Friday, November 23, 2018

More Good News As CrowdJustice Action Gets Hearing Dates


More good news this week 

Update on Uber must pay all of its taxes

We have now been informed that the CrowdJustice action has been given a date for a hearing, scheduled on 5, 6 or 7 February 2019 at which the issue of the protective costs order (PCO) will finally be resolved. 

Although there can be no guarantees, we remain confident both that we will obtain a PCO ... and that we will succeed in the underlying litigation. 

We expect to be able to release more news on the underlying issue very shortly.

London Taxi PR Call On The City Of London And Sadiq Khan To Lift The 'Restraint Of Trade'

London Taxi PR calls on City of London Corporation and Mayor of London to rethink ULEV road restrictions as they imply ‘Restraint of Trade’ on the profession

London Taxi PR (LTPR) is calling on both the City of London Corporation and the Mayor of London to rethink their plans to impose air quality pilot schemes in Moor Lane, Moorgate, and additionally and most recently in Tooley Street and Borough High Street areas, as this will once again restrict all vehicles that are not ULEV compliant and will therefore impact on the profession, passengers and businesses who all wish to use licensed London Taxis as their journey provider.

As an organisation representing the interests of the Licensed London Taxi profession, LTPR is not only calling on the City of London and the Mayor of London to reconsider these restrictions and their impact on London Taxis, but also take into consideration the effect on businesses within the zones, as this could be seen as effectively a restraint of trade being applied by the City of London Corporation and the Mayor of London on both.

This is outlined in a definition of restraint of trade https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-laws-and-regulations/restraint-of-trade.html At the most basic level, "restraint of trade" is any activity that prevents another party from conducting business as they normally would without such a restraint. For instance, two businesses agreeing to fix prices in order to put another competitor out of business is an illegal restraint of trade. Other examples include creating a monopoly, coercing another party to stop competing with your business, or unlawfully interfering with a business deal.

The new road restrictions are set to come into play within the City of London in Moor Street, Moorgate, and the pending restriction of access for Taxis and vehicles in Tooley Street https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/environmental-health/environmental-protection/air-quality/Pages/ulev.aspx will ONLY allow ULEV vehicles to access these areas, therefore effectively ‘banning’ Licenced London Taxis who are not ULEV compliant from plying their trade within the restriction zones. This would, LTPR feels, give an unfair trade advantage to other competitors whose vehicles are ULEV compliant, and therefore would create a mini monopoly, which would only increase as more clean air emission zones are rolled out within the City of London.

The Tooley Street and Borough High Street restrictions form part of the creation of a Borough High Street Low Emission Neighbourhood (BHS LEN) http://www.betterbankside.co.uk/travel/air-quality which has been established by Better Bankside, who together with Team London Bridge, have been awarded £200,000 of funding by the Mayor of London for its creation.

LTPR will therefore be seeking exemption for ALL Licensed London Taxis within the restriction zones, which will be of benefit to ALL passengers, who choose to use London Taxis for their journey’s to and from their workplace in the restriction zones.

All London Taxis are purpose built, fully wheelchair accessible vehicles, and the recent imposition of road traffic restrictions in Islington and Hackney has already seen a similar campaign activated on behalf of the licensed London Taxi profession by LTPR to have exemption applied. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of the 23,500 licensed taxis in London are unable to go into the affected roads, as the restrictions only allow access to electric vehicles.

According to confirmed statistics, currently, there are just 821 ULEV taxis in operation across the whole of the UK, so not only is this felt to be a restrictive practice being imposed on the profession, but, more importantly, for all Taxi passengers. Equally, it is thought that by allowing only electric taxi vehicles to access these areas that the restrictions are potentially breaching the Equality Act 2010 Sect12 Disabled Persons Transport, Sect1 Taxis http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/12 as it puts passengers with disabilities at a disadvantage, and the aim could have been achieved through less restrictive alternatives.

