Thursday, August 31, 2017

After Week Of No Comments, Palace Knife Attacker Finally Outed In Court As Uber Driver.

Last week, after the Palce knife attack, the main media failed to make any mention or connection, of the terrorist/attacker being an Uber driver. They also failed to mention he was driving a TfL registered Minicab.

But today the news has finally been posted on the BBC news web spite. 

News today that Chowdhury was in fact an Uber driver has now started to trickle through to the Nationals, which is extremely bad news for the eHail app.

So now we have both the Leytonstone slasher and now the Palace knife attacker, both confirmed working for Uber. That's along side the confirmed 48 sexual attackers and rapists.

For the past week, TfL have again protected their partners 'employee', refusing to comment on whether Mohiussunnath Choudhury was licensed as a PH driver at the time of the attack. 

Independent checks have shown that TfL had a driver registered by that name on the day after the attack.... but this licence (number 252605, expiry date, 11/04/2020) has now been removed from the TfL licence checker database.

TfL Protecting Their Partners?

TfL Compliance teams (COs) have been demanding Taxi drivers on ranks, remove copies of Taxi newspaper because -in their words- the headline is misleading to the public. 

COs at first were insisting that this headline was misleading, but when it was pointed out that this headline was in fact true and had appeared in national newspapers, they switched to insisting that it was unauthorised signage. It was then pointed out that this was not signage, just a newspaper left in the Taxi.

TfL are now pointing to an obscure notice put out in 06/2014. Which dealt with uncomplimentory signage (Totally failing London stickers) aimed at TfL failure towards the Taxi trade.

It's scandalous the way TfL bend over backwards, refusing to answer Taxi trade questions and in some cases refused Freedom of Information requests made on behalf of Taxi representative groups.

In a recent tweet, the London Cab Drivers Club pointed out they had to wait five months for TfL to reply to an email.

The man who was arrested near Buckingham Palace armed with a 4ft sword has now been formally charged with a terror offence.

Mohiussunnath Choudhury, 26, was charged by Scotland Yard following last week's car attack on police near the royal residence.

Three officers suffered minor injuries in the incident after he allegedly drove a vehicle at them just after 8.30pm on Friday and then reached for the sword.

Choudhury, from Luton, will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court later on Thursday.

He faces the charge of engaging in the preparation to commit an act or acts of terrorism on Constitution Hill.

CO Powers, TfL Advertising Policy And The TAXI Newspaper .... Follow Up From Vaughan Williams.

Since my last article I have received some interesting information.

Some time ago I wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority asking them whether a newspaper sitting in a cab constituted an advertisement. I have just received a reply, which states :

" we ... advise that the material would only be considered an ad and subject to the CAP if a marketer had paid for the content to be placed there ".

This undermines, as I suspected, TfL's ability to use the London Cab Order of 1934, which according to the TfL Advertising Guidelines themselves says :

" the licensee shall not ... ( basically other than in accordance with TfL guidelines ) ...permit any ... printed matter ... to be displayed ... or presented to the customer by way of advertising "

As the ASA ( and they should know ) does not consider the TAXI newspaper headline as advertising unless the licensee has been paid for displaying it, then this section looks like it is not applicable.

Which leaves TfL leaning heavily on its general powers given by the GLA Act 1999 :

" to do such things as are calculated to facilitate , or are conducive to, the discharge of its functions. "

So as we have dismissed the silly " misbehaviour " argument, it is only under the TfL Advertising Guidelines, which are allegedly issued under those powers, that TfL may attempt to act against a driver displaying a newspaper. You may recall that " information presented to passengers " is included within " taxi advertising " in those Guidelines.

The Human Rights Act 1998 , Article 10 , states that :

" everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority ".

So TfL is open to legal attack on the basis that telling people they can't make " negative references to TfLs services " is :

1) nothing to do with TfL's capacity to " discharge its functions " , so the Guidelines are ultra vires in this area
2) a breach of the HRA 1998, so ineffective

So the above, combined with the requirement for written notice and reasons included in my previous article, would appear to render TfL's position in this area at least rather dubious !

As before, I don't pretend to be a lawyer, these are a layman's interpretations, so I accept no liability etc.

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Wellington Airport strikes deal with Uber, creating pick-up area and charging fees

The international passenger terminal at Wellington Airport. On Tuesday the company, majority owned by Infratil, became the first airport in New Zealand to reach a deal to allow Uber to operate on its property.
Wellington has become the first airport in New Zealand to strike a deal with ride-sharing company Uber.

