Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs

[Robin9]

TfL have released the following statement:

QUOTE
Sadiq Khan has committed to a dramatic expansion of the
Transport for London (TfL) team responsible for tackling
touting and illegal activity affecting the Capital's taxi and
private hire trades.

As part of a concerted drive to improve customer safety,
an extra 250 Compliance Officers will be recruited and
deployed over the next year to patrol London's streets
and crack down on illegal activity and improve safety.
The Mayor's move quadruples the size of a team which
provides a highly visible, uniformed presence in the
West End, City and other areas across London.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said:

'I want Londoners to feel safe when they take a taxi or
minicab and that is why I have approved a major increase
to the size of our team that targets touts and illegal activities.
It is the first part of a wider programme I will be introducing
that will drive up standards in the industry and help our world
famous cabbies continue to thrive.'

Steve Burton, TfL's Director of Enforcement and On-Street
Operations, said:

'Illegal minicab activity not only poses a serious risk to
passenger safety but undermines licensed, law abiding taxi
and private hire drivers. This welcome boost to our enforcement
team provides Londoners with additional reassurance and
also sends a message to those not complying with the law
that they will be caught and dealt with robustly.'

Steve McNamara, General Secretary of the Licensed Taxi
Drivers Association, said:

'This is fantastic news for Londoners and the black cab
trade; it is so refreshing to have a Mayor who recognises
the danger posed to the travelling public by illegal minicab
activity and is prepared to act to ensure their safety. We
welcome this substantial increase in compliance officers,
and look forward to working with Sadiq in the future.'

The new officers will be funded through changes to private
hire operator licensing so that larger firms pay a greater
share of the costs of enforcement.

TfL and its partners regularly carry out operations to deter
and disrupt illegal minicab activity in the Capital and protect
the public from touts. Operation Neon is a joint operation
between TfL, the Metropolitan Police Service and Westminster
City Council that takes place every weekend. An operation
running between May 2015 and July 2016 has seen the
following results:

Operation Neon results:

•127 Operations.
•9699 private hire drivers advised and moved on to keep roads
clear for taxis and booked private hire cabs.
•448 private hire drivers were reported for not having a badge
and were stopped from working for the remainder of the evening.
•5116 private hire drivers were reported for not wearing their
badge.
•65 private hire drivers reported for plying for hire offences.
•1265 private hire drivers reported for parking on taxi ranks.
•2916 Parking tickets issued.

Today's announcement is the first part of a comprehensive
strategy overseen by the Mayor that will herald in a new era
for the Capital's taxi and private hire trades. It will deliver
radical improvements for customers, a boost to safety, support
for the taxi trade and further improve the quality of service
offered by the private hire trade. There will also be a concerted
effort to make the Capital's taxi fleet the greenest in the world.
UNQUOTE

I'm not sure how public safety is increased by giving private hire
drivers parking tickets, and I suspect most people using minicabs
don't care if the driver is not displaying his badge. It will be
interesting to see if the new mayor will have any really
constructive ideas in his "wider programme.


--
Robin9

[Someone Somewhere]

Post by Robin9
QUOTE
Sadiq Khan has committed to a dramatic expansion of the
Transport for London (TfL) team responsible for tackling
touting and illegal activity affecting the Capital's taxi and
private hire trades.
The new officers will be funded through changes to private
hire operator licensing so that larger firms pay a greater
share of the costs of enforcement.
TfL and its partners regularly carry out operations to deter
and disrupt illegal minicab activity in the Capital and protect
the public from touts. Operation Neon is a joint operation
between TfL, the Metropolitan Police Service and Westminster
City Council that takes place every weekend. An operation
running between May 2015 and July 2016 has seen the
•127 Operations.
•9699 private hire drivers advised and moved on to keep roads
clear for taxis and booked private hire cabs.
•448 private hire drivers were reported for not having a badge
and were stopped from working for the remainder of the evening.
•5116 private hire drivers were reported for not wearing their
badge.
•65 private hire drivers reported for plying for hire offences.
•1265 private hire drivers reported for parking on taxi ranks.
•2916 Parking tickets issued.

Were no black cab drivers picked up on any infringments (however small)
or is Operation Neon solely targeted at the private hire trade?

Post by Robin9
I'm not sure how public safety is increased by giving private hire
drivers parking tickets, and I suspect most people using minicabs
don't care if the driver is not displaying his badge. It will be
interesting to see if the new mayor will have any really
constructive ideas in his "wider programme."

Indeed - and in particular with Uber you know who the driver is from the
app and can recognise them from their photo. Uber also track their
drivers activity and it's very easy to complain about them if they do
the wrong thing - something that's nowhere near as easy with
conventional private hire companies and/or black cab drivers (if a black
cab driver takes a circuitous route, what's your come back when the only
person to complain to is the driver themselves and there's an absence of
proof of the route followed)

[Robin9]

[/i][/color]
Were no black cab drivers picked up on any infringments (however small
or is Operation Neon solely targeted at the private hire trade?
-
I'm not sure how public safety is increased by giving private hire
drivers parking tickets, and I suspect most people using minicabs
don't care if the driver is not displaying his badge. It will be
interesting to see if the new mayor will have any really
constructive ideas in his "wider programme."
-
Indeed - and in particular with Uber you know who the driver is from th
app and can recognise them from their photo. Uber also track their
drivers activity and it's very easy to complain about them if they do
the wrong thing - something that's nowhere near as easy with
conventional private hire companies and/or black cab drivers (if a blac
cab driver takes a circuitous route, what's your come back when the onl
person to complain to is the driver themselves and there's an absence o
proof of the route followed)

According to the "statement" only private hire drivers were
involved. The mayor is, of course, a professional politician.
For some reason I've never understood, it seems politicians
feel it's both respectable and legitimate to regard minicab
drivers with open suspicion and dislike. This is particularly true
of pseudo-liberal politicians who make a great song and dance
about opposing prejudice


--
Robin9

[Paul Corfield]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 09:44:15 +0200, Robin9

Post by Robin9

[/i][/color]
Were no black cab drivers picked up on any infringments (however small)
or is Operation Neon solely targeted at the private hire trade?
-
I'm not sure how public safety is increased by giving private hire
drivers parking tickets, and I suspect most people using minicabs
don't care if the driver is not displaying his badge. It will be
interesting to see if the new mayor will have any really
constructive ideas in his "wider programme."
-
Indeed - and in particular with Uber you know who the driver is from the
app and can recognise them from their photo. Uber also track their
drivers activity and it's very easy to complain about them if they do
the wrong thing - something that's nowhere near as easy with
conventional private hire companies and/or black cab drivers (if a black
cab driver takes a circuitous route, what's your come back when the only
person to complain to is the driver themselves and there's an absence of
proof of the route followed)

According to the "statement" only private hire drivers were
involved. The mayor is, of course, a professional politician.
For some reason I've never understood, it seems politicians
feel it's both respectable and legitimate to regard minicab
drivers with open suspicion and dislike. This is particularly true
of pseudo-liberal politicians who make a great song and dance
about opposing prejudice.

I suspect much of what is being done is a hang over, with some tweaks,
from what was proposed during Mayor Johnson's time. The context here
is important - an angry, pissed off and under threat black cab trade.
Naturally enough in seeking to "appease" them the private hire trade
will be in the firing line. Nonetheless minicabs and private hire is
rather less regulated and is the area which has seen most expansion.

There are "bad apples" in every trade but the inability to control the
private hire industry expansion is causing considerable problems and
not just for black cabs. It will be interesting to see whether the
departure of George Osborne [1] from the Cabinet has any bearing on a
change of heart from government about seeking to cap PH licence
numbers. I certainly think something needs to be done to better
regulate and manage all of the "taxi trades" but the Black Cabs also
need to respond more positively to the threat of competition. If they
don't then the market and technology will kill them off no matter what
regulation there is.


[1] rumoured to have rather close ties with those who own Uber.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Paul Corfield
There are "bad apples" in every trade but the inability to control the
private hire industry expansion is causing considerable problems and
not just for black cabs.

Yes, the 95% of bad apples in the minicab business give the other 5% a
bad name :)

[Robin9]

;157383']On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 09:44:15 +0200, Robin9
-
Someone Somewhere;157370 Wrote: -
-
Were no black cab drivers picked up on any infringments (howeve
small)
or is Operation Neon solely targeted at the private hire trade?
-
I'm not sure how public safety is increased by giving private hire
drivers parking tickets, and I suspect most people using minicabs
don't care if the driver is not displaying his badge. It will be
interesting to see if the new mayor will have any really
constructive ideas in his "wider programme."
-
Indeed - and in particular with Uber you know who the driver is fro
the
app and can recognise them from their photo. Uber also track their
drivers activity and it's very easy to complain about them if they do
the wrong thing - something that's nowhere near as easy with
conventional private hire companies and/or black cab drivers (if
black
cab driver takes a circuitous route, what's your come back when th
only
person to complain to is the driver themselves and there's an absenc
of
proof of the route followed)-
According to the "statement" only private hire drivers were
involved. The mayor is, of course, a professional politician.
For some reason I've never understood, it seems politicians
feel it's both respectable and legitimate to regard minicab
drivers with open suspicion and dislike. This is particularly true
of pseudo-liberal politicians who make a great song and dance
about opposing prejudice.[/i][/color]
I suspect much of what is being done is a hang over, with some tweaks,
from what was proposed during Mayor Johnson's time. The context here
is important - an angry, ****ed off and under threat black cab trade.
Naturally enough in seeking to "appease" them the private hire trade
will be in the firing line. Nonetheless minicabs and private hire is
rather less regulated and is the area which has seen most expansion.
There are "bad apples" in every trade but the inability to control the
private hire industry expansion is causing considerable problems and
not just for black cabs. It will be interesting to see whether the
departure of George Osborne [1] from the Cabinet has any bearing on a
change of heart from government about seeking to cap PH licence
numbers. I certainly think something needs to be done to better
regulate and manage all of the "taxi trades" but the Black Cabs also
need to respond more positively to the threat of competition. If they
don't then the market and technology will kill them off no matter what
regulation there is.
[1] rumoured to have rather close ties with those who own Uber.
--
Paul C

The notion, put about eagerly by Boris Johnson, that the
Mayor and TfL do not have the powers to limit the number of
new minicab drivers is completely fraudulent.

The Bill passed by Tony Blair's government which imposed
licencing upon London's private hire trade made TfL the
regulatory body and gave them the authority to set standards
and to create competence tests, including a "knowledge" test.

The larger private hire firms took fright at this because they
recognised that even a very moderate knowledge test would
cut off their constant supply of new drivers. They lobbied TfL
that they, out of the goodness of their public-minded hearts,
should do the testing themselves and would set a realistically
high standard, relevant to day-to-day work of minicab drivers.

To the eternal discredit of both the Mayor and TfL, this absurd
proposal was accepted and TfL washed their hands of the matter.
As any fool could have predicted, the private hire firms passed
everyone who wanted to be a minicab driver and the number of
private hire drivers in London increased enormously. To distract
attention away from his and TfL's gross negligence in allowing
this situation to arise, Boris Johnson put out impropaganda (1)
to the effect his hands were tied and he needed special extra
powers to restrict the number of new entrants to the trade.

All that needs to be done is for TfL to take back the testing,
to set the most undemanding of tests and the number of new
entrants will collapse.

It should be remembered that most new applicants to be
minicab drivers in London are either Asians or immigrants
who don't know Kings Cross from Charing Cross or London
Bridge from Waterloo Bridge and who are totally convinced
that all they need is a sat-nav. Demand that they learn how
to get to Victoria Coach Station and the Royal Albert Hall and
their enthusiasm will soon evaporate.

(1) I regret to admit I did not invent this splendid word. There
was, and perhaps still is, a company in Kentish Town, trading
under that name.