Since the recent road traffic restrictions have been imposed, an increasing number of London’s licensed taxis are already reporting that they are having to decline customers who want to travel into the affected areas, informing them that they can only take them for part, and not the whole of their journey, as they would normally be able to do. Or, worse still, are not able to take them at all if they wish to travel to and from an area that is within the restriction zones.

These Ultra Low Emission Zones, some of which will not come into operation in London until 2019 has already LTPR feels, caused confusion within the profession due to some of the statutory obligations that apply and leaving drivers fearing they will be open to a breach of these regulations and open to possible litigation.

In London, section 35 of the London Hackney Carriage Act 1831 states that it is an offence: "Hackney carriages standing in any street shall be deemed to be plying for hire; and the driver thereof refusing to go with any person liable to a penalty."

This means that any driver of a hackney carriage standing at any of the stands for hackney carriages appointed by the commissioners, or in any street, "who refuses or neglects, without reasonable excuse, to drive such carriage to any place within the prescribed distance, or the distance to be appointed by any byelaw of the commissioners, not exceeding the prescribed distance to which he is directed to drive by the person hiring or wishing to hire such carriage, shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale."

These regulations place a duty on drivers of licensed hackney carriage vehicles not to refuse a fare when standing on a rank unless they are hired or, have a "reasonable excuse". The duty to carry people when standing for hire applies only to journeys undertaken in within the prescribed distance or in other words those that starts and ends within the relevant licensing authorities’ district.

There can be no doubt that there is a distinct possibility for litigation from the implementation of these new clean air zones and so LTPR feels that the profession needs ‘A clear and unified clarification of these regulations, and the exemplification for those licenced taxis whose customers are disabled passengers’. 

Licensed London Taxis have been a part of London’s landscape for the past 365 years and play an integral part of in London’s transport system. Their door to door service has made them the most envied, highly reputable and recognisable Taxi service in the world.

The message about the road restrictions and its impact on the profession as a whole is being promoted via press and trade media coverage, and also through a series of targeted social media messages, to help inform not only the wider disabled community, but also the general public, Government bodies, public authorities and decision makers.

Since their formation, London Taxi PR has undertaken a series of targeted media campaigns, which are being used by London Taxi PR to promote the benefits, advantages and safety of using the iconic London Taxi to a wide audience.

All the campaigns and publicity that has so far been generated by the company has been funded by fellow London Taxi drivers as well as supportive companies and organisations, many of whom have signed up to donate to the cause on a monthly basis, indicating how passionate they all are about their industry and the cause.

London Taxi PR. Passionate about promoting and preserving the iconic London Taxi trade and funded by London Taxi drivers who care about their industry.

For more information on London Taxi PR and their campaigns, please visit their website http://londontaxipr.com

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT :


London Taxi Driver Woken By Massive Explosion As 7 Buses Completely Destroyed In Bus Garage Fire.


Orpington bus garage fire: Residents talk of ‘explosions’ as London depot engulfed by huge blaze

Eleven buses caught fire and seven have been completely destroyed in a garage in Farnborough Hill, Orpington

London taxi driver Ryan Bailey, 42, who lives opposite the site, said: 
“There was a massive explosion that woke us up shortly before 4am this morning.

“The bang literally shook the windows, we thought we’d have to evacuate. When we looked out we saw one bus on fire and a fire engine.

“Then there were a whole series of explosions. Within 20 minutes it had spread to a massive inferno.”

Sixty firefighters were called to a fire at a bus depot in South East London in the early hours of Thursday morning.

“There was a massive explosion that woke us up shortly before 4am this morning”

The London Fire Brigade (LFB) said at the height of the blaze, eleven buses were alight and control officers took around 40 calls from the public.

Some residents talked of hearing “explosions” and “loud bangs” as the fire spread through the depot.

Seven buses destroyed

The fire, which took place at a garage in Farnborough Hill in Orpington, was “very visible”, according to LFB. Crews were called to the incident at around 3.36am.



