Taxi insurance for multiple people?
 

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 06:13:48AM -0800, Neil Williams wrote:
On Mar 2, 12:40=A0pm, David Cantrell wrote:
And there's bound to be a few exceptions which don't have anything. And
then there's the eleventy zillion places people want to go to and from
that aren't hotels and certainly don't have a driveway. =A0Restaurants,
for example.
Which people might also wish to park their car outside, but they can't
because traffic flow is more important.
If stopping and loading are not permitted, this should be for all
vehicles.

Yeah, that's great in theory. In practice, there's a huge difference
between a large lorry stopping for 20 minutes to unload several
days worth of goods, and a cab stopping for a minute or two. Even
having several cabs do that causes far less disruption.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

I think the most difficult moment that anyone could face is seeing
their domestic servants, whether maid or drivers, run away
-- Abdul Rahman Al-Sheikh, writing at
http://www.arabnews.com/?article=38558

Taxi insurance for multiple people?
 

David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:52:01PM -0000, Basil Jet wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
And there's nothing "shifty" about minicab drivers. Not, at least,
if you use a minicab instead of a random stranger touting for
business on the street illegally. If a minicab driver rips you off
on your Oyster card, well, you and TfL will know who it was, or at
least which company it was, and they'll be strongly incentivised
not to do that.
Like the way Lewis Day Minicabs were strongly incentivised not to
swindle quarter of a million quid out of the NHS?

It would, obviously, rely on people bothering to complain, and having
a personal incentive to chase TfL if they don't sort it out pronto.

And in any case, Lewis Day did get caught, and didn't they have to pay
the money back, with interest?

How would that disincentivise them from trying it again? No-one's been
prosecuted AFAIK. Lewis Day still have the NHS contract and are still
TfL-approved. The man responsible is now at another TfL-approved minicab
company. The NHS managers who awarded the contract to Lewis Day and then
told the whistleblower to take no notice of the 250k gone AWOL still have
their jobs and pensions AFAIK.

I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. If an NHS manager is
paying double the going rate for beds or biros, it sticks out like a sore
thumb on the balance sheets, but "taxi" contracts for unmetered vehicles can
be awarded for way above the going rate without it being noticeable unless
you study a map. After all, metered fares in taxis were introduced because
the potential for exploiting taxi customers who are in an unfamiliar area
was so much greater than the potential for exploiting mars bar customers or
shoe customers, so the corruption potential of allowing non-metered vehicles
to perform "taxi" services under contracts awarded by public service
managers is obvious. One of the non-existant journeys in the Lewis Day scam
was 105 pounds for 21 miles in the daytime (Hammersmith Hospital to Gerrards
Cross), which is nearly twice what a ride in a hailed £33,000 taxi would
cost - this would be robbery of the taxpayers even if the journey had been
performed.

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that
much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all
of whom will vote Labour.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

Taxi insurance for multiple people?
 

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!


When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

Taxi insurance for multiple people?
 

On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!


When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

Taxi insurance for multiple people?
 

Mizter T wrote:

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I don't mind being called "simply ****ing mental",
in fact, I wish my psychiatrist would be as polite as you.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

Taxi insurance for multiple people?
 

On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:





On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on
setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of
backhanders, although not to managers particularly, who are just
employees of the dodgy companies.

Taxi insurance for multiple people?
 

On Mar 3, 1:59*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I don't mind being called "simply ****ing mental",
in fact, I wish my psychiatrist would be as polite as you.

Though wasn't calling you that, that was what how I was characterising
your comments - important distinction! Probably an unnecessary
outburst on my part anyway, as I don't really take your comments such
as those upthread to literally mean what they say... but perhaps I
should... and maybe sometimes I do... aah the delights of ambiguity,
all adds to the entertainment value I suppose... ;)

Taxi insurance for multiple people?
 

Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:59 pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

I don't mind being called "simply ****ing mental",
in fact, I wish my psychiatrist would be as polite as you.

Though wasn't calling you that, that was what how I was characterising
your comments - important distinction! Probably an unnecessary
outburst on my part anyway, as I don't really take your comments such
as those upthread to literally mean what they say... but perhaps I
should... and maybe sometimes I do... aah the delights of ambiguity,
all adds to the entertainment value I suppose... ;)

My words meant what they said (except for the bit about me having a
psychiatrist, which was joke). I did say it was a suspicion rather than a
proven fact. But as we found with immigration, Labour is very good at
feigning incompetence while achieving exactly what they secretly wanted all
along.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

Taxi insurance for multiple people?
 

On Mar 3, 12:16*pm, David Cantrell wrote:

Yeah, that's great in theory. *In practice, there's a huge difference
between a large lorry stopping for 20 minutes to unload several
days worth of goods, and a cab stopping for a minute or two. *Even
having several cabs do that causes far less disruption.

It can still cause a lot of disruption. And a car driver isn't
allowed to stop to drop off (though they may still do it anyway),
which takes a fraction of the time it takes to complete the
transaction and leave a taxi.

Neil

Taxi insurance for multiple people?
 

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

Plenty of time to be temperate when you're dead. Right now, you're on usenet.

tom

--
But in the week its like Urbino under the wise rule of Count Federico,
only with a better football team and the nations most pleb-infested
Waitrose. And shops selling size 12 stilettos. -- Jelb, on Holloway