On 17/06/2014 08:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:04:18 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, JNugent remarked:
Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be owned
by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's "inside
South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing purposes.

All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing
purposes it's deemed to be in both.

Is that legally possible? Can one spot

It only needs to be a small spot. Just the taxi rank would do.

be in two districts simultaneously?

It doesn't have to *be* in two districts at once. Just DEEMED to be FOR
THE PURPOSES OF HACKNEY HAILING ONLY.

Would occupants be liable to pay council tax to both district
councils? And maybe a double-dose to the county?

Of course not, it's only in South Cambs.

Whilst I appreciate threads have a habit of drifting, how is this
seriously now related to uk.transport.london ?

An answer of "this thread is about Uber minicabs in London, hence all
and any discussion of minicabs/taxis/hackney carriages is on topic" will
probably not go down well as it's as relevant as there are pedants in
Cambridage as well as in London hence any discussion of pedantry is on
topic.

In message , at 09:03:42 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
Whilst I appreciate threads have a habit of drifting, how is this
seriously now related to uk.transport.london ?

The same principle may apply to several railway stations on the edge of
London.

For example I happen to know the Herts boundary is very close to
Chorleywood station. So there's a wider issue here about hailability of
hackneys in the vicinity of railway stations very close to licencing
boundaries.
--
Roland Perry

On 17/06/2014 09:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:03:42 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
Whilst I appreciate threads have a habit of drifting, how is this
seriously now related to uk.transport.london ?

The same principle may apply to several railway stations on the edge of
London.

For example I happen to know the Herts boundary is very close to
Chorleywood station. So there's a wider issue here about hailability of
hackneys in the vicinity of railway stations very close to licencing
boundaries.

And Chorleywood is, as per the charter for U.T.L., in the "London area",
or at least as Wikipedia says "It is part of the London commuter belt,
and included in the government-defined Greater London Urban Area.".

However, the discussion seems to be entirely about pedantic points
regarding Cambridge, and South Cambridgeshire taxi/minicab/hackney
carriage licensing - something that does not relate to the "London area"
at all.

If some of the posts were making entirely general points about licensing
which may be applicable then fine, but I can't see a single post which
does not contain phraseology specific to Cambridge.

I don't have anything against Cambridge, lovely city, just don't give a
toss about its taxis (or whatever the correct term is).

Going back to Uber - I love how people make up things about a service
when actually what they mean is they don't like change.

It's no worse than any minicab company - you just book via the Uber app
on your phone rather than with the phone app on your phone. I assume
they are, as they say, fully licensed as a minicab firm with the PCSO
and all drivers/vehicles are appropriately checked (again, as per a
minicab firm).

If the Uber app were to be banned, then presumably you would have to
(illegally) remove all odometers (oooh - is that a meter? or even an
metre?) from minicabs, along with confiscating drivers watches, and
certainly no calculators or pen and paper could be allowed in case he
tried to calculate a fare based off time and distance...

In message , at 10:22:57 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
Chorleywood is, as per the charter for U.T.L., in the "London area", or
at least as Wikipedia says "It is part of the London commuter belt, and
included in the government-defined Greater London Urban Area.".

Which includes the area covered by TfL's tube lines.

However, the discussion seems to be entirely about pedantic points
regarding Cambridge, and South Cambridgeshire taxi/minicab/hackney
carriage licensing - something that does not relate to the "London
area" at all.

If some of the posts were making entirely general points about
licensing which may be applicable then fine, but I can't see a single
post which does not contain phraseology specific to Cambridge.

All the points being made are entirely general, and could just as easily
relate to a hackney from Three Rivers (which covers Chorleywood and
station) being hailed a hundreds yards west of the station, which is in
Chiltern District.
--
Roland Perry

On 17/06/2014 09:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:03:42 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
Whilst I appreciate threads have a habit of drifting, how is this
seriously now related to uk.transport.london ?

The same principle may apply to several railway stations on the edge of
London.

For example I happen to know the Herts boundary is very close to
Chorleywood station. So there's a wider issue here about hailability of
hackneys in the vicinity of railway stations very close to licencing
boundaries.

London cabs' operational area is not limited by the outer boundary of
"Greater London".

At least, not unless the boundaries of "Greater London" have become
reconciled with those of the Metropolitan Police District.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 17/06/2014 09:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:03:42 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
Whilst I appreciate threads have a habit of drifting, how is this
seriously now related to uk.transport.london ?

The same principle may apply to several railway stations on the edge of
London.

For example I happen to know the Herts boundary is very close to
Chorleywood station. So there's a wider issue here about hailability of
hackneys in the vicinity of railway stations very close to licencing
boundaries.

London cabs' operational area is not limited by the outer boundary of
"Greater London".

At least, not unless the boundaries of "Greater London" have become
reconciled with those of the Metropolitan Police District.

happened in 2000

tim

On 17/06/2014 19:49, tim..... wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 17/06/2014 09:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:03:42 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
Whilst I appreciate threads have a habit of drifting, how is this
seriously now related to uk.transport.london ?

The same principle may apply to several railway stations on the edge of
London.

For example I happen to know the Herts boundary is very close to
Chorleywood station. So there's a wider issue here about hailability of
hackneys in the vicinity of railway stations very close to licencing
boundaries.

London cabs' operational area is not limited by the outer boundary of
"Greater London".

At least, not unless the boundaries of "Greater London" have become
reconciled with those of the Metropolitan Police District.

happened in 2000

That's the thing to remember: London cabs are not controlled by local
authorities.

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

That's the thing to remember: London cabs are not controlled by local
authorities.

They weren't and are still less so than in the rest of the country. But they
now come under TfL and therefore under theoretical control of the Mayor.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"tim....." wrote

hackneys in the vicinity of railway stations very close to licencing
boundaries.

London cabs' operational area is not limited by the outer boundary of
"Greater London".

At least, not unless the boundaries of "Greater London" have become
reconciled with those of the Metropolitan Police District.

happened in 2000

Thus confusing all those reading Dick Francis novels in which the jockey
hero takes a London cab to Sandown Park (was in the MPD, now in Surrey for
everything to include taxis and police).

--
Mike D

Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"tim....." wrote

hackneys in the vicinity of railway stations very close to licencing
boundaries.

London cabs' operational area is not limited by the outer boundary of
"Greater London".

At least, not unless the boundaries of "Greater London" have become
reconciled with those of the Metropolitan Police District.

happened in 2000

Thus confusing all those reading Dick Francis novels in which the jockey
hero takes a London cab to Sandown Park (was in the MPD, now in Surrey for
everything to include taxis and police).

Surely you can take London taxis to anywhere out of London (I do this
often to just into Surrey)

--
Mark