London Fire Brigade

In a statement, LFB said: “Crews worked hard to stop the blaze from spreading to more busses and around 30 vehicles were moved to safety.

“Seven busses were complete destroyed by the fire and a further four are badly damaged.”

Firefighters said the blaze was under control by 6.31am. In total, eight fire engines went to the scene from stations across South East London, including Orpington, Biggin Hill, Sidcup and Bromley.

The cause of the fire is not known at this time. No injuries have been reported.


With Time Running Out, Chris Johnson Asks For Your Support To Hold TaxiApps To Account.


Dear All,

I am asking for your support to help fund an employment tribunal case against MyTaxi - I have raised just over £11,500 to pay for the legal support that's needed in bringing this case, however, I need to raise a further £6,500 in total to fully fund this case, therefore, I am respectfully asking for your help in raising this money....here is why I believe this is such an important case for the taxi trade.... 

Please support here:
What I think an Employment Tribunal against MyTaxi will achieve……
An Employment Tribunal will define if we are "marketing ourselves to the world" or not in an independent capacity.

If I lose the case - we can transfer the argument across to the reasonable understanding that if taxi drivers are "marketing ourselves to the world" independently on the App then there is a strong argument that we must be "plying for hire" independently on the app – is this logical?

Plying for hire is all about availability and exhibition and probably not very different to marketing oneself as available for hire, we have our taxi light on when we are available for hire and marketing ourselves "for hire" and off when we’re not marketing ourselves "for hire".
(**I'll come back to this point).

I am is bringing an "employment case" against MyTaxi subject to raising £18,000 - it's not a regulatory case – therefore, we must not confuse the two.
Should I lose the case it'll be because MyTaxi has successfully argued that I am "marketing myself to the world" via the App as an independent taxi business and not integrated into MyTaxis’ business.

The Taxi trade should then be able to take the arguments from the employment tribunal case and argue that the judgment potentially tells us that we are operating independently on the app and "marketing ourselves to the world" independently via app, then, in my opinion, we would have a strong argument in asking how is this different to plying for hire?

THIS IS ALL OF COURSE IF I LOSE AN EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL.

My opinion is;
The level of control MyTaxi exert over the driver i.e. terminating or suspending drivers without reason, fixed airport fares and other obligations they place on the driver reflects that of a "controlled worker", therefore, I don't see how MyTaxi can argue that we are operating independently and on our own, there is simply too much "control" applied by MyTaxi for this to be the case – so, I believe that we are a limb-b workers (a limb-b worker is a category of self-employed and someone with some worker rights).
It’s important to note that we will not lose our self-employed status if I win this worker rights claim. 


**Coming back to plying for hire. 
To obtain a statutory declaration of plying for hire, especially on Apps would be a good thing and I would support anyone for trying, but the problem in doing so, in my opinion, is a judge would have to look at all aspects of existing case law and would potentially take the Uber employment tribunal case into consideration as well, where it was decided that the driver WAS NOT "marketing themselves to the world" independently – the question for me therefore, is "plying for hire" and "marketing yourself to the world" independently one of the same thing?

The Uber employment tribunal found that Uber is in control. i.e. It’s Uber who deactivate/suspend the drivers, control the fare price (same as MyTaxi fixed airport fares) etc.

This fits with the argument that if Uber as an operator is in control and accepting the booking then the booking must be a pre-booking to fit with private hire legislation, in this case, how could the Judge in the Uber Employment Tribunal find that an Uber driver was "marketing themselves to the world" independently as they cannot "ply for hire" independently, the question equally arises, how can a taxi driver be "marketing themselves to the world" when operating outside of their licensed area, given the fact taxi drivers cannot "ply for hire" outside of their licensed area? 

So we have in the Uber situation;

• Uber in control of the driver.
• The app job is a pre-booking.
• Result = Driver is a worker for Uber and has limb-b worker rights.

