Saturday, June 03, 2017

Provincial Taxi Drivers Hit Back At TfL Registered Uber Minicab Invasion


Licensed Leicester cab drivers say they are facing 'unfair competition' from TfL registered Uber drivers coming up from London and operating in the city.

The Private Hire Operators Association (PHOA), to which they belong, is fighting to prove their case.

Currently, Taxis and Private Hire in Leicester are licensed by the local authority, Leicester City Council - who regulates them in terms of safety.


What are the issues that divide Leicester's carriers?

PRIVATE HIRE
UBER
Licensed by local authority for specific geographical area
Operates under Uber app with no geographical limitations
Bookings taken through switchboard, which are relayed to drivers
Bookings made through free app direct to TfL registered drivers
Totally illegal
Drivers employed as staff by council regulated firmsFreelance drivers do not qualify for holiday pay, sick pay or employee breaks
Large overheads of a structured businessLow-cost operation with minimal overheads

A driver based in Leicester also has to be licensed and the company has to have an operator's licence in the area where the driver works.

Uber drivers are being allowed to work everywhere under one licence, which the PHOA fear is not only unsafe, but illegal.

A spokesman for PHOA said: "The situation with Uber is causing chaos and harming the businesses of local drivers in Leicester and elsewhere in UK."

The association is working to prove that Uber should not be picking up fares 'across borders'.

They are currently gathering evidence from case law and other sources to prove it.

Meanwhile, Leicester City Council appear to have been got at. They maintain Uber drivers are operating legally here. It's alleged the councillors have no idea of the law regarding PH operation. 

Uber claim they are insured, as their drivers are all licensed. This has proved not to be the case in many instances when a Uber drivers have been checked by Cab enforcement officers, many just have fully comp insurance and not the more expensive Hire and Reward. Uber drivers have also been sharing with family and friends who are not registered PH drivers. In some cases, when stopped drivers have been working without a current British driving licence.

A Leicester City Council spokesperson said: "Changes to the law around taxi licensing, brought in by the Deregulation Act 2015, mean that drivers with a private-hire licence from a local authority can use it to operate anywhere in England and Wales.

"Drivers who use the Uber app are no different to other licensed drivers – who are all subject to the same enhanced DBS background checks which must be carried out by the licensing authority.

This is not the case


He added: "We are aware of the concerns of local private hire operators and will be monitoring the situation in Leicester."

One frequent user from Leicester is refusing to use Uber cabs here.

She said: "When a London vehicle is driving here, the council enforcement people are unable to send it for a vehicle check or MOT check, like they can with a local plate."

Uber is one of many companies in the relatively new "platform industry" where firms offer a way of connecting self-employed workers with potential customers.

The company provides a smartphone app that serves as the middleman between freelance cabbies and people looking for a lift home.

Uber's vast pool of workers that provides its core services do not get employment rights such as holiday pay, sick pay, or breaks like a contracted member of staff would.

This is one of several factors that has made the firm's operations controversial

It's Not All Bad News, We Do Have Some Friends Out There. By Roger Brown.


So on wednesday evening I dropped a fare at The Mandarin Oriental, Knightsbridge. There was just one cab on the temporary rank so I put on behind. After around ten minutes the point cab got a ride so I moved up leaving myself just enough room to clear the merc people carrier with a phv licence parked in the loading bay. 

The merc soon moved off and almost immediatly another pulled up and backed in but really too close to me now the be able to pull out, still I thought I'll wait until I get a fare then ask him to pull foirward a bit.

Soon enough I got a fare two guys and a lady wanting to go to st james, I sounded my horn to get the merc to move forward but the driver was actually standing on the pavement so I very politely asked him to pull forward a foot or so then I could get out without having to have a few attempts at it. He though took exception and insisted I could get out which there was no way he'd parked too close. With that one of the guy's in the back said please open the door which I did he then in no uncertain terms (but very politely) told the merc driver to move!


