourage a
publicity campaign to encourage people to only use pre-booked cars,
is in any way helpful to licenced minicab drivers illegally plying
for hire.

I think you'll find there is a relationship between the prominence of
vehicle signing and the prevalence of unlicensed "minicabs". That rather
confirms the point I was making that they aren't really a problem in
Cambridge. Plying for hire by drivers of licensed hire cars is, however.
AIUI there are a number of prosecutions of City and South Cambs drivers
pending.

--
Colin Rosenstiel