MyTaxi situation;

• Is MyTaxi in control of the driver?
• How can MyTaxi offer jobs to drivers outside of their licensed area unless it's a pre-booking?
• Result = Is the taxi driver a worker for MyTaxi, and would I win a claim for worker rights?

Maybe it’s wise to suggest, we should first understand if we are "marketing ourselves to the world independently" or not on the app before we ask if we are "plying for hire" on the app - to do this I would need support in this employment tribunal case against MyTaxi.

Outcome.

If I win, drivers using the app will be entitled to basic protections such as the National Minimum Wage, paid annual leave and protection under anti-discrimination legislation. Given the increasing market dominance of these apps these are important rights and winning may well stop apps like MyTaxi illegitimately undercutting individuals who are genuinely operating on their own account.

If I lose, we are potentially "plying for hire" on the app, and therefore, MyTaxi cannot put Private Hire onto the app as it's illegal for Private Hire drivers to "ply for hire". I strongly believe that the employment argument also supports anyone trying to obtain a declaration of plying for hire via the courts and any outcome here would be beneficial and supportive to the action of the United Trade Group (UTAG).

If we fail to support an employment tribunal case against MyTaxi then the corporate apps will eat us alive, especially when the taxi fleet is reducing because more diesel cabs are coming off than electric cabs coming online, coupled with very few knowledge students. What happens when MyTaxi have more demand than supply? Would they put minicabs on the app to meet that demand?

Please don’t let us walk blindly into oblivion.

Best Wishes

Chris Johnson.

@InThePinkTaxi  

Thursday, November 22, 2018

Canning Town minicab driver thought cyclist he crushed while distracted by his mobile phone was a speed bump


A minicab driver crushed a cyclist because he was distracted by his mobile phone has been banned for driving. 

Abdelyekini Olafusi of Hoskins Close, Canning Town, hit the 41-year-old woman at the junction of Theobalds Road and Clerkenwell Road in Islington in May last year. 

When the 57-year-old appeared at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, the court heard that he was waiting at traffic lights when the lights turned green, he moved off and went to make a right turn.

He clipped the cyclist’s back wheel, and she fell to the ground – but Olafusi kept driving and went over her. 

The court heard that he initially thought he had gone over a speed-bump, and that she was lucky she didn’t die. 

The victim suffered a broken leg, a fractured pelvis and a wounded chest. 

A year later, she is still recovering from her injuries. 

Olafusi received a 15 month driving ban and was ordered to pay costs totalling £1260

Detective Sergeant Cheryl Frost said his reckless driving is "a stark reminder of the dangers and consequences of using a mobile phone whilst behind the wheel. 

"The victim suffered horrific injuries, and was incredibly lucky not to have been killed.

"Stiffer penalties were recently introduced for drivers who use mobile phones whilst on the road, and we are committed to enforcing these new laws to make London’s roads safer."

   

Taxi! Metrocab prototype number one up for grabs

Offered on behalf of its late owner, this unique survivor is no ordinary taxi. Built in 1969 to showcase a new direction of generational cab design, powered by a 1760cc S4 diesel engine churning out 52bhp and mated to a four speed all-syncromesh gearbox; this is Metrocab prototype number one. 

Or, as some view it, a forerunner to the Range Rover P38.

First registered for road use in 1970 before undergoing tough and steadfast road trials across Britain for the best part of three years, this prototype then went on display in the London Cab Company museum in South London. After the museum closed, the Metrocab fell into the custody of a former chairman of the London Vintage Taxi Association.

Only two prototypes were crafted sporting such a design, first spotted by the press undergoing traffic flow analysis outside Westminster in 1970\. Designed by Metro-Cammel-Weymann as a rival to the Beardmore MK VII, it took some 17 years before manufacture of a production model began – albeit with updated aesthetics.

First hitting Britain’s cities in 1987, and remaining in production until late 2006, the final design utilised the headlamps and grille of the Ford Granada Mk II, with taillights from the Escort Cabriolet. The dashboard originated from the Austin Montego, with switchgear borrowed from the much-lampooned Maestro hatchback.