[bob]

Post by Robin9

[/i][/color]
Were no black cab drivers picked up on any infringments (however small)
or is Operation Neon solely targeted at the private hire trade?
-
I'm not sure how public safety is increased by giving private hire
drivers parking tickets, and I suspect most people using minicabs
don't care if the driver is not displaying his badge. It will be
interesting to see if the new mayor will have any really
constructive ideas in his "wider programme."
-
Indeed - and in particular with Uber you know who the driver is from the
app and can recognise them from their photo. Uber also track their
drivers activity and it's very easy to complain about them if they do
the wrong thing - something that's nowhere near as easy with
conventional private hire companies and/or black cab drivers (if a black
cab driver takes a circuitous route, what's your come back when the only
person to complain to is the driver themselves and there's an absence of
proof of the route followed)

According to the "statement" only private hire drivers were
involved. The mayor is, of course, a professional politician.
For some reason I've never understood, it seems politicians
feel it's both respectable and legitimate to regard minicab
drivers with open suspicion and dislike. This is particularly true
of pseudo-liberal politicians who make a great song and dance
about opposing prejudice.

I think the true motivation becomes clear if you read it as minicab = Uber.

Robin

[tim...]

Post by bob

Post by Robin9

[/i][/color]
Were no black cab drivers picked up on any infringments (however small)
or is Operation Neon solely targeted at the private hire trade?
-
I'm not sure how public safety is increased by giving private hire
drivers parking tickets, and I suspect most people using minicabs
don't care if the driver is not displaying his badge. It will be
interesting to see if the new mayor will have any really
constructive ideas in his "wider programme."
-
Indeed - and in particular with Uber you know who the driver is from the
app and can recognise them from their photo. Uber also track their
drivers activity and it's very easy to complain about them if they do
the wrong thing - something that's nowhere near as easy with
conventional private hire companies and/or black cab drivers (if a black
cab driver takes a circuitous route, what's your come back when the only
person to complain to is the driver themselves and there's an absence of
proof of the route followed)

According to the "statement" only private hire drivers were
involved. The mayor is, of course, a professional politician.
For some reason I've never understood, it seems politicians
feel it's both respectable and legitimate to regard minicab
drivers with open suspicion and dislike. This is particularly true
of pseudo-liberal politicians who make a great song and dance
about opposing prejudice.

I think the true motivation becomes clear if you read it as minicab = Uber.

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again

if TPTB want to clamp down on Uber they should be doing so by enforcing the
disabled regulation on them properly.

There are dozens of stories of their drivers not complying.

tim

[Robin9]

Someone Somewhere;157370 Wrote:-
-
Were no black cab drivers picked up on any infringments (howeve
small)
or is Operation Neon solely targeted at the private hire trade?
-
I'm not sure how public safety is increased by giving private hire
drivers parking tickets, and I suspect most people using minicabs
don't care if the driver is not displaying his badge. It will be
interesting to see if the new mayor will have any really
constructive ideas in his "wider programme."
-
Indeed - and in particular with Uber you know who the driver is fro
the
app and can recognise them from their photo. Uber also track their
drivers activity and it's very easy to complain about them if they do
the wrong thing - something that's nowhere near as easy with
conventional private hire companies and/or black cab drivers (if
black
cab driver takes a circuitous route, what's your come back when th
only
person to complain to is the driver themselves and there's an absenc
of
proof of the route followed)-
According to the "statement" only private hire drivers were
involved. The mayor is, of course, a professional politician.
For some reason I've never understood, it seems politicians
feel it's both respectable and legitimate to regard minicab
drivers with open suspicion and dislike. This is particularly true
of pseudo-liberal politicians who make a great song and dance
about opposing prejudice.-
I think the true motivation becomes clear if you read it as minicab =
Uber.[/i][/color]
I've said it before, and I'm saying it again
if TPTB want to clamp down on Uber they should be doing so by enforcin
the
disabled regulation on them properly.
There are dozens of stories of their drivers not complying.
tim

Which disabled regulation are you referring to?

Private hire drivers are not taxi drivers. Therefore the
various obligations imposed on taxi drivers do not apply
to private hire (minicab) drivers. Obviously private hire
drivers, like everyone else, must obey the law, including
the several laws against discrimination, but unlike taxi
drivers, they have no greater duties and obligations than
anyone else


--
Robin9

[tim...]

Post by Robin9

Someone Somewhere;157370 Wrote:-
-
Were no black cab drivers picked up on any infringments (however small)
or is Operation Neon solely targeted at the private hire trade?
-
I'm not sure how public safety is increased by giving private hire
drivers parking tickets, and I suspect most people using minicabs
don't care if the driver is not displaying his badge. It will be
interesting to see if the new mayor will have any really
constructive ideas in his "wider programme."
-
Indeed - and in particular with Uber you know who the driver is from the
app and can recognise them from their photo. Uber also track their
drivers activity and it's very easy to complain about them if they do
the wrong thing - something that's nowhere near as easy with
conventional private hire companies and/or black cab drivers (if a black
cab driver takes a circuitous route, what's your come back when the only
person to complain to is the driver themselves and there's an absence of
proof of the route followed)-
According to the "statement" only private hire drivers were
involved. The mayor is, of course, a professional politician.
For some reason I've never understood, it seems politicians
feel it's both respectable and legitimate to regard minicab
drivers with open suspicion and dislike. This is particularly true
of pseudo-liberal politicians who make a great song and dance
about opposing prejudice.-
I think the true motivation becomes clear if you read it as minicab =
Uber.[/i][/color]
I've said it before, and I'm saying it again
if TPTB want to clamp down on Uber they should be doing so by enforcing the
disabled regulation on them properly.
There are dozens of stories of their drivers not complying.
tim

Which disabled regulation are you referring to?

The one that requires them to provide an "equal" service to disabled
passengers.

It is generic legislation, not specific to taxi drivers

Post by Robin9
Private hire drivers are not taxi drivers.

They still have to comply

Post by Robin9
Therefore the
various obligations imposed on taxi drivers do not apply
to private hire (minicab) drivers. Obviously private hire
drivers, like everyone else, must obey the law, including
the several laws against discrimination, but unlike taxi
drivers, they have no greater duties and obligations than
anyone else.

They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual (who can, of
course, freely decide not to let a guide dog in their car when offering a
blind person a lift)

tim

[Robin9]

tim...;157390 Wrote:-
Someone Somewhere;157370 Wrote:-
-
Were no black cab drivers picked up on any infringments (however small)
or is Operation Neon solely targeted at the private hire trade?
-
I'm not sure how public safety is increased by giving private hire
drivers parking tickets, and I suspect most people using minicabs
don't care if the driver is not displaying his badge. It will be
interesting to see if the new mayor will have any really
constructive ideas in his "wider programme."
-
Indeed - and in particular with Uber you know who the driver is from the
app and can recognise them from their photo. Uber also track their
drivers activity and it's very easy to complain about them if they do
the wrong thing - something that's nowhere near as easy with
conventional private hire companies and/or black cab drivers (if a black
cab driver takes a circuitous route, what's your come back when the only
person to complain to is the driver themselves and there's an absence of
proof of the route followed)-
According to the "statement" only private hire drivers were
involved. The mayor is, of course, a professional politician.
For some reason I've never understood, it seems politicians
feel it's both respectable and legitimate to regard minicab
drivers with open suspicion and dislike. This is particularly true
of pseudo-liberal politicians who make a great song and dance
about opposing prejudice.-
I think the true motivation becomes clear if you read it as minicab =
Uber.-
I've said it before, and I'm saying it again
if TPTB want to clamp down on Uber they should be doing so b
enforcing
the
disabled regulation on them properly.
There are dozens of stories of their drivers not complying.
tim-
Which disabled regulation are you referring to?[/i][/color]
The one that requires them to provide an "equal" service to disabled
passengers.
It is generic legislation, not specific to taxi drivers
-
Private hire drivers are not taxi drivers.-
They still have to comply
-
Therefore the
various obligations imposed on taxi drivers do not apply
to private hire (minicab) drivers. Obviously private hire
drivers, like everyone else, must obey the law, including
the several laws against discrimination, but unlike taxi
drivers, they have no greater duties and obligations than
anyone else.-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual (who can
of
course, freely decide not to let a guide dog in their car when offerin
a
blind person a lift)
tim

The term is private hire, and that is the crux of the matter.
If a disabled person with some unusual requirement hires
someone to fix their central heating boiler or mow their lawn,
the law of contract applies. If the person being hired does not
have the means to attend to the unusual requirement, laws
about equal treatment do not oblige that person to re-equip
themselves so that they can provide whatever is necessary.
They simply point out they have not offered to accommodate
the unusual demand and they decline the contract.

The legal position is exactly the same with private hire drivers.
Remember: they are not taxis and they do not ply for hire.
They have a vehicle and they are not making any false claims
about the vehicle's capability. Someone wants to hire the vehicle
and driver. It turns out the vehicle is not suited to the customer's
needs. The contract is declined.

That is why TfL does not insist that private hire drivers have cars
which can take non-foldable wheelchairs. It is significant that TfL
demands that private hire drivers accept guide dogs which, of
course, fit into any car although many Asian drivers dislike having
dogs in their cars. The point here being that declining passengers
who are accompanied by guide dogs would amount to discrimination.

[David Cantrell]

Post by tim...
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual

Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.

They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments. Farmers are not
required to concrete over their fields so that people in wheelchairs can
harvest the crop. Radio stations are not required to somehow make their
programming available to deaf people. Battersea Dogs Home is not
required to kill all the dogs so that they can employ someone who is
allergic to dogs. Minicab drivers are not required to replace or
substantially rebuild their vehicles.

[tim...]

Post by David Cantrell

Post by tim...
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual

Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.
They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.

What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.

A rug on the back seat - job done

But (many of them) still refuse to do so

tim

[d***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by tim...
What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.
A rug on the back seat - job done
But (many of them) still refuse to do so
tim

Rule 57 Highway code.

When in a vehicle make sure dogs or other animals are suitably
restrained so they cannot distract you while you are driving or injure
you, or themselves, if you stop quickly. A seat belt harness, pet
carrier, dog cage or dog guard are ways of restraining animals in
cars.

Bit more than a rug though not too onerous, the seat belt clips that
hook onto the collar are only a few pounds.


G.Harman

[Robin9]

Post by tim...
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-
Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.
They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-
What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.
A rug on the back seat - job done
But (many of them) still refuse to do so
tim

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.

Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line


--
Robin9

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by Robin9

Post by tim...
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-
Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.
They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-
What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.
A rug on the back seat - job done
But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.
Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

[Robin9]

-
tim...;157466 Wrote: -
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-
Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.
They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-
What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.
A rug on the back seat - job done
But (many of them) still refuse to do so-
In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.
Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.-
As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the drive
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator shoul
lose their licence.
--
Colin Rosenstiel

Well, I agree but everything is contingent upon TfL taking
a firm stand and making the effort


--
Robin9

[tim...]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Robin9

Post by tim...
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-
Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.
They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-
What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.
A rug on the back seat - job done
But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.
Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the company
is registered).

tim

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Robin9

Post by tim...
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-
Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.
They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-
What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.
A rug on the back seat - job done
But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.
Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the company
is registered).

If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having
detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the
driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit
card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction
on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed,
accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator.

[tim...]

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Robin9

Post by tim...
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-
Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.
They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-
What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.
A rug on the back seat - job done
But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.
Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the company
is registered).

If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having
detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the
driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit
card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction
on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed,
accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator.

so they'll be able to fess up all of the drivers who refused a fare because
they wouldn't carry a guide dog then, wont they?

And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers.

tim

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Robin9

Post by tim...
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-
Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.
They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-
What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.
A rug on the back seat - job done
But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.
Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the company
is registered).

If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having
detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the
driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit
card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction
on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed,
accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator.

so they'll be able to fess up all of the drivers who refused a fare because
they wouldn't carry a guide dog then, wont they?

Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a
blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab?

Post by tim...
And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers.

I suspect it's not so simple.

[tim...]