From Friday Uber's drivers will be able to pick up and drop off riders, freed from the lingering threat of being trespassed.

Users can immediately begin being dropped off in the public drop-off zone outside the airport check-in area. A dedicated pick-up zone for Uber drivers will be opened on the ground floor on September 1.

Ride sharing app Uber allows passengers to order and pay for rides using their mobile phones. It has become a by-word for digital disruption of major industries.
The deal is hardly unvarnished good news for users of the service, who will effectively now face a price rise for rides which start or end at the airport.

Uber will collect a $3 fee for all pick-ups and drop-offs on airport property on behalf of the airport company, starting on Friday.

When Uber launched in Christchurch, taxi drivers staged a protest outside the offices of MP Nicky Wagner.

For some, the deal may seem confusing, as users of the technology company, which has become a by-word for digital disruption, clearly already use the service at the airport.

But at airports in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch - the only cities in which Uber operates in New Zealand - the practice is officially forbidden.

Passengers are often forced to walk off airport property, or at least to parts of the site which are less closely monitored, to be picked up, otherwise the drivers risk fines or being barred from the property.

Airports have blamed transport regulations for the impasse, although opposition from taxi companies - which are understood to collectively pay millions of dollars for defined ranks near terminal exits - has also featured in the argument.

In a statement, Wellington Airport and Uber said the agreement followed the passing of the Land Transport Amendment Bill earlier in August, which recognises and effectively legitimises elements of ride-sharing services for the first time.

Wellington Airport spokesman Greg Thomas said the deal was the first of its kind in New Zealand.

"We're pleased to reach agreement with Uber and be the first airport to add ride-sharing to our ground transport services," Thomas said.

"This is another example of how we are making transport to and from the airport easy and convenient for travellers.

Uber has long claimed that it was willing to pay to use airport property, however its previous refusal to adhere to some transport regulations has meant airports risked breaching the duty of care the companies legally owed passengers.

The refusal of the San Francisco headquartered technology company to fall into line strained relations with the Government.

At one point, Transport Minister Simon Bridges raised the prospect that the company could effectively be banned if it continued to refuse to give assurances around passenger safety.

Uber has hailed the deal with Wellington.

"This is a win for consumer choice, tourism and the Wellington travelling public," Uber New Zealand general manager Richard Menzies said.

The deal sparked an angry reaction from one of New Zealand's leading taxi companies.

Bob Wilkinson, chief executive of Blue Bubble Taxis (which operates as Combined Taxis in Wellington) said he was "outraged" by the news.

"They [Wellington Airport] are prepared to put a company into the airport that isn't even yet legal," Wilkinson said, referring to Uber's past flouting of NZTA regulations.

Wellington's deal was likely to lead to similar deals in Auckland and Christchurch, Wilkinson said.

"Airports are mainly concerned about providing returns for their shareholders, and if this is a potential source of revenue, they must look at it.

"Wellington's broken rank, decided to go for it, the other two will probably follow suit."

The deal marks a considerable change in Uber's relationship with Wellington Airport, which is jointly owned by Infratil and the Wellington City Council.

In early 2016 airport chief executive Steve Sanderson said Uber drivers who repeatedly picked up passengers at the airport could be trespassed, even as he claimed to be close to reaching a deal to allow Uber to operate at the airport.

This would mean a driver would need the express permission of Sanderson to enter airport property, even as a passenger. The threat was never exercised.

In mid-2016 security guards were employed to monitor for Uber drivers using the airport, leading to claims of heavy-handed treatment.

Passengers wanting to use the service tended to request rides from the nearby Z Energy station which, while still being on airport property, attracted less attention.

By April 2017, Wellington Airport had blocked Uber from its free wifi network, making it harder for international passengers to access the service on arrival in the capital.

But in recent weeks Uber drivers have indicated the airport had dropped its monitoring and they were routinely picking up and dropping off passengers outside the entrance to the airport terminal.

Thomas said on Tuesday that Uber has been removed from the list of apps blocked from its network "a while ago".


Meanwhile, back here at the O2 in Greenwich, round the corner from the TfL Riverwalk Building, Uber have been given a pick up waiting area....or as we call it, a rank

Why a Group of Uber Drivers Were Fined in Denmark This Week !

Four Uber drivers were fined by a Danish court on Monday for operating taxis illegally while working for the ride hailing service before it withdrew from the market in April.