The original prototype, for sale here, employed the grille and headlamps off Ford’s Cortina Mk II with a bespoke interior and profile not dissimilar to British Leyland’s first stab at creating a pre-production Range Rover design.

The body comprises of a four door frame consisting of six light fibreglass panels with a separate chassis frame, and was originally designed to be lifted off the chassis as a single unit. Unused for the last three years, this Metrocab will most likely require some recommissioning before being capable of long-distance travel.

It's an incredibly rare opportunity to acquire such a vehicle, and we can bet that such a culturally significant prototype that eventually defined a generation of Londoners, 17 years later than it expected to, won't hang around for long. 

Uber Verdict Judicial Review To Be Heard within Weeks. plus UTAG 17 LTR Interview.

Judge Emma Arbuthnot and Husband James

We have been informed by Chiltern Law team, that the Judicial Review initiated by the United Trade Action Group (UTAG17), is very likely to be heard within the next few weeks, given that this is expedited by order of Mr Justice Walker. 

YES...THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING.
UTAG17 now needs your support so please visit the groups webpage and donate. 
You can find the page by clicking on the link, top right hand column on this blog site.




TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT:

Lady Arbuthnot gives them their licence back in London. 
She then finds them not guilty in the Reading case.

But after news of her husbands financial links and conflict of interest, she steps down in the Brighton case, but after the real damage has already been done.
 
She previously requested to hear ALL uber cases!
Taxi drivers are alleging blatantly corruption and claim she must face criminal charges.

To find out more about the UTAG action, listen to the London Taxi Radio special....Sean Paul Day interviews UCG General Secretary Trevor Merrill and Deputy General Secretary Angie Clarkson.

 



Editors opinion:

UTAG have done their bit, delivering a JR which another org alleged could never happen. 
Now it's your turn
Support the team who are supporting the trade. 

   Don't forget, after this.....we will have a new objective. 


Tuesday, November 20, 2018

REASONS TO SUPPORT THE ITA ACTION, BACKED BY LCDC, MONDAY 26th 4 O-CLOCK LONDON BRIDGE


So, what do I do when TfL implement the restrictions at Tooley Street and this lady needs to go to the London Bridge Hospital ???



DR Alice Maynard CBE, TFL Boardmember


Sorry love you will have to make your own way to the Bank Junction I’m not allowed to go there


Baroness Tanni Grey Thompson, Another TfL Boardmember


Sorry love you will have to make your own way to Tooley Street I’m not allowed to go there



Sorry love you will have to make your own way to Tottenham Court Road I’m not allowed to go there


Nobu Hotel Shoreditch...Sorry love you will have to make your own way there, I’m not allowed to go there...



Will TFL's commissioner Mike 'on-side' Brown, be changing the cab Acts and Orders of 1972 (Act of 1831 s35 and s36; Act of 1853 s7 and s17; Act of 1968, s3; Order of 1972 para. 3) to now read:

A taxi driver, unless required by the hirer to drive more than 12 miles, or more than 20 miles in respect of a journey which begins at Heathrow Airport, London, or required to drive to the Bank Junction, Tooley Street, Tottenham Court Road, parts of Hackney and Camden, or for a longer time than one hour, is under a duty to accept a fare.


REASONS TO SUPPORT THE @ProactiveITA BACKED BY @The_LCDC DEMONSTRATIONS. MONDAY 4OCLOCK LONDON BRIDGE 👊👊👊.

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT:
This from Facebook today :

If anyone is in any doubt the City of London don't like us and dont want us was proved last night . A city traffic warden outside the Ned this was at 11.45 pm Saturday night moving off Cabs not talking to the drivers just tapping on the window MOVE NOW . Remember mincing lane full of scabs Liverpool street everynight the scabs blocking the street infact the City was full of them where was the City then! , this is a complete piss take on us we are not wanted clearly ....