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Robin9

Post by tim...
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-
Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.
They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-
What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.
A rug on the back seat - job done
But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.
Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the company
is registered).

If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having
detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the
driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit
card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction
on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed,
accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator.

so they'll be able to fess up all of the drivers who refused a fare because
they wouldn't carry a guide dog then, wont they?

Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a
blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab?

Um

How do blind people go to the shops?

Visit their friends?

Get to the doctor/hospital?

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...
And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers.

I suspect it's not so simple.

It can be made that simple

tim

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Robin9

Post by tim...
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-
Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.
They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-
What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.
A rug on the back seat - job done
But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.
Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the company
is registered).

If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having
detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the
driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit
card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction
on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed,
accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator.

so they'll be able to fess up all of the drivers who refused a fare because
they wouldn't carry a guide dog then, wont they?

Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a
blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab?

Um
How do blind people go to the shops?
Visit their friends?
Get to the doctor/hospital?

Not using Uber, I'd guess. Are you aware of how you order and recognize an
Uber car? How would a blind person do it?

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...
And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers.

I suspect it's not so simple.

It can be made that simple

How? They're not Uber employees.

From:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/blind-woman-repeatedly-snubbed-by-uber-drivers-because-of-her-guide-dog-a3228431.html

An Uber spokesman apologised and said Mohamoud no longer works for the
firm. “Whilst the drivers on the Uber platform are self-employed we remind
them of their legal obligation to take service animals before they can
start driving,” he said.

“Any Uber partner-driver who doesn’t accept service animals not only risks
having their Uber partnership revoked, but also risks having their private
hire licence taken away.”

[s***@potato.field]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:22:05 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/blind-woman-repeatedly-snubbed-by-uber-dr
vers-because-of-her-guide-dog-a3228431.html
An Uber spokesman apologised and said Mohamoud no longer works for the

^^^^^^^^

Well there's a complete fucking surprise.

--
Spud

[tim...]

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner
Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a
blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab?

Um
How do blind people go to the shops?
Visit their friends?
Get to the doctor/hospital?

Not using Uber, I'd guess. Are you aware of how you order and recognize an
Uber car? How would a blind person do it?

Is it not possible to order an Uber car using the "reading" software that
blind people use to read computer pages?

And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...
And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers.

I suspect it's not so simple.

It can be made that simple

How? They're not Uber employees.

I don't think that's a valid excuse.

There is a contact between Uber and the drivers, they don't just turn up and
drive on a whim.

Uber must therefore be responsible for making sure that their drivers comply
with regulations and have a disciplinary procedure (i.e. they terminate
their contract) if they don't.

I accept that this, "punishment after the event" system means that there
will always be one or two rogue workers, but systematic non compliance with
regulations suggests a controller who doesn't give a damn.

And anecdotal evidences suggest that Uber don't give a damn, unless pushed,
and pushed and pushed and threatened with having their execs imprisoned and
then actually having their execs imprisoned, before they decide to comply.
This isn't a company that takes its responsibilities seriously.

tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim...
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely
they announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?
Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

The only ones who actually come to the door are airline courtesy "limos"
for business class flights (and I've not had one of those for years).

[tim...]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim...
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?
Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

I was aware of that

Recliner was talking as if they didn't even do that

tim

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim...
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?
Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

I was aware of that
Recliner was talking as if they didn't even do that

Uber is more likely to be used by people who are out and about. Once a
driver has been assigned, Uber sends the client a description of the car,
and it's up to the customer to identify it and get in.

Someone getting a mini cab from home is more likely to phone their local
firm, which will be cheaper and more likely to have a car available
locally. They will also accept pre-bookings, which Uber does not.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Recliner
Someone getting a mini cab from home is more likely to phone their local
firm, which will be cheaper and more likely to have a car available
locally. They will also accept pre-bookings, which Uber does not.

The latter is a big weakness of Uber. Two of my local firms have
Uber-style apps, but they allow pre-booking via them - as a result I
have little interest in switching to Uber.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

Post by Roland Perry
My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

In these days of mobile phone confirmations, you should really be
walking out of your door just as the vehicle arrives, obviating the
need for this.

Neil

[Recliner]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside in
the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house. Yet
another completely illegal procedure, of course.

In these days of mobile phone confirmations, you should really be
walking out of your door just as the vehicle arrives, obviating the
need for this.

Yes, my local minicab firm's drivers ring me as they arrive. They no longer
get out of the car at all, unless they need to stow luggage in the boot.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside
in the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house.
Yet another completely illegal procedure, of course.

In these days of mobile phone confirmations, you should really be
walking out of your door just as the vehicle arrives, obviating the
need for this.

I've never ordered a minicab that offered any kind of real-time feedback
about when it was going to arrive.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Roland Perry
I've never ordered a minicab that offered any kind of real-time
feedback about when it was going to arrive.

Really? All my local firms do, either allowing GPS tracking via their
app, or if you ordered by telephone you get a text message when the
vehicle is allocated, giving you time to get your shoes on ready etc,
and another when it is a short distance away, allowing you to walk out
of your front door near enough straight into the vehicle.

While I appreciate you live in a more rural area than I, I'm surprised
any firms still exist not providing those facilities. The text service
has existed round here for well over 10 years, the apps for about a
year or two.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
I've never ordered a minicab that offered any kind of real-time
feedback about when it was going to arrive.

Really? All my local firms do, either allowing GPS tracking via their
app, or if you ordered by telephone you get a text message when the
vehicle is allocated, giving you time to get your shoes on ready etc,
and another when it is a short distance away, allowing you to walk out
of your front door near enough straight into the vehicle.
While I appreciate you live in a more rural area than I

The last time I ordered a minicab was when living in Nottingham within
the last 5yrs.

Post by Neil Williams
, I'm surprised any firms still exist not providing those facilities.
The text service has existed round here for well over 10 years, the
apps for about a year or two.

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim...
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely
they announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?
Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

My experience of (pre-Uber) minicab drivers is they just sit outside
in the road tooting the horn until someone emerges from the house.
Yet another completely illegal procedure, of course.
The only ones who actually come to the door are airline courtesy
"limos" for business class flights (and I've not had one of those for
years).

Certainly not true in Cambridge. Our experience over more than ten years is
that hire car drivers invariably come to the door in Cambridge. London's
hire car market is obviously a complete shambles.

[Neil Williams]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Certainly not true in Cambridge. Our experience over more than ten years is
that hire car drivers invariably come to the door in Cambridge. London's
hire car market is obviously a complete shambles.

I find a reversal between minicabs and black cabs outside London - in
MK at least it's the black cabs that are the fly-by-night pirates,
often refusing to use meters etc, and the private hire companies that
are reputable, using quality modern cars, not overcharging and
generally offering a good service that is also cheaper.

Neil

[Recliner]

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner
Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a
blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab?

Um
How do blind people go to the shops?
Visit their friends?
Get to the doctor/hospital?

Not using Uber, I'd guess. Are you aware of how you order and recognize an
Uber car? How would a blind person do it?

Is it not possible to order an Uber car using the "reading" software that
blind people use to read computer pages?

It's a sophiticated smartphone app with graphics, not a text page. You'd
need to have reasonably good eyesight, as well as a smartphone, to use it.

Post by tim...
And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?
Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

Uber sends the customer a description of the car and where it is, and it's
up to them to spot it and get in. But as I explained in the other post,
Uber isn't the ideal choice for home pickups; there are better, cheaper
alternatives. Uber is for people who are out and about and want to be
picked up from wherever they are and be taken to an arbitrary address.

That's hardly typical of the movements of people who need a guide dog. They
are more likely to have regular journeys, using a trusted local firm, which
they pre-book.

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...

Post by Recliner

Post by tim...
And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are guilty
of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are taking
away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers.

I suspect it's not so simple.

It can be made that simple

How? They're not Uber employees.

I don't think that's a valid excuse.
There is a contact between Uber and the drivers, they don't just turn up and
drive on a whim.
Uber must therefore be responsible for making sure that their drivers comply
with regulations and have a disciplinary procedure (i.e. they terminate
their contract) if they don't.

No more than any other cab firm.

Post by tim...
I accept that this, "punishment after the event" system means that there
will always be one or two rogue workers, but systematic non compliance with
regulations suggests a controller who doesn't give a damn.

Is there systematic non-compliance with regulations? Or is that more
anecdotal 'evidence' from Uber's competitors?

Post by tim...
And anecdotal evidences suggest that Uber don't give a damn, unless pushed,
and pushed and pushed and threatened with having their execs imprisoned and
then actually having their execs imprisoned, before they decide to comply.

Are there any Uber executives based in the UK? And good luck trying to pin
any criminal conviction on them.

Who provided that anecdotal evidence? Was it from an official source, or
the black cab trade, which is losing out to Uber?

Post by tim...
This isn't a company that takes its responsibilities seriously.

It's probably better than most cab firms. The reason that black cabs hate
Uber is that it's so popular with customers, not that it provides poor
customer service.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Recliner
It's probably better than most cab firms. The reason that black cabs hate
Uber is that it's so popular with customers, not that it provides poor
customer service.

The black cab dislike of Uber is close to the DOO debates on Southern -
technology is obviating the need for a job, and those in that job
understandably don't like it.

We'll have the same for the abolition of train *drivers* within 20
years. Guard-only operation like DLR is more likely to be the future
(or full automation of city metro systems with staff on specific busy
platforms only); DOO is a short-term blip.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams
The black cab dislike of Uber is close to the DOO debates on Southern -
technology is obviating the need for a job, and those in that job
understandably don't like it.

In London it's much more than that. One of the black cab's main
complaints is that Uber cars illegally (as in "waiting") congregate
outside various venues, and as well as in effect being hailed by people
leaving the venue, block the parking/kerbside so black cabs can't be
easily hailed, or drop off.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Roland Perry
In London it's much more than that. One of the black cab's main
complaints is that Uber cars illegally (as in "waiting") congregate
outside various venues, and as well as in effect being hailed by people
leaving the venue, block the parking/kerbside so black cabs can't be
easily hailed, or drop off.

Given the significant disruption black cabs stopping where they feel
like in London, particularly in bus lanes, cause to other modes of
transport, again particularly buses, I can't help but have a quiet
giggle about that and wish Uber the best of luck.

Personally, I think stopping on Red Routes and in bus lanes should be
prohibited for everyone at all times, taxis included, loading included,
unless a special paid-for application is made as is common in Europe
for house-move days or building work. The only *possible* exception I
would give is those with disabilities.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Roland Perry
In London it's much more than that. One of the black cab's main
complaints is that Uber cars illegally (as in "waiting") congregate
outside various venues, and as well as in effect being hailed by
people leaving the venue, block the parking/kerbside so black cabs
can't be easily hailed, or drop off.

Given the significant disruption black cabs stopping where they feel
like in London, particularly in bus lanes, cause to other modes of
transport, again particularly buses, I can't help but have a quiet
giggle about that and wish Uber the best of luck.

The black cabs only stop there one at a time when picking up or setting
down (which is no more of a hindrance than buses at stops getting in the
way of taxis). Not whole clusters of them for long periods.

Post by Neil Williams
Personally, I think stopping on Red Routes and in bus lanes should be
prohibited for everyone at all times, taxis included,

I quite like the way some cities overseas prohibit taxis stopping on the
main drag, and make them go into a side road. he only problem there is
that so many side-roads in London are now blocked off as anti-rat-run
measures!

Post by Neil Williams
loading included,

Loading is already banned (if you mean goods).

[s***@potato.field]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:04:06 +0100

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Recliner
It's probably better than most cab firms. The reason that black cabs hate
Uber is that it's so popular with customers, not that it provides poor
customer service.

The black cab dislike of Uber is close to the DOO debates on Southern -
technology is obviating the need for a job, and those in that job
understandably don't like it.
We'll have the same for the abolition of train *drivers* within 20
years. Guard-only operation like DLR is more likely to be the future
(or full automation of city metro systems with staff on specific busy
platforms only); DOO is a short-term blip.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. ATO on a slow metro system is one thing, having
no one at the front on an express is another matter entirely. Until trains
have sensors at least as good as the human eye to see any obstructions ahead it
won't happen. The same issues apply to self driving cars. Its no use the
computer seeing all the cars around it in precise detail if it misses the pile
up 200m ahead and brakes way too late.

--
Spud

[Recliner]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:04:06 +0100

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Recliner
It's probably better than most cab firms. The reason that black cabs hate
Uber is that it's so popular with customers, not that it provides poor
customer service.

The black cab dislike of Uber is close to the DOO debates on Southern -
technology is obviating the need for a job, and those in that job
understandably don't like it.
We'll have the same for the abolition of train *drivers* within 20
years. Guard-only operation like DLR is more likely to be the future
(or full automation of city metro systems with staff on specific busy
platforms only); DOO is a short-term blip.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. ATO on a slow metro system is one thing, having
no one at the front on an express is another matter entirely. Until trains
have sensors at least as good as the human eye to see any obstructions ahead it
won't happen. The same issues apply to self driving cars. Its no use the
computer seeing all the cars around it in precise detail if it misses the pile
up 200m ahead and brakes way too late.

Can the drivers of 200mph expresses see far enough ahead to be able to have
any material ability to slow or stop the train if they see an obstruction
or track problem?

[s***@potato.field]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:26:55 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner
Can the drivers of 200mph expresses see far enough ahead to be able to have
any material ability to slow or stop the train if they see an obstruction
or track problem?

No, but any brake application is better than nothing. Current ATO would see
nothing unless a signal section was tripped and would hit any obstruction
at full speed fully motored.

--
Spud

[Neil Williams]

Post by Recliner
Can the drivers of 200mph expresses see far enough ahead to be able to have
any material ability to slow or stop the train if they see an obstruction
or track problem?

No.

I would be surprised if HS2 wasn't ATO from the start, even if there
was a driver and dog (driver to sit there and watch, dog to bite him if
he touches anything) up front "just in case".

Neil

[Neil Williams]

Post by s***@potato.field
I wouldn't be so sure of that. ATO on a slow metro system is one thing, having
no one at the front on an express is another matter entirely. Until trains
have sensors at least as good as the human eye to see any obstructions ahead it
won't happen.

No train can stop in the distance its human operator can see to be clear.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by s***@potato.field
I wouldn't be so sure of that. ATO on a slow metro system is one thing, having
no one at the front on an express is another matter entirely. Until trains
have sensors at least as good as the human eye to see any obstructions ahead it
won't happen.

No train can stop in the distance its human operator can see to be clear.

Of course they can, how else would "calling on" signals work? (Albeit
recently not so well at Plymouth).

[David Cantrell]

How would a blind person even order

Same way that they'd use any other smartphone app.

or recognise an Uber cab?

Same way that they'd recognise a minicab where they'd ordered it by
phone.

You forget that it's not just completely blind people who can have guide
dogs; that modern phones have accessibility Stuff; that blind people
have sighted friends and family; and so on.

[Recliner]

Post by David Cantrell

How would a blind person even order

Same way that they'd use any other smartphone app.

Which is probably not at all? I really doubt that many users of guide dogs
also have smartphones.

Post by David Cantrell

or recognise an Uber cab?

Same way that they'd recognise a minicab where they'd ordered it by
phone.
You forget that it's not just completely blind people who can have guide
dogs; that modern phones have accessibility Stuff; that blind people
have sighted friends and family; and so on.

Indeed, the problems probably arise when a blind person with guide dog is
accompanying a sighted person.

[Recliner]

Post by bob
I think the true motivation becomes clear if you read it as minicab = Uber.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37038864

Quote:

Transport bosses have defended new regulations requiring private hire
drivers to pass a test in English, following criticism from Uber.

The company said the exam would put drivers out of work.

From 1 October, Transport for London (TfL) will require the qualification
of licence applicants from countries where English is not the majority
language.

It said the new rule had strong public support and was less stringent than
that imposed on black-cab drivers.
The new rules will apply to anyone seeking a new licence or a licence
renewal.

Initial proposals had called for only proficiency in spoken English, but
the final draft requires, among other criteria, at least an intermediate
language qualification.

Besides the spoken portion, the exam also tests reading, writing and
listening skills.

It is referred to as the "B1" level on the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages and is equivalent to the level the national
curriculum in England expects of children aged nine to 11 years.

Someone who passes will have the "ability to express oneself in a limited
way in familiar situations and to deal in a general way with non-routine
information", the framework says.

'Threatened livelihoods'

Uber said it agreed with the requirement for drivers to pass a spoken exam
but said the full rules would "threaten the livelihood of thousands of
drivers".

In an email to users calling on them to write to the London Mayor, Sadiq
Khan, Uber's general manager in London, Tom Elvidge, said: "Fewer drivers
will mean longer waiting times or no cars when you need them most."

He also said the B1 qualification would demand more of applicants than the
British citizenship test.

But, according to the Home Office, that test also requires a B1 level in
English.

In addition, Mr Elvidge said TfL's new rules were more stringent than those
the government applied to employees who interacted with the public as part
of their duties.

TfL denied that, saying its rules were "in line with Home Office intentions
for customer-facing public-sector workers".

'Public support'

Helen Chapman, TfL's general manager of taxi and private hire, said: "We
are working to modernise and improve standards in London's private hire
industry.

"The proposal for an English language requirement was supported by 80% of
the 20,000 respondents in our recent consultation, suggesting very strong
public support.

"We think that it is appropriate for this requirement to apply to private
hire drivers, who will often be responsible for transporting vulnerable
passengers."

A TfL spokesman said it was presumed that to pass the black-cab drivers'
"Knowledge" exam, applicants would need a much higher proficiency in
English than the intermediate level to be required of private hire drivers.

[Robin9]

Post by bob
I think the true motivation becomes clear if you read it as minicab
Uber.-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37038864
Transport bosses have defended new regulations requiring private hire
drivers to pass a test in English, following criticism from Uber.
The company said the exam would put drivers out of work.
From 1 October, Transport for London (TfL) will require th
qualification
of licence applicants from countries where English is not the majority
language.
It said the new rule had strong public support and was less stringen
than
that imposed on black-cab drivers.
The new rules will apply to anyone seeking a new licence or a licence
renewal.
Initial proposals had called for only proficiency in spoken English
but
the final draft requires, among other criteria, at least a
intermediate
language qualification.
Besides the spoken portion, the exam also tests reading, writing and
listening skills.
It is referred to as the "B1" level on the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages and is equivalent to the level the national
curriculum in England expects of children aged nine to 11 years.
Someone who passes will have the "ability to express oneself in
limited
way in familiar situations and to deal in a general way wit
non-routine
information", the framework says.
'Threatened livelihoods'
Uber said it agreed with the requirement for drivers to pass a spoke
exam
but said the full rules would "threaten the livelihood of thousands of
drivers".
In an email to users calling on them to write to the London Mayor
Sadiq
Khan, Uber's general manager in London, Tom Elvidge, said: "Fewe
drivers
will mean longer waiting times or no cars when you need them most."
He also said the B1 qualification would demand more of applicants tha
the
British citizenship test.
But, according to the Home Office, that test also requires a B1 leve
in
English.
In addition, Mr Elvidge said TfL's new rules were more stringent tha
those
the government applied to employees who interacted with the public a
part
of their duties.
TfL denied that, saying its rules were "in line with Home Offic
intentions
for customer-facing public-sector workers".
'Public support'
Helen Chapman, TfL's general manager of taxi and private hire, said
"We
are working to modernise and improve standards in London's private hire
industry.
"The proposal for an English language requirement was supported by 80
of
the 20,000 respondents in our recent consultation, suggesting ver
strong
public support.
"We think that it is appropriate for this requirement to apply t
private
hire drivers, who will often be responsible for transporting vulnerable
passengers."
A TfL spokesman said it was presumed that to pass the black-ca
drivers'
"Knowledge" exam, applicants would need a much higher proficiency in
English than the intermediate level to be required of private hir
drivers.

That Uber don't like these new requirements and have prepared
a ready-made email for their drivers to send to TfL indicates three
things:

1) A lot of Uber drivers don't speak English very well;
2) Taking back in house the testing of private hire drivers and
setting even a moderate standard will immediately reduce the
number of new entrants;
3) The propaganda put out by the "remain" group that all
immigrants working in this country were exceptionally gifted
people unmatched by any Briton was nonsense


--
Robin9

[Someone Somewhere]

Post by Robin9
That Uber don't like these new requirements and have prepared
a ready-made email for their drivers to send to TfL indicates three
1) A lot of Uber drivers don't speak English very well;
2) Taking back in house the testing of private hire drivers and
setting even a moderate standard will immediately reduce the
number of new entrants;
3) The propaganda put out by the "remain" group that all
immigrants working in this country were exceptionally gifted
people unmatched by any Briton was nonsense.

Why do we want less cabbies (of all types, including black and private
hire) anyway? Most other industries are left to set their own level of
employees and even where people are self-employed the market is somewhat
self-balancing.

Basically all a driver needs to understand is an address or postcode, in
particular with Uber if there are then problems you can deal with
customer services.

If the claim is that you need a decent level of English to drive in the
UK, then I can think of several areas of London which would suddenly
have a lot less cars on the road if that were to be enacted and enforced.

It's not like we're universally swamped at the moment, otherwise why did
Uber want to charge me a surge fare last night?

[s***@potato.field]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:32:46 +0100

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Robin9
That Uber don't like these new requirements and have prepared
a ready-made email for their drivers to send to TfL indicates three
1) A lot of Uber drivers don't speak English very well;
2) Taking back in house the testing of private hire drivers and
setting even a moderate standard will immediately reduce the
number of new entrants;
3) The propaganda put out by the "remain" group that all
immigrants working in this country were exceptionally gifted
people unmatched by any Briton was nonsense.

Why do we want less cabbies (of all types, including black and private
hire) anyway? Most other industries are left to set their own level of
employees and even where people are self-employed the market is somewhat
self-balancing.

The ratio of empty black cabs to occupied round where I work is about 5:1.
A few less of them driving around in circles would sort out a lot of
congestion and pollution in one go.

Post by Someone Somewhere
If the claim is that you need a decent level of English to drive in the
UK, then I can think of several areas of London which would suddenly
have a lot less cars on the road if that were to be enacted and enforced.

Which could only be a good thing. If they can't speak or read english
properly then they probably have little idea about the highway code.

Post by Someone Somewhere
It's not like we're universally swamped at the moment, otherwise why did
Uber want to charge me a surge fare last night?

Because they could. And once they've killed off local minicab businesses just
watch the prices go up and the standards down. Still, it uses an app so that
makes it ok no matter what, right?

--
Spud

[tim...]

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Robin9
That Uber don't like these new requirements and have prepared
a ready-made email for their drivers to send to TfL indicates three
1) A lot of Uber drivers don't speak English very well;
2) Taking back in house the testing of private hire drivers and
setting even a moderate standard will immediately reduce the
number of new entrants;
3) The propaganda put out by the "remain" group that all
immigrants working in this country were exceptionally gifted
people unmatched by any Briton was nonsense.

Why do we want less cabbies (of all types, including black and private
hire) anyway? Most other industries are left to set their own level of
employees and even where people are self-employed the market is somewhat
self-balancing.

because by being a self employed person and "earning" minimum wage for the
minimum number of hours, entitles you to in work benefits.

That may not be very much for as single guy, but bring your family over and
you soon get someone earning 8K a year, "contributing" 300 quid in NI and
taxes and then leaching 20 grand a year in benefits.

We can't stop Brits doing this, but we damned well ought to be able top stop
foreigners doing it

tim

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by tim...