The four men, one of whom was fined 486,500 Danish crowns ($78,060), were charged in March for failing to have permits and for violating a law introduced in February that imposed extra rules on taxis operating in Denmark, police said.

Another 1,500 Uber drivers also faced charges of illegally operating taxis, Vibeke Thorkil-Jensen, head of public prosecution for Copenhagen police, told Reuters. She did not give further details about the charges.

After launching its service in Denmark in 2014, Uber was criticized by taxi driver unions, companies, and politicians who said the firm posed unfair competition by not meeting legal standards required for established taxi firms.

Parliament passed a law in February 2017 that introduced more stringent requirements on taxis, such as mandatory fare meters and seat sensors. The new rules prompted Uber's withdrawal.

Union officials said Uber had operated illegally even before the new law was passed. In November, a student was fined for failure to have a permit while working for Uber.

In Monday's ruling, one of the four drivers was fined 486,500 crowns for making 5,427 illegal taxi rides with Uber in 2015, Copenhagen district court said in a statement. Three others were fined between 40,000 and 110,000 crowns, it said.

"We are very disappointed for the drivers involved and our top priority is to support them during this difficult time," said an Uber spokeswoman. She said it welcomed regulations in Denmark but there was a "clear need for modern regulations."

A lawyer acting for the drivers said at least three of the men would appeal their conviction, the Danish news agency Ritzau reported.

Reuters could not immediately reach the four drivers or lawyers acting for them.

Uber, whose drivers have faced criticism from traditional taxi operators in other markets around the world, picked Expedia boss Dara Khosrowshahi as its new chief executive replacing co-founder Travis Kalanick.

Kalanick resigned in June, under pressure following accounts of a corporate culture of sexism and bullying, as well as a U.S. Department of Justice federal investigation filed by Alphabet's (googl, +0.86%) autonomous car division.

In U.S. Uber is under investigation for possible bribery law violations :

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Uber Technologies Inc [UBER.UL] said on Tuesday it was cooperating with a preliminary investigation led by the U.S. Department of Justice into possible violations of bribery laws.

The preliminary investigation is the latest in a series of legal wrangles at Uber as the ride-services company waits for its new chief executive to take the reins.

Uber has chosen Dara Khosrowshahi, the CEO of Expedia Inc (EXPE.O), as it next leader, sources have told Reuters, but the company has not yet made it official. 

A spokesman for the company confirmed the existence of a “preliminary investigation” following a report by the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that the Justice Department had started probing whether managers at Uber violated U.S. laws against bribery of foreign officials, specifically the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

It is unclear whether authorities are focused on one country or multiple countries where the company operates.

Reuters in June reported that Uber had hired a law firm to investigate how it obtained the medical records of an Indian woman who was raped by an Uber driver in 2014. The review was to focus in part on accusations from some current and former employees that bribes were involved, two people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The Uber board on Sunday voted to select Khosrowshahi as the company’s next leader to replace co-founder Travis Kalanick, who was ousted in June under shareholder pressure, sources told Reuters.

Khosrowshahi, 48, on Tuesday made his first public comments since the board’s decision to make him CEO in two interviews in which he confirmed he plans to accept Uber’s top job, despite the company’s many problems. He made the comments at a previously scheduled event at Expedia’s headquarters in Bellevue, Washington.

“Are there difficulties? Are there complexities? Are there challenges? Absolutely, but that’s also what makes it fun,” Khosrowshahi told Bloomberg. 

Khosrowshahi has not responded to inquires from Reuters. 

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Uber pulls controversial feature that allowed passengers to be tracked for five minutes AFTER their journey

• The change restores users' ability to share location data only while using the app. 

• The change is to be rolled out to Apple iPhone users starting this week. 

• Uber is trying to fix its poor reputation for customer privacy. 

• Dara Khosrowshahi, the CEO of Expedia is set to become Uber's new chief exec. 

Uber is pulling a heavily criticised feature from its app that allowed it to track riders for up to five minutes after a trip, according to a new report.

The change, which restores users' ability to share location data only while using the app, is to be rolled out to Apple iPhone users starting this week.

It comes as Uber tries to recover from a series of crises culminating in the dismissal of Chief Executive Travis Kalanick and other top executives while the company tries to fix its poor reputation for customer privacy.

An update to the app made last November eliminated the option for users to limit data gathering to only when the app is in use, instead forcing them to choose between letting Uber always collect location data or never collect it.