Message To The Taxi Trade From Insp Jas Sandhu TPHPT re: Lisson Green Mob Attacks


Lisson Grove “advice” from Met Police 

All,
 
I am writing in relation to the incidents that have been taking place in the Lissons Grove area such as making off without payment, thefts, robberies and criminal damage to vehicles. I am  requesting your assistance in sending out messages to drivers and also in trying to gather information/intelligence. Can you please encourage drivers to report all suspected crimes or crime related incidents to police. I have been told that there may be information/intelligence on social media which has not been passed to the police and would request that any information/intelligence that is on your social media sites is passed to police with details of who has supplied it. This will help us build up a picture of what is happening, where and when it is taking place and those that are involved. It could also be the vital bit of evidence that might help solve a crime.
 
We have been carrying out overt and covert patrols in the area and are also working with the local SaferNeighbourhoods Team to provide crime prevention advice to drivers. Again I would request your assistance in raising awareness so that drivers understand the key risks such as carrying money in the cab, leaving mobile phones or other property on show and leaving the cab. Some crime prevention measures that can be taken include refusing a job if you feel unsafe, keep doors and lockable screens shut, try not to leave the cab, if you feel something is not right drive away and contact police to report crimes or crime related incidents.
 
Please let me know if you have any queries and thank you in advance for your assistance.
 
Jas Sandhu
 
Insp. Jas Sandhu
TPHPT

Taxi Leaks Extra Bit : Question From Tony Casey 

Are you aware of the Lisson Green problem getting any better?

The local neighbourhood policing boss for Church Street,  keeps saying he is expecting some arrests by warrant.

Sgt Scott Barnard Marshall also says in the same breath that as I’m not a victim, he is unable to give specific info to me.

We in the London Taxi Community, are all victims of this violent gang who have now expanded to new robbery areas, such as the feed to Paddington Station Rank on harrow road.

The gang are picking off drivers in queue, they are also using decoy women to lure Cabbies to drive to frampton street, where gang members are waiting to attack and rob them. 

As far as I am concerned no one has been charged or convicted of any robbery offence in at least the last 2 years

Would that be correct? ....they keep refering to the LTDA which in itself is a complete joke.

Worst of all, the advice given about phoning the police is also a joke. We have documented evidence from drivers who have been attacked which states after unacceptable 20 minutes waiting to speak to a police operator, they are told “sorry, there’s no units in the area to attend” 

Well done Sadiq !!!!! Not only have you gridlocked most of London, you’ve filled it full of no go areas. 

An ode to the London cab : Austin FX4 taxi at 60.


The Austin FX4 is a taxicab that was produced from 1958 until 1997. It was sold by Austin from 1958 until 1982, when Carbodies, who had been producing the FX4 for Austin, took over the intellectual rights to the car. They continued production until 1984 when London Taxis International took over the rights to the FX4 - and they produced it until 1997. In all, more than 75,000 FX4s were built.

Sixty years ago, sales commenced of a taxi so radical in design that not a few cabbies in the capital regarded it with a degree of suspicion. Where were the running boards? Why was there no opening windscreen, so essential for ventilation, demisting or for assisting visibility while driving through the stereotypical London fog? 

Furthermore, how would the automatic gearbox cope with the rigours of urban motoring? And where was the luggage platform alongside the driver’s compartment? 

The new Austin FX4 together with the Routemaster bus, it was symbolic of post-war change in the capital.

In the late 1950s, the British Motor Corporation (BMC) boasted of the FX3 that "You see more Austin taxis on the streets of London than any other single make of cab".

Work on its successor commenced in 1956, and in 1958 hit th ranks. The FX4 would use the chassis and the 2.2-litre diesel engine of the older model together with coachwork that managed the difficult achievement of combining the traditional with modernity - the Austin FX3 may have debuted in 1948, but its appearance still harked back to the late 1930s while its successor looked as up-to-the-minute as a Soho expresso bar; albeit with a slightly more dignified air.