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Robin9
That Uber don't like these new requirements and have prepared
a ready-made email for their drivers to send to TfL indicates three
1) A lot of Uber drivers don't speak English very well;
2) Taking back in house the testing of private hire drivers and
setting even a moderate standard will immediately reduce the
number of new entrants;
3) The propaganda put out by the "remain" group that all
immigrants working in this country were exceptionally gifted
people unmatched by any Briton was nonsense.

Why do we want less cabbies (of all types, including black and
private hire) anyway? Most other industries are left to set their
own level of employees and even where people are self-employed the
market is somewhat self-balancing.

because by being a self employed person and "earning" minimum wage
for the minimum number of hours, entitles you to in work benefits.
That may not be very much for as single guy, but bring your family
over and you soon get someone earning 8K a year, "contributing" 300
quid in NI and taxes and then leaching 20 grand a year in benefits.
We can't stop Brits doing this, but we damned well ought to be able
top stop foreigners doing it

20 grand in benefits? Where do you get that rubbish from? The Daily Mail or
The Sun?

[Someone Somewhere]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by tim...

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Robin9
That Uber don't like these new requirements and have prepared
a ready-made email for their drivers to send to TfL indicates three
1) A lot of Uber drivers don't speak English very well;
2) Taking back in house the testing of private hire drivers and
setting even a moderate standard will immediately reduce the
number of new entrants;
3) The propaganda put out by the "remain" group that all
immigrants working in this country were exceptionally gifted
people unmatched by any Briton was nonsense.

Why do we want less cabbies (of all types, including black and
private hire) anyway? Most other industries are left to set their
own level of employees and even where people are self-employed the
market is somewhat self-balancing.

because by being a self employed person and "earning" minimum wage
for the minimum number of hours, entitles you to in work benefits.
That may not be very much for as single guy, but bring your family
over and you soon get someone earning 8K a year, "contributing" 300
quid in NI and taxes and then leaching 20 grand a year in benefits.
We can't stop Brits doing this, but we damned well ought to be able
top stop foreigners doing it

20 grand in benefits? Where do you get that rubbish from? The Daily Mail or
The Sun?

I thought it was a bit of an exaggeration, but then I used on online
calculator (www.entitledto.co.uk), claiming I worked 20 hours a week for
8K per annum and was single with 4 kids, living in a band C council
property in Tower Hamlets with a rent of £120 a week.

This is what it came out with:

Initial Tax Credit £14,996.10 £288.39 This figure is based on the income
you received last year. The Tax Credits figure shown below is based on
your current income amount.
Tax Credits £14,996.10 £288.39 Working tax credit and child tax credit.
Council Tax Support £364.52 £6.99 Your full Council Tax bill of £15.30
per week will be reduced to £8.31 per week because of your entitlement
to Council Tax Support. The amount you get can be affected by other
benefits. We have included the amounts we have calculated for Working
Tax Credit (£63.91 per week).
Housing Benefit £4,835.39 £92.99 Your full rent of £120.00 per week will
be reduced by £92.99 per week because of your entitlement to Housing
Benefit. This means you will have to pay £27.01 each week. The amount
you get can be affected by other benefits. We have included the amounts
we have calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week).
Child Benefit £3,213.60 £61.80
Total Entitlements £23,409.61 £450.17

So, £23k - even more than was claimed!

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

*Subject:* Re: Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
*Date:* Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:17:12 +0100

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by tim...

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Robin9
That Uber don't like these new requirements and have prepared
a ready-made email for their drivers to send to TfL indicates

three

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by tim...

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Robin9
1) A lot of Uber drivers don't speak English very well;
2) Taking back in house the testing of private hire drivers and
setting even a moderate standard will immediately reduce the
number of new entrants;
3) The propaganda put out by the "remain" group that all
immigrants working in this country were exceptionally gifted
people unmatched by any Briton was nonsense.

Why do we want less cabbies (of all types, including black and
private hire) anyway? Most other industries are left to set their
own level of employees and even where people are self-employed the
market is somewhat self-balancing.

because by being a self employed person and "earning" minimum wage
for the minimum number of hours, entitles you to in work benefits.
That may not be very much for as single guy, but bring your family
over and you soon get someone earning 8K a year, "contributing" 300
quid in NI and taxes and then leaching 20 grand a year in benefits.
We can't stop Brits doing this, but we damned well ought to be able
top stop foreigners doing it

20 grand in benefits? Where do you get that rubbish from? The Daily Mail or
The Sun?

I thought it was a bit of an exaggeration, but then I used on online
calculator (www.entitledto.co.uk), claiming I worked 20 hours a week
for 8K per annum and was single with 4 kids, living in a band C
council property in Tower Hamlets with a rent of £120 a week.
Initial Tax Credit £14,996.10 £288.39 This figure is based on the
income you received last year. The Tax Credits figure shown below is
based on your current income amount. Tax
Credits £14,996.10 £288.39 Working tax credit and child tax

credit.

Council Tax Support £364.52 £6.99 Your full Council Tax bill of
£15.30 per week will be reduced to £8.31 per week because of your
entitlement to Council Tax Support. The amount you get can be
affected by other benefits. We have included the amounts we have
calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week). Housing
Benefit £4,835.39 £92.99 Your full rent of £120.00 per week

will be

reduced by £92.99 per week because of your entitlement to Housing
Benefit. This means you will have to pay £27.01 each week. The amount
you get can be affected by other benefits. We have included the
amounts we have calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week).
Child Benefit £3,213.60 £61.80
Total Entitlements £23,409.61 £450.17
So, £23k - even more than was claimed!

and falling. When does child benefit beyond 2nd child stop?

[tim...]

Post by Someone Somewhere

*Subject:* Re: Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
*Date:* Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:17:12 +0100
I thought it was a bit of an exaggeration, but then I used on online
calculator (www.entitledto.co.uk), claiming I worked 20 hours a week
for 8K per annum and was single with 4 kids, living in a band C
council property in Tower Hamlets with a rent of £120 a week.
Initial Tax Credit £14,996.10 £288.39 This figure is based on the
income you received last year. The Tax Credits figure shown below is
based on your current income amount. Tax
Credits £14,996.10 £288.39 Working tax credit and child tax

credit.

Council Tax Support £364.52 £6.99 Your full Council Tax bill of
£15.30 per week will be reduced to £8.31 per week because of your
entitlement to Council Tax Support. The amount you get can be
affected by other benefits. We have included the amounts we have
calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week). Housing
Benefit £4,835.39 £92.99 Your full rent of £120.00 per week

will be

reduced by £92.99 per week because of your entitlement to Housing
Benefit. This means you will have to pay £27.01 each week. The amount
you get can be affected by other benefits. We have included the
amounts we have calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week).
Child Benefit £3,213.60 £61.80
Total Entitlements £23,409.61 £450.17
So, £23k - even more than was claimed!

and falling.

hence the reason why I plumped for 20K instead of the current maximum of 23K

Post by Someone Somewhere
When does child benefit beyond 2nd child stop?

It doesn't (the proposal was for Child Tax Credits to be restricted to first
2 children, but that got quashed in the Lords along with the other recent
changes)

I accept that my suggestion that someone can get 20K in benefits from
earning 8K per annum in uncommon, but it most certainly isn't the complete
fiction that you suggested it was

tim

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by tim...

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Someone Somewhere
I thought it was a bit of an exaggeration, but then I used on online
calculator (www.entitledto.co.uk), claiming I worked 20 hours a week
for 8K per annum and was single with 4 kids, living in a band C
council property in Tower Hamlets with a rent of £120 a week.
Initial Tax Credit £14,996.10 £288.39 This figure is based on
the income you received last year. The Tax Credits figure shown below
is based on your current income amount. Tax
Credits £14,996.10 £288.39 Working tax credit and child tax
credit.
Council Tax Support £364.52 £6.99 Your full Council Tax bill of
£15.30 per week will be reduced to £8.31 per week because of your
entitlement to Council Tax Support. The amount you get can be
affected by other benefits. We have included the amounts we have
calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week). Housing
Benefit £4,835.39 £92.99 Your full rent of £120.00 per
week will be reduced by £92.99 per week because of your entitlement to
Housing Benefit. This means you will have to pay £27.01 each week. The
amount you get can be affected by other benefits. We have included the
amounts we have calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week).
Child Benefit £3,213.60 £61.80
Total Entitlements £23,409.61 £450.17
So, £23k - even more than was claimed!

and falling.

hence the reason why I plumped for 20K instead of the current maximum of 23K

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
When does child benefit beyond 2nd child stop?

It doesn't (the proposal was for Child Tax Credits to be restricted
to first 2 children, but that got quashed in the Lords along with the
other recent changes)
I accept that my suggestion that someone can get 20K in benefits from
earning 8K per annum in uncommon, but it most certainly isn't the
complete fiction that you suggested it was

I thought the switch to Universal Credit was going to penalise children
after the first 2? The point made after the Lords defeat was that it was
only temporary.

[s***@potato.field]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:12:36 -0500

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I thought the switch to Universal Credit was going to penalise children
after the first 2? The point made after the Lords defeat was that it was
only temporary.

Child benefit should be binned altogether. The state doesn't need to pay
people to have kids, we're over populated already. If you can't afford them
don't have them.

--
Spud

[James Heaton]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by tim...

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Someone Somewhere
I thought it was a bit of an exaggeration, but then I used on online
calculator (www.entitledto.co.uk), claiming I worked 20 hours a week
for 8K per annum and was single with 4 kids, living in a band C
council property in Tower Hamlets with a rent of £120 a week.
Initial Tax Credit £14,996.10 £288.39 This figure is based on
the income you received last year. The Tax Credits figure shown below
is based on your current income amount. Tax
Credits £14,996.10 £288.39 Working tax credit and child tax
credit.
Council Tax Support £364.52 £6.99 Your full Council Tax bill of
£15.30 per week will be reduced to £8.31 per week because of your
entitlement to Council Tax Support. The amount you get can be
affected by other benefits. We have included the amounts we have
calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week). Housing
Benefit £4,835.39 £92.99 Your full rent of £120.00 per
week will be reduced by £92.99 per week because of your entitlement to
Housing Benefit. This means you will have to pay £27.01 each week. The
amount you get can be affected by other benefits. We have included the
amounts we have calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week).
Child Benefit £3,213.60 £61.80
Total Entitlements £23,409.61 £450.17
So, £23k - even more than was claimed!

and falling.

hence the reason why I plumped for 20K instead of the current maximum of 23K

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
When does child benefit beyond 2nd child stop?

It doesn't (the proposal was for Child Tax Credits to be restricted
to first 2 children, but that got quashed in the Lords along with the
other recent changes)
I accept that my suggestion that someone can get 20K in benefits from
earning 8K per annum in uncommon, but it most certainly isn't the
complete fiction that you suggested it was

I thought the switch to Universal Credit was going to penalise children
after the first 2? The point made after the Lords defeat was that it was
only temporary.

I think it's only for children born after a certain date.

Existing claimants will keep it.

James

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by James Heaton

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by tim...

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Someone Somewhere
I thought it was a bit of an exaggeration, but then I used on online
calculator (www.entitledto.co.uk), claiming I worked 20 hours a week
for 8K per annum and was single with 4 kids, living in a band C
council property in Tower Hamlets with a rent of £120 a week.
Initial Tax Credit £14,996.10 £288.39 This figure is based
on the income you received last year. The Tax Credits figure shown
below is based on your current income amount. Tax
Credits £14,996.10 £288.39 Working tax credit and child
tax credit.
Council Tax Support £364.52 £6.99 Your full Council Tax bill of
£15.30 per week will be reduced to £8.31 per week because of your
entitlement to Council Tax Support. The amount you get can be
affected by other benefits. We have included the amounts we have
calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week). Housing
Benefit £4,835.39 £92.99 Your full rent of £120.00 per
week will be reduced by £92.99 per week because of your entitlement
to Housing Benefit. This means you will have to pay £27.01 each
week. The amount you get can be affected by other benefits. We have
included the amounts we have calculated for Working Tax Credit
(£63.91 per week).
Child Benefit £3,213.60 £61.80
Total Entitlements £23,409.61 £450.17
So, £23k - even more than was claimed!

and falling.

hence the reason why I plumped for 20K instead of the current maximum of 23K

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
When does child benefit beyond 2nd child stop?