Turned out he was Nigel Bowen (Head Concierge) of the Mandarin. Throughtout the short ride he said that we the London Taxi Trade have his and the hotel's full support, they never use anything other than black taxis the only exception is their own mercedes driven by regular drivers for those guests that request them. 

He went on to say that he was happy for me to share his details and that if I or any of you cabbies out  there ever have any issues with his door staff or any of their drivers to inform him. He is also a regular cab user (everyday).

I thanked him for his support and needless to say waived the fare, it was refershing to get the approval from him and a busy hotel such as the Mandarin he also added that the refurb will soon be finished and the normal three taxi rank will be back in use from July.

I've not published Mr Bowens details here but will be happy to share privately or if anyone has a complaint happy to take up on your behalf. Just contact me email: londontaxis@mail.com  twitter: @taxidriverapp ...
 
Be Lucky and let's support The Mandarin and hopefully get a lot more hotel's on our side...
 
Roger Brown

TfL Registered Minicab Driver Defecates In Residential Street And Drives Off.


A security camera installed on the wall of one of the homes in a London side street captured what happened - in astonishingly grim detail

This is the disgusting moment a 'minicab driver' apparently caught short during his shift pulled up outside a row of houses and defecated in the street.

The incident is said to have happened in Streatham, south London, late at night.

A security camera installed on the wall of one of the homes in a side street captured what happened - in astonishingly grim detail.

The CCTV video footage begins by showing absolutely nothing happening at all - as it appears to be an average quiet night in suburbia.

Then suddenly a car with its headlights on appears and pulls up alongside the kerb to park.

Nothing particularly odd in that.

    
Title says Taxi driver. Again this is the Daily Mirror who don't know the difference between a Taxis and this TfL licensed minicab!

He then gets out and takes a look around as if to see if anyone is near - or is looking at him.

It's clear that he has something hanging from his neck similar to the identity tags worn by licensed minicab drivers.

He then saunters round to the back of his car as if he is going to fetch something from the boot.

But no - before you know it, he drops his trousers and crouches down behind the back of his car to do his business.

Once done, he jumps back up, and quickly pulls up his trousers and gets back to the side of his car - as if nothing has happened.

Nothing that is apart from the fact every second has been picked up by a security camera filming him.

After getting himself together, the man went back to his car to get a tissue, which he then used to pick up the mess.

When he drove off into the distance, the driver probably thought he had got away unseen.

But that was before the footage was uploaded and shared online...

Friday, June 02, 2017

EXCLUSIVE :TaxiApp Files Challenge Against TfL Relicensing Uber. ....by Sean Paul Day.

W


TaxiApp have today filed an official challenge against TfL relicense get Uber. The challenge has been made on behalf of a technicality which is a primary consequence of TfL licensing an illegal operation. 

CHALLENGE:  TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (TFL) RE- LICENSING OF UBER LONDON LTD (ULL) AS A PRIVATE HIRE OPERATOR (PHO)
 
Re: the above
 
TAXIAPP UK has a duty of care to ensure (to the best of its ability) the well being of its members. 

We consider the health of our members, both physical and psychological, to be a crucial underpinning in providing a safe and effective public service. 

We (TAXIAPP UK) will endeavour to support the licensed taxi trade at all times and contest policies that are injurious to the working model of TAXIAPP UK and/or harmful to individual drivers or as a collective.
 
On the 3/ 07/ 2015, Uber London Limited (ULL) admitted under oath that from the point where a passenger determines to find a car (and driver) to the point where the passenger is in the car they (Uber) are not party to the procedure. Uber’s working model constitutes a breach of the Private Hire Regulations ACT 1998 and should not be licensed as a PH Operator.
 