Uber said it needed permission to always gather data in order to track riders for five minutes after a trip was completed, which the company believed could help in ensuring customers' physical safety. 

The option to never track required riders to manually enter pickup and drop-off addresses.

But the changes were met with swift criticism by some users and privacy advocates who called them a breach of user trust by a company already under fire for how it collects and uses customers' data. 

Uber said it never actually began post-trip tracking for iPhone users and suspended it for Android users.

Security Officer Joe Sullivan said Uber made a mistake by asking for more information from users without making clear what value Uber would offer in return.

Dara Khosrowshahi, the CEO of travel-booking company Expedia is set to become Uber's new chief executive, sources have told Reuters.

The location-tracking update is unrelated to executive changes, said Joe Sullivan, Uber´s chief security officer, in an interview with Reuters. 

Mr Sullivan and his team of about 500 have been working to beef up customer privacy at Uber since he joined in 2015.

'We´ve been building through the turmoil and challenges because we already had our mandate,' said Mr Sullivan, who is a member of the executive leadership team that has been co-running Uber since Kalanick left in June.

An update to the app made last November eliminated the option for users to limit data gathering to only when the app is in use, instead forcing them to choose between letting Uber always collect location data or never collect it.

Uber said it needed permission to always gather data in order to track riders for five minutes after a trip was completed, which the company believed could help in ensuring customers' physical safety. 

The option to never track required riders to manually enter pickup and drop-off addresses.

But the changes were met with swift criticism by some users and privacy advocates who called them a breach of user trust by a company already under fire for how it collects and uses customers' data. 

Source : Daily Mail 

Why Are The Local Authorities Not Dealing With Vehicles From Out Of Town? Lee Ward.

Let’s go back to 1976, the year that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was born, the very Act to regulate the Private Hire industry. 

At the start of the debate in regards to this Act, it was referenced by Lord Sandys which the title was held by a Mr Richard Hill of the Conservative Party “the prologue to Plain Words, by Sir Ernest Gowers. 

What he said was this—and I quote his exact words:  Whatever the purpose, the object of the writer will be the same: to make the reader take his meaning readily and precisely”.

I will not bore you with every word in this debate, but what is no surprise is that a lengthy argument was had in regards to the late submission of Part 2 of the LGMPA 1976 in this Act and that very little if anything was consulted upon with the trade at the time, not unlike the Deregulation Act 2015. In fact it was EXACTLY like the discussion for the Deregulation Act 2015 (I know because I am a boring git and read all the Hansard reports on both).

What did come from this, is the fact that each area was allowed to ‘adopt’ the Act and the ones that did then came under the Acts' regulations and the argument to support this was very simple:

Each area can and will have differences in requirements of Vehicles, Drivers and Operators because each of the sections to license those 3 parts of the Private Hire industry have a section for each which states;
A district council may attach to the grant of a licence under this section such conditions as they may consider reasonably necessary.

So let’s look at what this brings us to basically, the intention of the discussions in the Bill before it came to an Act was to ensure that each area kept its own individuality when it adopted the Act. 

This was to support the notion that each area would have different requirements for mainly the driver and the vehicle, such as a driver may not require a knowledge test of the area because the area was so small or very rural or that another area because of the economic climate for the industry did not consider that a driver could afford to replace his vehicle every 5 years. Keep this in mind, we will be coming back to it soon enough...

I want to jump forward a few years now, because up to 2008 the status quo was stable and everyone got on with their own business and in their own licensing area, although the Hackney and Private Hire ‘them and us’ was always there, it was not to the extreme that it is now.

2008 brought the case that I am sure regular readers are aware of, between Newcastle & Berwick upon Tweed, where it was argued (and defeated) that a Hackney can work in any other district as a Private hire Vehicle, well I have my own argument on that which also cover’s the ‘cross border hiring’ or ‘triple license rule’
2012, now that was a year, wasn’t it?

In 2012 Uber were licensed by TfL to operate as a Private Hire company, although they always state that they [Uber] are a Technology Company… pfft, yeah right…

Now here is where the trade, both Taxi and Private Hire failed themselves greatly, because while it launched in London, the rest of the country didn’t see it effecting them. And when it did effect the rest of the country, London didn’t want to join forces. Divide & Conquer at its finest.

From 2012 Uber have grown in numbers so much that London are now considering a new charge to combat pollution and gridlock, to me this a knee jerk reaction to the Genie that they don’t think they can put back in the bottle. 

They are too scared to deal with Uber, as I will remind you all that many other countries and Cities have dealt with them around the world. Some have simply banned them completely for not operating within the regulations that they have while others have actually changed the regulations to suit the Uber model (even paid Australian Taxi driver’s compensation) but the UK has done neither, why not?

So, Uber spread across the UK into towns and cities, but let’s be honest, the towns that they are licensed in are not areas that they wish to actually Operate in, they just want the drivers licensed there to work in the bigger Cities à la London and saturation therein ensues. 

This is because Uber's model is not as efficient as they would like to claim. 
Given the absence of any facility to pre-book or build in a lead time during periods of high demand, the system is reliant on oversupply in order to obviate surging in these periods. The end result is oversupply and saturation which forces drivers to work dangerously long hours at low rates.

The low rates themselves are intended to encourage longer working hours that exceed fatigue thresholds before earning thresholds are reached.

They don’t sub contract bookings like companies do when using for example, a Hackney licensed in another area as a Private Hire driver…oh wait, they changed the law in the Deregulation Act 2015 to sub-contract work from one licensing area to another, I have no idea why in 2008 no one argued that the sub-contracting of work to a Hackney was illegal because the Hackney was licensed elsewhere, or perhaps an Authority relies on its local legal counsel to make argument and they basically are not good enough for the big boys that companies hire…just guessing.

Therefore Uber take bookings and give to drivers in any area licensed by any authority that Uber have an Operator’s license with. Yes, we know the driver accepts the booking, because Uber have told us but that’s not enough for an authority to decide that the Uber platform is illegal and revokes its licence, because they don’t want to send their local legal team up against the countries paid-for finest and lose! 

I mean, when a head of a licensing department has licensed Uber what’s he going to look at, the legal cost or his pension fund?

So back to the bit above, if each local area adopts the Act of 76, then each local area works under the local area conditions, as mentioned before.

Therefore how can a driver licensed in, say Wolverhampton, work in Sheffield, when he and his vehicle licence are to the conditions of Wolverhampton and not Sheffield?

The Act is clear where it states that each authority must keep a record of licences, if it was not with the intention to work within that local area then why was a national data base not required when the Act was written?

You see, it’s the intention and spirit of the Act that is what we are regulated by, not just the wording of it (important part for any authorities legal team to note should you be reading this).

Another little quirk in the wording of the Act that is used consistently throughout is the word ‘a’.

It’s not ‘any’ or ‘all’ it’s the word ‘a,’ the indefinite article and this little one-letter word is pretty important when dealing with Law and Acts.

Follows is a little English lesson, given to me by a good friend Mr Steven Toy when we discussed this matter, I had to learn so you lot can too.

​An article (a, an, some, the) gives information about the noun in the noun phrase. It can:
• Tell us how many there are; if the article is “a” or “an,” we know there’s only one.
• Tell us whether the noun in question is a specific one or just one in general.
• Signal to a reader or listener that a noun is just being introduced or that it’s one he’s already seen in a story.
In the wording of the LGMPA 76 it is always followed by ‘district council’
District means
an area of a country or town that has fixed borders that are used for official purposes, or that has a particular feature that makes it different from surrounding areas:
So we have at all times in the LGMPA 76
​‘a district’
Which then means
​A (a specific) district (area of the country that has fixed borders)

So as you can see, the wording is important to this argument, it means that each licence is a licence to the area where it was issued and has its conditions attached to it. It’s not a licence to work anywhere just because technology advancements enable it to.
I keep reading that technology has surpassed the law, well my car can do 140mph but they have not increased the speed on the motorways, and why? 

Because of the safety to the public!!
By the way, as you can see in the picture, they are quick enough to enforce that law, don’t you think?

Now really, am I looking at this through a different window on my PC to everyone else or is the ‘triple license rule’ really just an excuse that the authorities have jumped on because they don’t want the legal challenge?

So what’s stopping anyone challenge this?

Well, we all are to be honest.

We have way too much diversity and apathy in this trade, and all the while the triple license rule and Uber's working model are becoming more of an accepted way of life instead of an argument that needs addressing.

Only last week, when I challenged one of my local Licensing Officers about Uber and its operating model in regards to the driver accepts the booking, his answer was that they licensed them 2 years ago so what’s changed for them to question the licence?

Apathy from the authorities, not just the trade…

This needs to go through a court of law, and quickly. I will be happy to hold my hand up and say I was wrong if I am proved wrong, but somehow, I don’t think I will be.