It doesn't (the proposal was for Child Tax Credits to be restricted
to first 2 children, but that got quashed in the Lords along with the
other recent changes)
I accept that my suggestion that someone can get 20K in benefits from
earning 8K per annum in uncommon, but it most certainly isn't the
complete fiction that you suggested it was

I thought the switch to Universal Credit was going to penalise children
after the first 2? The point made after the Lords defeat was that it was
only temporary.

I think it's only for children born after a certain date.
Existing claimants will keep it.

The hypothesis related to new claimants of course.

[tim...]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by James Heaton

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by tim...

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Someone Somewhere
I thought it was a bit of an exaggeration, but then I used on online
calculator (www.entitledto.co.uk), claiming I worked 20 hours a week
for 8K per annum and was single with 4 kids, living in a band C
council property in Tower Hamlets with a rent of £120 a week.
Initial Tax Credit £14,996.10 £288.39 This figure is based
on the income you received last year. The Tax Credits figure shown
below is based on your current income amount. Tax
Credits £14,996.10 £288.39 Working tax credit and child
tax credit.
Council Tax Support £364.52 £6.99 Your full Council Tax bill of
£15.30 per week will be reduced to £8.31 per week because of your
entitlement to Council Tax Support. The amount you get can be
affected by other benefits. We have included the amounts we have
calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week). Housing
Benefit £4,835.39 £92.99 Your full rent of £120.00 per
week will be reduced by £92.99 per week because of your entitlement
to Housing Benefit. This means you will have to pay £27.01 each
week. The amount you get can be affected by other benefits. We have
included the amounts we have calculated for Working Tax Credit
(£63.91 per week).
Child Benefit £3,213.60 £61.80
Total Entitlements £23,409.61 £450.17
So, £23k - even more than was claimed!

and falling.

hence the reason why I plumped for 20K instead of the current maximum of 23K

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
When does child benefit beyond 2nd child stop?

It doesn't (the proposal was for Child Tax Credits to be restricted
to first 2 children, but that got quashed in the Lords along with the
other recent changes)
I accept that my suggestion that someone can get 20K in benefits from
earning 8K per annum in uncommon, but it most certainly isn't the
complete fiction that you suggested it was

I thought the switch to Universal Credit was going to penalise children
after the first 2? The point made after the Lords defeat was that it was
only temporary.

I think it's only for children born after a certain date.
Existing claimants will keep it.

The hypothesis related to new claimants of course.

In most parts of Britain, there are no new claimants to UB.

By the time it is rolled out to them, they will be existing claimants

tim

[Clank]

Post by tim...

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Robin9
That Uber don't like these new requirements and have prepared
a ready-made email for their drivers to send to TfL indicates three
1) A lot of Uber drivers don't speak English very well;
2) Taking back in house the testing of private hire drivers and
setting even a moderate standard will immediately reduce the
number of new entrants;
3) The propaganda put out by the "remain" group that all
immigrants working in this country were exceptionally gifted
people unmatched by any Briton was nonsense.

Why do we want less cabbies (of all types, including black and private
hire) anyway? Most other industries are left to set their own level of
employees and even where people are self-employed the market is somewhat
self-balancing.

because by being a self employed person and "earning" minimum wage for the
minimum number of hours, entitles you to in work benefits.
That may not be very much for as single guy, but bring your family over and
you soon get someone earning 8K a year, "contributing" 300 quid in NI and
taxes and then leaching 20 grand a year in benefits.
We can't stop Brits doing this, but we damned well ought to be able top stop
foreigners doing it

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about stopping the Brits doing it -
it's the lazy, waste of space scum that won't work for a living that make
that Septic Isle a shithole, not the immigrants who do the jobs you're too
lazy to.

[tim...]

Post by Clank

Post by tim...

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Robin9
That Uber don't like these new requirements and have prepared
a ready-made email for their drivers to send to TfL indicates three
1) A lot of Uber drivers don't speak English very well;
2) Taking back in house the testing of private hire drivers and
setting even a moderate standard will immediately reduce the
number of new entrants;
3) The propaganda put out by the "remain" group that all
immigrants working in this country were exceptionally gifted
people unmatched by any Briton was nonsense.

Why do we want less cabbies (of all types, including black and private
hire) anyway? Most other industries are left to set their own level of
employees and even where people are self-employed the market is somewhat
self-balancing.

because by being a self employed person and "earning" minimum wage for the
minimum number of hours, entitles you to in work benefits.
That may not be very much for as single guy, but bring your family over and
you soon get someone earning 8K a year, "contributing" 300 quid in NI and
taxes and then leaching 20 grand a year in benefits.
We can't stop Brits doing this, but we damned well ought to be able top stop
foreigners doing it

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about stopping the Brits doing it -
it's the lazy, waste of space scum that won't work for a living that make
that Septic Isle a shithole,

And look at the furore when the last Chancellor tried exactly that.

(That's not to say that I disagree it is necessary, just that I don't
believe it is deliverable)

Post by Clank
not the immigrants who do the jobs you're too
lazy to.

I'm not entirely sure why you are making such a personal jibe.

I have never claimed a penny in benefit payments in my life, so whether I am
too lazy or not to take on a particular type of work is no business of
yours.

tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim...
I have never claimed a penny in benefit payments in my life, so whether
I am too lazy or not to take on a particular type of work is no
business of yours.

Not having children removes a person from many forms of benefit, whether
tax breaks, tax credits, child benefit(sic), or a lower threshold for
things like income support, housing benefit(sic) and council tax
benefit(sic).

I never claimed unemployment benefit between jobs until a PPI (yes, I
know) policy on a mortgage wouldn't pay out unless I registered as
unemployed, as well as in fact being laid off and having a P45 to prove
it. Complying with all the DWP requirements[1] felt like a full time job
in its own right.

[1] Some of which seemed similar to a redundant Concorde pilot being
required to spend a certain number of hours a day scouring job ads
just in case there were any vacancies for Concorde pilots outside of
BA/Air France.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Someone Somewhere
Basically all a driver needs to understand is an address or postcode,
in particular with Uber if there are then problems you can deal with
customer services.

That is inconvenient and should not be necessary. I speak English in
England and expect to be understood by any customer service employee I
deal with in any industry when I do so.

Post by Someone Somewhere
If the claim is that you need a decent level of English to drive in the
UK, then I can think of several areas of London which would suddenly
have a lot less cars on the road if that were to be enacted and enforced.

I would be fully supportive of it being enforced throughout the UK in
all areas of customer facing[1] employment, e.g. through the work
permit system.

Post by Someone Somewhere
It's not like we're universally swamped at the moment, otherwise why
did Uber want to charge me a surge fare last night?

It's not about being swamped, it's about a basic level of service we
should be able to expect, for safety if nothing else.
Misunderstandings in late night minicabs (whether Uber or not) are
potentially dangerous.

[1] I don't care if the prevailing language in a warehouse is something
other than English, I do care if I can't ask a member of staff a
question without gesturing.

Neil

[tim...]

Post by Recliner

Post by bob
I think the true motivation becomes clear if you read it as minicab = Uber.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37038864
Transport bosses have defended new regulations requiring private hire
drivers to pass a test in English, following criticism from Uber.
The company said the exam would put drivers out of work.
From 1 October, Transport for London (TfL) will require the qualification
of licence applicants from countries where English is not the majority
language.
It said the new rule had strong public support and was less stringent than
that imposed on black-cab drivers.
The new rules will apply to anyone seeking a new licence or a licence
renewal.
Initial proposals had called for only proficiency in spoken English, but
the final draft requires, among other criteria, at least an intermediate
language qualification.
Besides the spoken portion, the exam also tests reading, writing and
listening skills.
It is referred to as the "B1" level on the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages and is equivalent to the level the national
curriculum in England expects of children aged nine to 11 years.

In their first language, not in a second one

After 6 years of lessons, I still hadn't achieved that level in French aged
16 (and I wasn't alone in that)

Though I will admit it's easier to learn a foreign language when you get to
practice it in the real world with fluent speakers, instead of just in a
classroom with people who are no better than you

But, reaching conversation level in a second language is still not a
slam-dunk, some people never manage it, however hard they try.

Though none of that is to say that I think the test isn't appropriate for
Taxi drivers. I do think that they should be able to master conversational
English, if they are targeting English speaking passengers.

Post by Recliner
A TfL spokesman said it was presumed that to pass the black-cab drivers'
"Knowledge" exam, applicants would need a much higher proficiency in
English than the intermediate level to be required of private hire drivers.

I thought "the knowledge" training was specifically available in foreign
languages to give foreign speaking drivers a chance to qualify without
having fluent English.

tim

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

al-september.org...

Post by Recliner

Post by bob
I think the true motivation becomes clear if you read it as
minicab = Uber.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37038864
Transport bosses have defended new regulations requiring private hire
drivers to pass a test in English, following criticism from Uber.
The company said the exam would put drivers out of work.
From 1 October, Transport for London (TfL) will require the
qualification of licence applicants from countries where English is not
the majority language.
It said the new rule had strong public support and was less stringent
than that imposed on black-cab drivers.
The new rules will apply to anyone seeking a new licence or a licence
renewal.
Initial proposals had called for only proficiency in spoken English, but
the final draft requires, among other criteria, at least an intermediate
language qualification.
Besides the spoken portion, the exam also tests reading, writing and
listening skills.
It is referred to as the "B1" level on the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages and is equivalent to the level the national
curriculum in England expects of children aged nine to 11 years.

In their first language, not in a second one
After 6 years of lessons, I still hadn't achieved that level in
French aged 16 (and I wasn't alone in that)
Though I will admit it's easier to learn a foreign language when you
get to practice it in the real world with fluent speakers, instead of
just in a classroom with people who are no better than you

You'd have done better spending time in a French-speaking country speaking
the language. I did (French and later Portuguese).

But, reaching conversation level in a second language is still not a
slam-dunk, some people never manage it, however hard they try.

Then they will have to accept limits on their job options if they don't have
the necessary skills. The rest of us have to do that in other respects.

Though none of that is to say that I think the test isn't appropriate
for Taxi drivers. I do think that they should be able to master
conversational English, if they are targeting English speaking
passengers.

Drivers need to understand what their hirers are saying and sufficiently
well to meet their requests. That requires a degree of understanding of
English not always available and beyond simple speaking ability is needed.

When I chaired the local licensing committee I was shocked how bad was the
English of some drivers coming before us for disciplinary hearings. While I
could understand the need for interpreters for the complex process of a
quasi-legal hearing, some drivers still couldn't understand simple factual
questions from councillors and give straight intelligible replies.

Cambridge removed the limit on the number of taxi licences in 2001. We
preferred to raise standards of vehicles (mostly vis a vis emissions) and
drivers rather than crudely limit numbers.

[Neil Williams]

Post by tim...
Though none of that is to say that I think the test isn't appropriate
for Taxi drivers. I do think that they should be able to master
conversational English, if they are targeting English speaking
passengers.

Unless I have the option to select an English speaking driver from a
minicab company or Uber, that is *every* driver.

Neil

[tim...]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by tim...
Though none of that is to say that I think the test isn't appropriate for
Taxi drivers. I do think that they should be able to master
conversational English, if they are targeting English speaking
passengers.

Unless I have the option to select an English speaking driver from a
minicab company or Uber, that is *every* driver.

It's not technically impossible for Uber to provide the option of language
spoken and make sure that your request is satisfied.

I'm sure that there are sufficient equality of supply of/demand for Urdu,
Gujarati etc, for them to be offered as alternatives to English.

But I doubt that offering Romanian or Bulgarian results in an equality of
supply & demand.

tim

[Neil Williams]

Post by tim...
It's not technically impossible for Uber to provide the option of
language spoken and make sure that your request is satisfied.
I'm sure that there are sufficient equality of supply of/demand for
Urdu, Gujarati etc, for them to be offered as alternatives to English.

That's really not a terrible idea at all.

Neil

[tim...]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by tim...
It's not technically impossible for Uber to provide the option of
language spoken and make sure that your request is satisfied.
I'm sure that there are sufficient equality of supply of/demand for Urdu,
Gujarati etc, for them to be offered as alternatives to English.

That's really not a terrible idea at all.

I wasn't suggesting that it ought to be allowed for taxi drivers to offer a
service only to "foreign" speaking clients

I am saying that were it to be allowed for some languages, these are ones
where it might work. Whereas for the "new" European counties it wont.

tim

[Neil Williams]

Post by Recliner
Transport bosses have defended new regulations requiring private hire
drivers to pass a test in English, following criticism from Uber.

I don't have a problem with that idea. English is the main language
spoken in the UK. I should be able to expect to communicate in English
with any customer facing person I deal with in any industry in the UK,
just as I would expect that if I wanted a job in France I would have to
speak basic, understandable French, and German in Germany etc.

I don't care about where they are from (provided they are here legally)
but I do agree with the principle of not making communication awkward.

Neil

[Basil Jet]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Recliner
Transport bosses have defended new regulations requiring private hire
drivers to pass a test in English, following criticism from Uber.

I don't have a problem with that idea. English is the main language
spoken in the UK. I should be able to expect to communicate in English
with any customer facing person I deal with in any industry in the UK,
just as I would expect that if I wanted a job in France I would have to
speak basic, understandable French, and German in Germany etc.
I don't care about where they are from (provided they are here legally)
but I do agree with the principle of not making communication awkward.

Except that you have the choice of which company you use, and can
boycott any company that doesn't speak English if you feel so inclined.
If someone wants to set up a minicab company in New Malden with Korean
speaking drivers for Korean speaking passengers, I don't see why they
should be legally compelled to speak English as well.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Basil Jet
Except that you have the choice of which company you use, and can
boycott any company that doesn't speak English if you feel so inclined.

Front-line customer service staff not speaking sufficient English for
even the most basic request is not at all uncommon in London - it's
hard to avoid it at times.

It would not be accepted in any other country - to drive a taxi in
France you would be expected to speak French, in Germany to speak
German, in the Netherlands to speak Dutch. It should not be accepted
here.

Once again I'm not anti-immigrant at all - I think many benefits come
from immigration, and I've been one on a couple of occasions (in
Germany and Switzerland, and yes I do speak decent German and
less-good-but-adequate French), and have a very good Polish friend who
now calls the UK home - and, FWIW, has put the effort in and so speaks
excellent English - but I do firmly believe that part of being an
immigrant is to learn at least a basic command of the local language,
particularly if wishing to work in any kind of customer facing job.

You can speak whatever language you choose when conversing yourself, of
course, wherever you may be (I'm not one of those people who in any way
objects to people conversing in Arabic, or whatever, on the bus), and
as I say I don't care at all if the prevailing language in a
non-customer-facing environment like a warehouse or a building site is
Polish (or whatever), but if you wish to serve me in a customer facing
environment I wish to communicate with you in English and not have any
difficulties in doing so, and as people can't be bothered to do this
themselves I do agree with TfL that it is time for the law to ensure
this at least in some areas.

Post by Basil Jet
If someone wants to set up a minicab company in New Malden with Korean
speaking drivers for Korean speaking passengers, I don't see why they
should be legally compelled to speak English as well.

I would suggest that any such company should operate under a *very*
restricted licence such that it cannot be in any way seen to be
competing with a company which has higher costs to provide the proper
English language service they should be obliged to provide when
operating a business for the general public in England. It should
certainly not be allowed to advertise itself, as Uber does, as a
general-purpose transport company, nor to put cost pressure on such a
business (e.g. the black cabs) which is doing things properly.

Neil

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Recliner
Transport bosses have defended new regulations requiring private hire
drivers to pass a test in English, following criticism from Uber.

I don't have a problem with that idea. English is the main language
spoken in the UK. I should be able to expect to communicate in English
with any customer facing person I deal with in any industry in the UK,
just as I would expect that if I wanted a job in France I would have to
speak basic, understandable French, and German in Germany etc.
I don't care about where they are from (provided they are here legally)
but I do agree with the principle of not making communication awkward.

Except that you have the choice of which company you use, and can
boycott any company that doesn't speak English if you feel so
inclined. If someone wants to set up a minicab company in New Malden
with Korean speaking drivers for Korean speaking passengers, I don't
see why they should be legally compelled to speak English as well.

Eh? You book with the operator and only meet the driver when he arrives to
pick you up. A bit late then to cancel and ask for another driver.

[Neil Williams]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Eh? You book with the operator and only meet the driver when he arrives to
pick you up. A bit late then to cancel and ask for another driver.

I do think it's a shame you can't select your car on Uber based on
reviews etc - perhaps the clock could start when you select it, so you
still pay for selecting one further away if that is your preference.

Neil

[s***@potato.field]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:48:03 +0100

Post by Neil Williams

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Eh? You book with the operator and only meet the driver when he arrives to
pick you up. A bit late then to cancel and ask for another driver.

I do think it's a shame you can't select your car on Uber based on
reviews etc - perhaps the clock could start when you select it, so you
still pay for selecting one further away if that is your preference.

I can see why not - a few malicious reviews could kill the drivers livelihood.

--
Spud

[Neil Williams]

Post by s***@potato.field
I can see why not - a few malicious reviews could kill the drivers livelihood.

In practice anyone in business has to deal with muppets, and so I never
expect a 100% rating on eBay, Amazon etc. OTOH, once you get below
about 95% questions quite rightly get asked.

Neil

[s***@potato.field]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:52:20 +0100

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
I can see why not - a few malicious reviews could kill the drivers

livelihood.
In practice anyone in business has to deal with muppets, and so I never
expect a 100% rating on eBay, Amazon etc. OTOH, once you get below
about 95% questions quite rightly get asked.

Not sure I'd give many of the drivers of minicabs or black cabs I've been
in anything close to 95%! But as long as they get you to your destination
safely and in a reasonable time then you can't really ask for much more.

--
Spud

[Basil Jet]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:48:03 +0100

Post by Neil Williams

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Eh? You book with the operator and only meet the driver when he arrives to
pick you up. A bit late then to cancel and ask for another driver.

I do think it's a shame you can't select your car on Uber based on
reviews etc - perhaps the clock could start when you select it, so you
still pay for selecting one further away if that is your preference.

I can see why not - a few malicious reviews could kill the drivers livelihood.

Uber doesn't care about the drivers' livelihoods. It relies on a
constant inflow of new muppets to replace the disillusioned leavers.

[s***@potato.field]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:12:02 +0100

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:48:03 +0100

Post by Neil Williams

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Eh? You book with the operator and only meet the driver when he arrives to
pick you up. A bit late then to cancel and ask for another driver.

I do think it's a shame you can't select your car on Uber based on
reviews etc - perhaps the clock could start when you select it, so you
still pay for selecting one further away if that is your preference.

I can see why not - a few malicious reviews could kill the drivers

livelihood.
Uber doesn't care about the drivers' livelihoods. It relies on a
constant inflow of new muppets to replace the disillusioned leavers.

More than likely. A lot of these tech companies are just the robber barons
of the 21st century and don't give a shit about the people on the shop floor.
I saw something on TV a while back about all these new bike based food delivery
firms whose staff end up earning less than the minimum wage. But hey, its an
app so what do the Kool Kids care if they guy delivering their organic soya
salad earns a pittance, he's just a grunt right?

--
Spud

[Recliner]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:12:02 +0100

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:48:03 +0100

Post by Neil Williams

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Eh? You book with the operator and only meet the driver when he arrives to
pick you up. A bit late then to cancel and ask for another driver.

I do think it's a shame you can't select your car on Uber based on
reviews etc - perhaps the clock could start when you select it, so you
still pay for selecting one further away if that is your preference.

I can see why not - a few malicious reviews could kill the drivers

livelihood.
Uber doesn't care about the drivers' livelihoods. It relies on a
constant inflow of new muppets to replace the disillusioned leavers.

More than likely. A lot of these tech companies are just the robber barons
of the 21st century and don't give a shit about the people on the shop floor.
I saw something on TV a while back about all these new bike based food delivery
firms whose staff end up earning less than the minimum wage. But hey, its an
app so what do the Kool Kids care if they guy delivering their organic soya
salad earns a pittance, he's just a grunt right?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/11/deliveroo-couriers-demonstrate-against-new-contract

[s***@potato.field]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:01:03 +0100

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
firms whose staff end up earning less than the minimum wage. But hey, its an
app so what do the Kool Kids care if they guy delivering their organic soya
salad earns a pittance, he's just a grunt right?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/11/deliveroo-couriers-demonst
ate-against-new-contract

Can't blame them. 3.75 per delivery is royally taking the piss. All those
striking RMT twats should have a good look at that to understand what poor pay
and conditions really means.

--
Spud

[Robin9]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:01:03 +0100
firms whose staff end up earning less than the minimum wage. But hey
its an
app so what do the Kool Kids care if they guy delivering their organi
soya
salad earns a pittance, he's just a grunt right?-
http://tinyurl.com/h8vevqc
ate-against-new-contract-
Can't blame them. 3.75 per delivery is royally taking the ****. Al
those
striking RMT ****s should have a good look at that to understand wha
poor pay
and conditions really means.
--
Spud

Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.

Union bashers should never overlook the central truth
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited


--
Robin9

[Someone Somewhere]

Post by Robin9

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:01:03 +0100
firms whose staff end up earning less than the minimum wage. But hey, its an
app so what do the Kool Kids care if they guy delivering their organic soya
salad earns a pittance, he's just a grunt right?-
http://tinyurl.com/h8vevqc
ate-against-new-contract-
Can't blame them. 3.75 per delivery is royally taking the ****. All
those
striking RMT ****s should have a good look at that to understand what
poor pay
and conditions really means.
--
Spud

Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.
Union bashers should never overlook the central truth
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.

Depends on your view of exploited - on average they had less job
mobility, took home less money (on average), had lower spending power
and lived shorter, more unhealthy lives, but hey - they didn't let
their bosses exploit them!

[Robin9]

On 13/08/2016 09:19, Robin9 wrote:-
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:01:03 +0100
firms whose staff end up earning less than the minimum wage. But hey, its an
app so what do the Kool Kids care if they guy delivering their organic soya
salad earns a pittance, he's just a grunt right?-
http://tinyurl.com/h8vevqc
ate-against-new-contract-
Can't blame them. 3.75 per delivery is royally taking the ****. All
those
striking RMT ****s should have a good look at that to understand what
poor pay
and conditions really means.
--
Spud-
Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.
Union bashers should never overlook the central truth
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.
-
Depends on your view of exploited - on average they had less job
mobility, took home less money (on average), had lower spending power
and lived shorter, more unhealthy lives, but hey - they didn't let
their bosses exploit them!

It depends also on whether one thinks rationally!

First of all, job mobility is a luxury for people who are not
suffering extreme poverty. I'm quite sure that none of the
large number of people in this country currently working in
exploitation circumstances finds job mobility within their grasp.
If it were, they wouldn't allow themselves to be exploited!

In general, take home pay is a red herring because of inflation
and because advances in technology have made some products
far cheaper than they were decades ago. However the ratio
between take home pay and the cost of a roof over one's head
is far, far worse today than it was during the '60s and '70s.
Those unlucky people struggling in today's housing market are
unlikely to feel that cheaper television sets are adequate
compensation.

The people who worked in the dark days of trade union power
are the retired people who are living longer than any previous
generation. It is unlikely that people working today in exploitation
conditions will live as long


--
Robin9

[s***@potato.field]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 20:11:48 +0200

Post by Robin9
It depends also on whether one thinks rationally!
First of all, job mobility is a luxury for people who are not
suffering extreme poverty. I'm quite sure that none of the

Really? Explain how a couple of million east europeans and other assorted
migrants manage to rock up here and get a job then.

Post by Robin9
large number of people in this country currently working in
exploitation circumstances finds job mobility within their grasp.

If someone is young and single they have no excuse not to move around the
place to find work other than laziness.

--
Spud

[tim...]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 20:11:48 +0200

Post by Robin9
It depends also on whether one thinks rationally!
First of all, job mobility is a luxury for people who are not
suffering extreme poverty. I'm quite sure that none of the

Really? Explain how a couple of million east europeans and other assorted
migrants manage to rock up here and get a job then.

because they are not the ones from East Europe who are in extreme poverty

those have to stay behind

tim

[s***@potato.field]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:50:03 +0100

Post by tim...

Post by s***@potato.field
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 20:11:48 +0200

Post by Robin9
It depends also on whether one thinks rationally!
First of all, job mobility is a luxury for people who are not
suffering extreme poverty. I'm quite sure that none of the

Really? Explain how a couple of million east europeans and other assorted
migrants manage to rock up here and get a job then.

because they are not the ones from East Europe who are in extreme poverty
those have to stay behind

Extreme poverty is relative. The chavs here would think it means not being
able to afford Sky Sports and an extra packet of fags a week.

--
Spud

[Robin9]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 20:11:48 +0200
It depends also on whether one thinks rationally!
First of all, job mobility is a luxury for people who are not
suffering extreme poverty. I'm quite sure that none of the-
Really? Explain how a couple of million east europeans and othe
assorted
migrants manage to rock up here and get a job then.
-
large number of people in this country currently working in
exploitation circumstances finds job mobility within their grasp.-
If someone is young and single they have no excuse not to move aroun
the
place to find work other than laziness.
--
Spud

You seem to believe that in London and the South-East,
there are still large numbers of well paid jobs that will finance
a decent place to live. I don't believe that and I don't believe
if people in, say, Derbyshire came down to London, they would
find it financially feasible.

As you yourself have pointed out in the past, the main reason
large numbers of immigrants can take on low-paid jobs is
because many of them live fifteen to a house. That's tolerable
for a short period if the situation in your own country is worse
and if the exchange rate means that you will be able within a
couple of years to save what in your own country is a fortune


--
Robin9

[s***@potato.field]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 09:54:35 +0200

Post by Robin9
You seem to believe that in London and the South-East,
there are still large numbers of well paid jobs that will finance
a decent place to live. I don't believe that and I don't believe
if people in, say, Derbyshire came down to London, they would
find it financially feasible.

It depends on the job. If it was a reasonably well paid job they'd probably
manage though obviously house prices and rents are currently at a ridiculous
level at the moment here.

Post by Robin9
As you yourself have pointed out in the past, the main reason
large numbers of immigrants can take on low-paid jobs is
because many of them live fifteen to a house. That's tolerable
for a short period if the situation in your own country is worse
and if the exchange rate means that you will be able within a
couple of years to save what in your own country is a fortune.

True and thats certainly the case in London. But in more rural areas rents
are substantially lower yet a lot of jobs there are done by migrants too.

There does however seem to be a sense of entitlement amongst millenials who
seem to think they're owed a well paid job the minute they walk out of school
with a reluctance to do the shitty jobs and work their way up. Obviously not
every crap job will lead to something better, but they don't seem to be too
interested even in the ones that do which probably goes part of the way to
explaining why in the place I work 50% of the staff are foreign nationals.

--
Spud

[Michael R N Dolbear]

poor pay and conditions really means.
Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working

conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.

Union bashers should never overlook the central truth

that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.

Really ?

What historical years have you in mind "when we had strong unions in this
country" ?


I take it that during those years if anyone was exploited it was their own
fault ?

Blame the victim indeed.

[Robin9]

-
poor pay and conditions really means.-
-
Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working-
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.
-
Union bashers should never overlook the central truth-
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.
Really ?
What historical years have you in mind "when we had strong unions i
this
country" ?
I take it that during those years if anyone was exploited it was thei
own
fault ?
Blame the victim indeed.
--
Robin9

Between 1945 and 1979 the UK economy grew and, because
in those days we did not have banana republic politicians like
Thatcher, Blair and Osborne, the resulting prosperity was not
reserved for a few anti-social fat cats. We also had fairly
full employment, and in London anyone could get a job. No-one
leaving school faced the prospect of not finding a job.

During this period we had strong trade unions, some of whom
frequently went on strike or "worked to rule." Then, as now,
there was enormous media hostility towards the trade union
movement.

In the three decades after World War 2, anyone with any initiative
could avoid exploitation. It might be, for people in Scotland or
Northern Ireland, that moving to London or the Home Counties
was necessary, but the opportunity to avoid rapacious, predatory
employers was available to normal working people


--
Robin9

[Recliner]

Post by Robin9

-
poor pay and conditions really means.-
-
Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working-
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.
-
Union bashers should never overlook the central truth-
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.
Really ?
What historical years have you in mind "when we had strong unions in this
country" ?
I take it that during those years if anyone was exploited it was their own
fault ?
Blame the victim indeed.
--
Robin9

Between 1945 and 1979 the UK economy grew and, because
in those days we did not have banana republic politicians like
Thatcher, Blair and Osborne, the resulting prosperity was not
reserved for a few anti-social fat cats. We also had fairly
full employment, and in London anyone could get a job. No-one
leaving school faced the prospect of not finding a job.
During this period we had strong trade unions, some of whom
frequently went on strike or "worked to rule." Then, as now,
there was enormous media hostility towards the trade union
movement.
In the three decades after World War 2, anyone with any initiative
could avoid exploitation. It might be, for people in Scotland or
Northern Ireland, that moving to London or the Home Counties
was necessary, but the opportunity to avoid rapacious, predatory
employers was available to normal working people.

I think you have a rather rosy view of a pretty miserable period. There was
plenty of boom and bust in that period. Since 1980, the economy has been
better managed.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy

In any case, regardless of the government, there has been a long term move
of low value manufacturing from high wage countries like ours to Asia, and
perhaps Africa in the future.

Inequality has risen since 1980, reaching a peak under Gordon Brown's
government. It fell under Cameron and Osborne, but is still too high.
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

[Robin9]

Michael R N Dolbear;157505 Wrote: -
-
poor pay and conditions really means.-
-
Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working-
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.
-
Union bashers should never overlook the central truth-
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.
Really ?
What historical years have you in mind "when we had strong unions in this
country" ?
I take it that during those years if anyone was exploited it was their own
fault ?
Blame the victim indeed.
--
Robin9-
Between 1945 and 1979 the UK economy grew and, because
in those days we did not have banana republic politicians like
Thatcher, Blair and Osborne, the resulting prosperity was not
reserved for a few anti-social fat cats. We also had fairly
full employment, and in London anyone could get a job. No-one
leaving school faced the prospect of not finding a job.
During this period we had strong trade unions, some of whom
frequently went on strike or "worked to rule." Then, as now,
there was enormous media hostility towards the trade union
movement.
In the three decades after World War 2, anyone with any initiative
could avoid exploitation. It might be, for people in Scotland or
Northern Ireland, that moving to London or the Home Counties
was necessary, but the opportunity to avoid rapacious, predatory
employers was available to normal working people.-
I think you have a rather rosy view of a pretty miserable period. Ther
was
plenty of boom and bust in that period. Since 1980, the economy ha
been
better managed.
QUOTE]
Certainly we had boom and bust in those years - we
called it stop/go then - but we didn't have zero hours
contracts and we didn't have a large sub-section of the
economy based entirely on the employer being able to
exploit vulnerable people who have no alternative work
opportunities.
This has nothing to do with a rosy view of the past. It has
everything to do with looking at the facts and thinking
rationally about them. You say it was a miserable period.
Paraphrasing a speech Edward Heath made to the Tory
Conference when he was Leader of the Opposition: it was
not a miserable period for the millions of people who bought
their own home; it wasn't a miserable period for people who
had grown up in slums but who now had a modern council flat.
It wasn't a miserable period for people who had central heating,
television sets, washing machines, refrigerators and holidays
abroad, all of which their parents had never had

--
Robin9

[Recliner]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:14:37 +0200, Robin9

Michael R N Dolbear;157505 Wrote: -
-
poor pay and conditions really means.-
-
Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working-
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.
-
Union bashers should never overlook the central truth-
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.
Really ?
What historical years have you in mind "when we had strong unions in this
country" ?
I take it that during those years if anyone was exploited it was their own
fault ?
Blame the victim indeed.
--
Robin9-
Between 1945 and 1979 the UK economy grew and, because
in those days we did not have banana republic politicians like
Thatcher, Blair and Osborne, the resulting prosperity was not
reserved for a few anti-social fat cats. We also had fairly
full employment, and in London anyone could get a job. No-one
leaving school faced the prospect of not finding a job.
During this period we had strong trade unions, some of whom
frequently went on strike or "worked to rule." Then, as now,
there was enormous media hostility towards the trade union
movement.
In the three decades after World War 2, anyone with any initiative
could avoid exploitation. It might be, for people in Scotland or
Northern Ireland, that moving to London or the Home Counties
was necessary, but the opportunity to avoid rapacious, predatory
employers was available to normal working people.-
I think you have a rather rosy view of a pretty miserable period. There was
plenty of boom and bust in that period. Since 1980, the economy has been
better managed.
QUOTE]

Certainly we had boom and bust in those years - we
called it stop/go then - but we didn't have zero hours
contracts and we didn't have a large sub-section of the
economy based entirely on the employer being able to
exploit vulnerable people who have no alternative work
opportunities.

There are plenty of alternative work opportunities. The UK has one of
the lowest unemployment rates in Europe, if not the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Unemployment_European_Union_2010M09.svg

The unemployment rate is higher than in the 1950-1970 period, but
that's partly because of the postwar recovery:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Unemployment_in_the_United_Kingdom_since_1881.svg

This has nothing to do with a rosy view of the past. It has
everything to do with looking at the facts and thinking
rationally about them. You say it was a miserable period.
Paraphrasing a speech Edward Heath made to the Tory
Conference when he was Leader of the Opposition: it was
not a miserable period for the millions of people who bought
their own home; it wasn't a miserable period for people who
had grown up in slums but who now had a modern council flat.
It wasn't a miserable period for people who had central heating,
television sets, washing machines, refrigerators and holidays
abroad, all of which their parents had never had.

Are you forgetting the three-day week, power cuts, the Winter of
Discontent, British Leyland, the closure of most of the shipyards...

[Roland Perry]

Post by Robin9
Between 1945 and 1979 the UK economy grew and, because
in those days we did not have banana republic politicians like
Thatcher, Blair and Osborne, the resulting prosperity was not
reserved for a few anti-social fat cats. We also had fairly
full employment, and in London anyone could get a job.

All of that a result of the after effects of the war.

Post by Robin9
No-one leaving school faced the prospect of not finding a job.

The sink-jobs then were on the railways; only later did it shift to
refuse collectors.

[s***@potato.field]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:19:31 +0200

Post by Robin9

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:01:03 +0100
firms whose staff end up earning less than the minimum wage. But hey, its an
app so what do the Kool Kids care if they guy delivering their organic soya
salad earns a pittance, he's just a grunt right?-
http://tinyurl.com/h8vevqc
ate-against-new-contract-
Can't blame them. 3.75 per delivery is royally taking the ****. All
those
striking RMT ****s should have a good look at that to understand what
poor pay
and conditions really means.
--
Spud

Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.

So you think if they don't go on strike every other month about some fatuous
non-issue they'll suddenly find their 50K+ salaries dropped to mininum wage?
You ever heard of UK contract law for permanent staff?

Post by Robin9
Union bashers should never overlook the central truth
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.

And union supporters should remember its 2016, not 1916.

--
Spud