CITATION: City of Toronto v. Uber Canada Inc. et al., 2015 ONSC 3572 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-516288  DATE: 20150703
 
A rudimentary description follows that software is downloaded in advance of the intended booking, which isactivated by the passenger at the time and place of his/ her choosing.  The server then relays messages between the passenger and prospective drivers using their respective versions of the App. The driver himself then directly makes the booking.  
 
TfL Operator License terms state that a Private Hire bookingcan only be accepted by a licensed operator at their registered operating centre. To disambiguate, the Act also references that no person other than a Private Hire Operator (PHO) shall make provision to accept a booking.  
 
(1) No person shall in London make provision for the invitation or acceptance of  Private hire bookings unless he is the holder of a Private Hire vehicle operators license for London (In this Act, referred to as London is PHV operators license
 
(2) A person who makes provision for the invitation or acceptance of Private hire bookings or who accept such a booking in contravention of his section is guilty offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level four or standard style.
 
The defining characteristic of a PHVs is that it must be booked through an operator. Accordingly, none of the respondents can be described as meeting statutory regulations of either a Taxi or PHV/D business model as set forth and arbitrated by Transport for London (TFL). Furthermore, the ultra viral use of existing technology allows PHV’s to emulatethe fundamental elements of exhibition and availability(plying 4 Hire), the server then sends the message to the driver and crucially, the driver then takes the booking  
 
The primary assumptions for this breach in statutory regulations are as follows,
 
ULL is guilty of misapplication, 
 
TfL is abusing procedure 
 
TfL is guilty of a corporate structure that facilitates the breach in statutory regulations.
 
A limited investigation conducted by TfL in 2014 into Uber’s operating model concluded that Uber wasn't acting outside the parameters of their operators license. 
 
'Neither Uber BV or Uber drivers, make provision for the invitation or acceptance of PHV bookings in London,  nor do they accept such bookings'
 
(TfL's Operating Model Investigation. Executive Report, Section B, dated 14. 08. 14)
 
When a costumer books a ride through ULL, it is safe to say that the customer believes they are booking the ride/ creating a contract with Uber (the organisation). The fact that Uber does not pay VAT infers the contract is made solely through the driver.
 
Ubers terms and conditions state that Uber is not responsible for the behaviour of the third party providers (the driver) and all complaints should be directed to the transport provider (the driver) The abdication of responsibility reinforces the claimthat ULL is merely a conduit for the driver to make provision/ to solicit for and take a booking. 
 
Any alteration that transfers the booking from the operator constitutes a fundamental change in the way PH are booked, and I don't recall it's inclusion as part of the lengthy and thorough PH consultation? 
 
Although TfL refuse to discuss the specific circumstances that might effect the relicensing of ULL, I would assert that theconclusions drawn from the aforementioned investigation are now redundant and decisions (regarding TfL’s licensing criteria) must be made with adherence to the PH Regulations ACT 1998. 

As the UK Government deemed the prevailingstatutory regulation relevant enough to retain, then the subsequent re-licensing of Uber, and its operation thereof, is illegal and subject to a Judicial Review
 
For reasons pertaining to safety and liberty, the remit of TfL has a concomitant responsibility to ensure London's taxi industry- both driver and vehicle- meet the ‘required standard’ and ‘conditions of fitness’ respectively. 

Uber’s working model emulates that of a taxi, except it caters only for clients with smartphones and credit cards. 
And unlike a taxi it neglects the needs of the disabled and the hearing impaired. There has been numerous instances where the driver has been demonstrably homophobic as well as refusing  journeys to those accompanied by assistance dogs.
 
Uber’s single payment method ensures data amassing and instils a class warfare.  Bias confirmation disregards the fact the company falls foul of discrimination laws. If Uber denies it's a transportation company, then at the very least it should not perpetuate the belief that those doing the transporting are responsible to Uber. 
 
Clarification should be a priority as no impact data or risk assessment has been carried out on the effects of Uber’s aggressive business practices. 

The Secretary of State for theDept. Of Transport (DoT) has reiterated its policy to ‘create a vibrant and competitive Taxi and PH service’, yet the unfair competitive drive of a heavily financed multinational that subsidises fares is indicative of a company whose intention it is to wipe out the competition. Enabling a predatory pricing policy is a practice that is illegal in most advanced economiesbut seems to be of little concern to the DoT. 
 
It must be noted, there has never been a limit imposed on taxi or PHV licenses issued. Neither has the licensing systemafforded an individual or company to amass taxi licenses so the incentive to engineer market scarcity for financial gain doesn't exist. That changes dramatically if the shift in ‘labour’ ownership is transferred from the service provider to the corporation(s). 

Evidently, the only way ULL can demonstrate efficiency is to oversupply the market. The re-licensing ofULL in London could render licensed taxi driver’s investment in committing to study the  Knowledge and purchasingcompulsory ‘purpose built’ taxis worthless and in some cases unviable. 
 
In the interest of fairness and safety, and to establish confidence and trust in the efficacy of TfL’s ability to regulate and to implement enforcement measures that reflect this. With this, we trust ULL will not be relicensed for any period of time up to five years.
 
We look forward to hearing from you
 
Yours Sincerely 
 
Sean Paul Day  
TAXIAPP UK




Every Little Helps.....As Tesco Clubcard Links Up With Uber? ... By Steve Kenton of Taxi-Point.


It wasn't so long ago thatTesco was
on the verge of becoming one of the most powerful companies in the UK,  the potential was there to be globally influential and eventually have the power to take on mega-corporations such as Walmart. This was summirarily consigned to the realms of wishful thinking as the supermarket chain posted the worst economic results in British retail history at an enormous £6.4billion just a couple of years ago. 

Moving forward  in time,  Tescos fortunes have improved significantly, given the stiff competition from Aldi and Lidl to name but two,  this is nothing short of a minor miracle. It is always heartening to see a quintessentially English company not just surviving but turning the proverbial stricken ship around to safety. 

Today however I learned of a rather disturbing development,  It has been revealed to me by sources that Tesco are allegedly going into a partnership with Two companies. One of those companies is alledgely Hotels.com,  the other allegedly is.....Uber 

I have been reliably informed by the sources that the partnership will be linked Tescos Clubcard. I am led to believe that any points gleaned from using your Clubcard can be redeemed against future hotel bookings and Uber rides. I shall be approaching Tesco CEO Matt Davies for a comment and clarification in due course.

I have also been informed that Tesco have allegedly claimed to have completed their due diligence,  this however seems highly questionable given the fact that Transport For London have issued Uber with nothing more than a 4 month license at the moment. 

This means that 4 questions arise,  the first one being did Tesco really do their due dilligence ?  The second question that must be asked is does this mean that Tesco are comfortable with the eye-watering numbers of alleged and proven assaults,  both sexual and non-sexual ? 

Are Tesco also comfortable with Ubers questionable reputation and the allegations that a proportion of its' drivers may not be fully insured for Hire and Reward as well has having serious issues surrounding their topographical knowledge, driving ability and potential alleged DBS flaws. Finally does this potential partnership mean that Uber already know the outcome of its license renewal after the Four month extension expires.

This situation is not only worrying for the licensed Taxi industry in London but should be concerning the Taxi industry across the UK as this will have a national effect.

Until we have a full clarification and a response from Matt Davies this ball is very much up in the air as to how the Taxi industry will respond to this allegation. The worst case scenario for Tesco other than the adverse publicity that has been following Uber around like a bad smell rubbing off on them is that nationally a massive ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Taxi drivers and their families as well as those on the periphery of the industry could end up boycotting Tesco. If the average shopping bill is around £100 per week then just based on One Hundred Thousand families alone the yearly figure would equate to a whopping  HALF A BILLION POUNDS.

The Taxi industry both Londonwide and Nationwide has to now mobilise and lobby Tesco virulently to make sure that Tescos CEO is FULLY aware of both the situation and their responsibilities to the public. 