The FX4 went out of production in 1997 but this early Nineties example is still going strong in 2009. Behind is a Metrocab taxi - it was more spacious than the Austin, but failed to overtake it as the archetypal ‘London taxi’ 

From an operator’s perspective, the driver’s compartment was still lacking in space, but the seat was adjustable for height, and you could specify a comparatively elaborate heating system. Communication with the passengers was via a circular disc in the partition, while the first FX4s lacked a rear-view mirror to ensure the fares’ privacy.

"Bunny ear" flashing indicators were mounted in the roof; these had been introduced on the late-model FX3s as the previous semaphore trafficators were prone to being used as unofficial grab handles by departing punters.

Early FX4s suffered from an array of teething problems, not least being that the bonnet was prone to flying open when the cab encountered a pothole. The Borg Warner automatic transmission was not universally popular, as there were complaints about its effect on performance and running costs.


London life: an FX4 encounters a punk on Westminster Bridge in the early EightiesCredit: Alamy

An additional issue was that many drivers were wholly unused to an automatic gearbox and by 1961 BMC offered an optional four-speed manual ’box. There was also a lack of soundproofing, as the Public Carriage Office regarded it as a potential fire hazard.

By 1968 the last FX3s were on the verge of departing London’s taxi ranks and the FX4 now comprised almost all cabs within the capital. A facelifted model introduced in that same year saw the replacement of the "Bunny Ears" indicators with conventional items, an angled division (to afford the driver more legroom) and the very welcome introduction of sound-deadening material.


An FX4 picks up a fare in Eccleston Street, Belgravia, in 1970. Note the Mk1 Ford Transit on the right.

BMC had developed a replacement model, codenamed ADO39, but this was cancelled following the company’s merger with Leyland, and the now virtually iconic taxi would have to continue in production for several more years.  

In the event, the Fairway Driver, the final incarnation of the 1958 Austin, would cease production in 1997, and even today the FX4 is still regarded as the archetypal "London Taxi".

Perhaps its most charmingly off-beat tribute to the FX4 is the 1965 musical Three Hats for Lisa, featuring British cinema’s favourite adopted cockney cabbie Sid James, along with a singing and dancing trio of passengers. Take it away Joe…

 

Source : Telegraph, Wikipedia. 

TAXI LEAKS :

The film featured a two tone FX4, light blue top half and black bottom, which bought back memories of when I first entered the trade back in the early 70's. 

Every driver had a nickname and some were labelled by the appearance of there cab. Three who spring to mind were 'Prunes and Custard'  (yellow top half, black bottom)...'Rhubarb and Custard' red top gold bottom'....and Red Cab Dave (always bought a red cab).

Many nicknames were location based... We had Hackney John, Wimbledon Willy, Southgate Jim and Bermonsey Mick. But I used to love the unusual nicknames and who can ever forget Spare Parts, The Wing Commander, The Judge, Putty Nose, No Change Terry, The Haddock, and Bilko....then there were radio circuit cabbies Dan 2 will do, Grey 3 African Queen and the Rubber Duck.

     Johnny Nine Lumps     And     The Vicar 

Just for the record, I wound up with the monica 'fish finger Jim'....after my love of fish finger sandwiches that I used to consume most nights at the Warwick Avenue Taxi shelter.  

Monday, November 19, 2018

Your Trade Needs You.....The United Trade Action Group Need You... Will You Step Up And Be Counted?

  


Ladies and Gentlemen the funding page is now up and running on the website, please get involved and contribute. No one is going to fund this for you, this is something you have to do.
It’s now or never and our future is in our hands. 

If you don’t get into the ring, you can’t win the fight.
So step into the ring and join the people fighting this battle royal...help secure the future of the trade you worked so hard to become a part of.



Click on the link below and let’s start saving the trade. 

If you want to read more about this action please click here:

Frequently asked questions: