"umpston" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Black (delete obvious bit)" wrote
in
message ...
"John Rowland" wrote in
:
Rumour has it that now that Livingstone has ordered Private Hire
vehicles (minicabs) have to carry an identifiying sticker on the
window, the Royal Parks Police are pouncing on any who drive through
Hyde Park and prosecuting them under the law which bans signed
commercial vehicles from the park!

So what is the the problem. If the law bans comercial vehicles then
the police are correct to "pounce on them".

Only if it's a good law.

The problem is that the prohibition is absurd - why not allow minicabs in
the park?

Ah: someone who's prepared to challenge the law rather than just parrot its
details and absurdities. Just because something is enshrined in law doesn't
mean that it's a good law. In my mind, every law, every speed limit, every
restriction should be subject to public scrutiny and accountability, and if
it can no longer be justified in its current form it should be abolished or
amended to punish those you want to punish and to have no effect on those
you want to permit.

Yes, prohibit HGVs and maybe large delivery vans from Royal Parks, and
restrict when/where ice cream vans etc can trade: when you're sitting in the
tranquillity of a Royal Park, you don't want noisy/smelly HGVs trying to
negotiate the access roads and you don't want ice-cream chimes or smelly
hot-dog-stall fumes. But why should a car be allowed in if it's a private
car and excluded if the same make/model of car is a taxi? If there is a
demand for taxi journeys to/from the parks, or the park road is the most
direct route between two points, that demand should be satisfied. In my
mind, anywhere that a private car can go, a taxi should be allowed to go and
to ply for trade.