Tesco need to make a FULLY INFORMED decision if this allegation is true as to whether they wish to dance with the devil because eventually given the current feeling surrounding Uber they could end up paying a rather heavy price to the  piper long-term.






EDITORIAL EXTRA :



Always knew there's was a connection between Uber and Tesco....the clue was there, in the bag for life.



Thursday, June 01, 2017

Senior Data Journalist Doesn't Appear To Know The Difference Between Taxis and Private Hire... By Jim Thomas

Misleading articles have appeared in newspapers in London, Hertfordshire, Essex, Birmingham, Manchester, Devon, Bolton, Stockport Rochdale and even Wales. 

BUT A CERTAIN PATTERN EMERGES IN MOST OF THESE SO CALLED NEWS STORIES!





Headlines shouting about thousands of dangerous drivers, rapists, paedophiles and even murderers who are apparently queuing up to apply to be "Taxi Drivers".... have appeared in different local papers covering the whole of the U.K. over the last few weeks. 

But there seems to be one common denominator in the articles above, Claire Miller...senior data journalist at Trinity Mirror.


Funny though, not one story about the thousands of applicants with criminal records queuing up to be Minicab drivers....strange that!!! 


As Claire and most of here peers seem unable to recognise the difference between Taxis and Minicab PHVs, we've sent her this easy to follow guide.


The only true news within the stories is that the DBS service have and will sometime weed out applicants with criminal records when conducting enhanced criminal record checks. 

And yet the Government seem set on deregulating the Taxi and Private hire trades. 
Unfortunately at present, there is a loophole in the DBS system in that applicants coming here from unfriendly areas are accepted as having no criminal record if they produce a letter of good conduct (available on the net for around £25). 


TfL know about this loophole, but still accept these letters purchased in this manner. 

It's also clear that the local and national press have no idea that there is currently a two tiered system with Taxis and Private Hire trades, plus these news sheets made no reference to the FOI request carried out by the London Taxi trade that showed 154 serious sexual assaults were carried out by Private Hire drivers in the year Feb 2015-Feb 2016. 


It's not just local papers that can't tell the difference between Taxis and Minicabs, national news agencies and TV news channels also appear to have a blind spot. So we've produced this very simple guide.





Bespoke Last of Line Edition Black Cabs to be created by Kahn Design

The London Taxi Company (LTC) has commissioned Bradford-based design house Kahn Design to create a run of bespoke versions of its TX4 cab, which goes out of production this year.

Called the Last of Line Edition Black Cab, the final model is described as a ‘reimagined’ and more luxurious version of the TX4. It will herald the launch of the TX4’s successor, a new range-extender electric cab that’s zero-emissions capable in order to conform to new London legislation that comes into force in 2018.



Released sketches suggest the Last of Line Edition will mix modern design with classic black taxi features. These include wing mirrors, a larger front grille and classic headlights. The cabs will also be significantly more luxurious that regular cabs and be created for collectors rather than service in the city.

Khan Design, best known for its work on Land Rovers, such as its new Range Rover Sport SVR Pace Car, is headed by its founder, Afzal Khan. He said of the black taxi deal: “While it is sad to see a beautiful, iconic vehicle reach the end of its life, it is a great honour to be given the opportunity to refine and celebrate what is truly one of the most famous cars in the world. I look forward to embarking on a journey with a select few clients who wish to possess their own piece of British history.”



An LTC spokesman added: “Afzal Kahn is famous for his original designs and willingness to push the boundaries, and we admire his ability to capture the essence of a vehicle's character. We believe he is the best designer to give this iconic vehicle the send-off it deserves.”

Following production of the Last of Line Edition Black Cab, LTC’s new £300m Warwickshire plant will begin producing its electric cab. While the vehicle’s first market will be London, it will later be offered in other regions across the UK and around the world as the most advanced mass-produced purpose-built taxi.

Never in the field of corruption was so much taken from so many by so few...by Dave Davies


#Ubergate #Chumocracy Complaint to Serious Fraud Office


A formal complaint of corruption has been filed against George Osborne, David Cameron, Boris Johnson , Theresa May and Transport for London with the Serious Fraud Office.(see email below)


There is clear evidence that there have been serious breaches of Public Law by the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Home Secretary, Mayor of London and Directors of Transport for London.


Thousands of Taxi Drivers wrote to their MPs and some of those MPs wrote to Theresa May calling for an urgent Public Inquiry to investigate the allegations of corruption.


Theresa May ignored these requests and instead called a snap General election, perhaps in the hope that the exposure of the corruption would go away.

 

It seems that the Media are reluctant to report the #Ubergate #Chumocracy corruption and Politicians have also ignored it

 

It may be a good idea if reporters and prospective MPs were sent emails or tweets with a link to this article and asked why they have chosen to ignore it at such an important time?

 

The Mirror

mirrornews@mirror.co.uk           @DailyMirror

 

Lloyd.Embley@mirror.co.uk         @Mirror_Editor      @MirrorPolitics 

 

kevin.maguire@mirror.co.uk      @Kevin_Maguire

 

nigel.nelson@trinitymirror.com @NigelNelson

 

investigate@mirror.co.uk           @PenmanMirror

 

jack.blanchard@mirror.co.uk    @Jack_Blanchard_

 

jason.beattie@mirror.co.uk       @JBeattieMirror

 

ben.glaze@mirror.co.uk             @benglaze

 

nick.owens@trinitymirror.com  @NicholasOwens

 

dan.bloom@mirror.co.uk           @danbloom1

 

mikey.smith@mirror.co.uk        @mikeysmith

 

The Guardian

Katharine.Viner@theguardian.com  @KathViner

 

paul.johnson@theguardian.com      @paul__johnson

 

toby.helm@guardian.co.uk              @tobyhelm

 

Jamie.Doward@theguardian.com@guardian

 

john.mulholland@observer.co.uk     @jnmulholland

 

nick.hopkins@theguardian.com        @nickhopkinsnews

 

rob.booth@theguardian.com           @Robert_Booth

 

rob.evans@theguardian.com            @robevansgdn

 

rowena.mason@theguardian.com    @rowenamason

 

heather.stewart@theguardian.com    @GuardianHeather

 

Anushka.Asthana@theguardian.com  @GuardianAnushka

 

archie.bland@theguardian.com         @archiebland

 

 

Channel 4

 

news@channel4.com              @Channel4News

 

c4investigations@itn.co.uk  

 

jon.snow@itn.co.uk                        @jonsnowC4

 

krishnan@channel4.com          @krishgm

 

cathy.newman@itn.co.uk         @cathynewman

 

DPearl@Channel4.co.uk         @DanielPearlC4

 

michael.crick@itn.co.uk          @MichaelLCrick

 

siobhan.kennedy@itn.co.uk     @siobhankennedy4

 

job.rabkin@itn.co.uk                 @jobrabkin

 

Ben.depear@itn.co.uk               @bendepear

 

Guy.Basnett@itn.co.uk             @guybasnett

 

Paul.McNamara@itn.co.uk       @PGMcNamara

 

 

 

This is the Complaint to Serious Fraud Office

 

From: Dave Davies [mailto:xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.com
Sent: 25 May 2017 12:37
To: 'public.enquiries@sfo.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: complaint REF xxxxx

 

I have filed a complaint ref xxxx and would like to add the further information below to it

Regards Dave Davies

 

I would like to add further information to the complaint of corruption in relation to David Cameron, George Osborne, Boris Johnson, Transport for London and Theresa May.

 

 

The utter corruption of Cameron and Osborne should be fully investigated BEFORE the election as it demonstrates how improper and corrupt the Tory Government has been.