How it gets to court is up to all of us, and with the correct representation too, the expensive bit.
But who do we chose?

Well, while one or more of the Orgs decide the best plan of legal attack, and my little Association will not be one of them, I am afraid. Perhaps now is the time for a truly national, cross-tier demo; one showing the whole country that enough is enough. 

A date is set, plans are drawn up and we all join in, regardless of what membership you pay or even if you don’t pay a membership. The time is ripe for this action to be taken; bring the country to a standstill.

Hackney and Private Hire stood together for the first time ever, not against each other but against what is destroying both of our livelihoods, that’s Uber and the likes of TfL and Wolverhampton who facilitate this saturation through greed of income at the expense of public safety, a saturation that puts people’s homes, families and ultimately lives at danger for reasons stated above.

That brings me onto authorities such as Wolverhampton, they disgust me and I believe could cost the Labour Party vital votes for any future Elections (Wolverhampton are a Labour Council)
September last year. I read a Wolverhampton Press article where Councillor Alan Bolshaw stated that the removal of the knowledge test will bring thousands more applicants, but don’t worry, they won’t work in Wolverhampton…. 

And by the way MR Bolshaw, I emailed you in September and have twice asked for a reply, at least have the decency of replying if you are going to flood my City with your vehicles.
Now the judge in the famous Berwick v Newcastle case said that;
“It seems to me it is very difficult to exercise proper control over hackney carriages which are never, or rarely, used in the prescribed area.”
Well that goes exactly the same for PHV, to which Wolverhampton and TfL (among others) are equally as guilty of issuing licenses that they cannot possibly enforce.
This is supported by the Local Government Associations Handbook for authorities on licensing this trade and has been in their handbook since 2010.
First,  I will show you the figures from an FOI that I sent to Wolverhampton regarding the licenses that they have issued.

Now that’s a 466% increase, what a surprise that Uber were issued a license in 2016 with Wolverhampton.
And here is a picture of the places that TfL licensed drivers live in the UK.

So how do these authorities take the license fee from these drivers and then police the drivers and the vehicles? They cantand to me that’s a failure in duty of care, or perhaps maladministration.
Now we compare this map with the map of Ubers Operators licenses….

Sorry, but if I can see what’s happening here and bring this information together, then why can’t the local authorities or the government? 

Who is protecting the public, the people paid to do so or the people that pay them to do so…some irony there I think.
Now I know what authorities are thinking and saying, others let Uber work like this so it must be all ok and therefore we will too.
Well, funny enough, that very same handbook from the LGA was updated very recently and now includes this under the Operator Licensing: Checklist for Councils

Now I may be wrong here, but are not all the suggested checks EXACTLY what myself and the Trade have been banging on about for a few years now?

Surely if the LGA are suggesting that these need to be taken into consideration then they are questions about the legality of Uber and its world-wide App…remember, I still have that fishing rod….

Let’s expand that a little shall we?

Uber, relicensed for 4 month…
Addison Lee, relicensed for 6 month…
A license is issued if you are deemed as fit and proper to hold such license, its not issued as a temporary license because a consultation on costs is under way, its granted on what the conditions are at the time.

Do they really think that we are so stupid here?

These companies, especially Uber could have to pay around #2.4 million for a new license after the consultation and new fees are put in place, and have not appealed the 4 month license, why?
I will tell you why, because TfL have said to Uber, don’t argue about the 4 month license and we will give you the 5 year license but it will cost you #2.4 million…but at least you are still licensed…

Let’s take another snippet from the LGA to ponder here;

You see, it’s not up to the licensing authority to decide what is true or even legal, it’s up to the courts, but the authority cannot make that judgement and should act on accusations, like the well-known saying goes, there is no smoke without fire. 

Just look to Europe and all the countries that have banned Uber to see the smoke, then look at the Toronto case for the fire, with Jo Bertram fuelling it with her confirmation that the driver accepts and Uber back fill in the Tribunal about workers’ rights.

If this was a case brought before the CPS they would be jumping all over it with this kind of evidence.

I will leave this for now, I am sure I have given you all enough to ponder.
Do me a favour though if you will, instead of just reading this, send a link to your local MP, your head of Licensing and its Chairman (a quick finder is on Taxi Leaks side bar for your MP).
Let’s get everyone asking these questions and quickly.
Be safe out there, and don’t worry Semtex, I may have been quiet between rounds mate, but I am still swinging those punches.

And a big thank you to ‘Monsters Inc’ you know who you all are….