Friday, January 29, 2016

TfL's Dancing On Heads Of Pins Goes On And I'm Spartacus.

So folks here we have all we need to know about TfL and its intentions from the impact report.

          Displaying of cars available in app:

TfL recognise it's likely to be plying for hire, but have abrogated their duty to prevent it, by passing the buck for someone else to challenge. 

So much for Mayor Boris Johnson's "Uber are  breaking the law in all sorts of minor ways".

The Mayor has announced "subject to TfL Board approval in March 2016 TfL is not intending to proceed with this proposal. However, it is likely that this concept will be tested in the courts, providing a determination on whether this constitutes plying for hire".

Don't fret it gets worse! They (TfL) have not 'engaged' with us, despite us having three hundred years plus experience in this sector and a whole host of legal precedence on matters. We were of course allowed to write in, only to be ignored.  

He went on to say, "It is understood that the impacts of some of these proposals, and whether they are implemented or not, could have wider impacts on other transport providers, for example public transport and the taxi sector. Engagement has not been undertaken with representatives of these wider transport provider groups to date as part of this".

So the next step is for the TfL board, they can reject it and instruct Daniels and co to go back to the drawing board or perhaps even man up and take someone to court for the in app availability that all legal precedent states 'is Plying for Hire'

We all know who's on the TfL board and today they should state their intent at the meeting on the 17th of March

It's simple they are either with us if they reject or against us if they adopt this report.

Date for your diary: 

17th March 2016 TfL Board Meeting

I'm Spartacus

P.s can we now assume that the UTG trade orgs will repudiate the 'engagement policy' for the sham that it is and join their taxi driving brethren?

1 comment:

Ashamed of London said...

Laughably the report states that banning the cars shown in app or having a five minute rule would have a major adverse economic impact on a certain digital provider. No mention of any impact on us of course.

So there we have it, effectively this means that if enough drug dealers hit the streets then the law would not arrest any of them as it would have an adverse economic impact on them.

Will they use this methodology for pedicabs, yuk tuks or sedan chairs?

TfL is the licensing authority and runs a two tier system we ply for immediate hire, everyone else has to be pre booked and that cannot happen by e hailing, it's illegal the report says as much but TfL sit on their hands and expect someone else to take it to the courts.
'Immediate PH market' that's shorthand for illegally plying for hits and likely as not touting.

This issue is much bigger than the cab trade, it strikes at the very heart of democracy, parliament passed the laws, TfL were apponnted to enforce them, I lost two great uncles killed in WW2 defending democracy and the rule of law, apparently this can all be tossed aside for a corporate tax dodger from elsewhere with deep pockets and plenty of influence.

Please dont turn up at a Remembrance Sunday Service Boris, you would disgrace their sacred memory..