The corruption of Boris Johnson and Transport for London has not been investigated  at all and is extremely relevant to the election

I have sent you some information about some of the many unreported aspects which include the manipulation of search results by Google to hide the Mail articles exposing Cameron and Osborne (after Google received tax breaks for Osborne) and the reports of Google’s interference in other elections.


The extensive info about Cameron’s and Osborne’s payments which have not been reported by the Mail.

There is also extensive information about Boris Johnson and TFLs corrupt policies; TFL invested £3.8 billion of its pension fund in Blackrock who then invested in Uber at the same time that TFL allowed Uber an Operator’s license even they the operate unlawfully and issued tens of thousands of Licenses without any checks.

 

 

        David Cameron and George Osborne acted unlawfully by using their positions as Prime Minister and Chancellor to influence the actions of Boris Johnson and TFL who have also acted unlawfully in allowing Uber to be licensed in London even though they did not meet the legal requirements as a Private Hire Operator. 

        TFL have issued tens of thousands of Licenses to Uber drivers without any proper checks or compliance with regulations.

        TFL have invested £3.8 billion of their pension fund with Blackrock who in turn invested in Uber. Blackrock  also invested in WorldPay , a company which has benefited from TFLs compulsory requirement for Taxis to take Credit Card payments at the same time as approving WorldPay as an approved supplier for the compulsory scheme.

 

        David Cameron and George Osborne implemented policies which have benefited Uber , Google, Banks and Pension Fund Investment Companies

        David Cameron and George Osborne have now benefited from their improper actions by financial reward for speaking engagements and advisory roles which have paid them tens of thousands of pounds for an hour or two’s work which is clearly disproportionate and for improper purpose

        These engagements have been improperly declared with ACOBA. Applications to ACOBA were made in the name of the Washington Speakers Burea, who merely acted as a booking agent, to avoid the obvious conflict of interest which existed, which was that those making  direct payments for these engagements had clearly benefited from the improper and unlawful actions of David Cameron and George Osborne.

        Theresa Mays husband Phillip May has a senior role in Capital Group, a company which has benefited from the improper actions of David Cameron and George Osborne.

        Capital Group owns shares in Paypal (used for Uber transactions)

        Capital Group has a significant share holding in JP Morgan who paid Osborne £120k for 2 speeches.

        JP Morgan were the bank who brokered the Saudi Investment Fund £5 BILLION investment in Uber 

        David Cameron was paid £100k for a two hour speaking engagement by Morgan Stanley who were the lead investors in Uber

        Theresa May has ignored the corrupt actions of David Cameron and George Osborne  in her role as Home Secretary for 6 years and in her role as Prime Minister. 

        Nearly 6000 Taxi Drivers have written to their MPs calling for the corruption to be investigated, and many of these MPs wrote to the Prime Minister calling for an urgent Public Inquiry to investigate the corruption and these numerous letters and requests have been ignored by Theresa May

 

 

These are serious conflicts of interest and evidence of breaches in Public Law which should be fully investigated

 

The Google interference (which is detailed below) is extremely important in relation to the election because  it could have a significant affect if the full extent of the corruption is not exposed!

 

There is evidence that the previous election and the EU referendum was improperly influenced by Google in return for favours by Cameron and Osborne, and serious questions are being  raised about past, present and future improper influence.

Please see the info below about the previous Google influence in the 2015 election and the EU referendum.


They are now burying the search results about the Cameron/Osborne corruption which would be damaging to the Tory election campaign if reported.

 

I have emailed Robert Epstein who is a world leading expert about the Google search algorithms; he spent 5 years researching how they work.

He has confirmed that Google manipulate search results and have done so previously during elections.

 



Listen to Dave Davies on London Taxi Radio:

Dave's call comes in 01:01:20


http://www.londontaxiradio.co.uk/cab-chat-radio-show-e137-30-05-2017/