In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2014 15:12, tim..... wrote:

"Someone Somewhere" wrote in message
...

Hey - and look something relevant to the subject header and London!
Makes a change from Cambridge minicabs (no Uber in Cambridge...)


http://thenextweb.com/uk/2014/07/03/...s-uber-operati
ng-lawfully-london/

I await the return of Mr Nugent to say "sorry" to me

The matter will not be finally decided - or decided at all - until
it is decided in a court.

Transport against London is not a court and their decisions can be
judicially reviewed.

But who's going to take it to court?

And who's going to prosecute individual minicab drivers (the ones who
are, otherwise, correctly registered and insured).

If TfL think there is no point as they wont win, who's going to do
it? In fact, who else has the right to do it

Isn't the point for them not going to the High Court that private
prosecutions have been taken out by the Licensed Taxi association?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2014 19:18, tim..... wrote:




The PCO (now operating under TaL) has strong form for this sort of thing.
Anything for a quiet life and to hell with the livelihood of the taxi
industry.

It originally decided to do nothing about Welbeck Minicabs and their
Renault Dauphines. History records that something happened nevertheless.

Hum,

1962!!!!!

It used to be routine for police to beat up suspects in that era

are you going to use that "fact" to prove that they still do so today?

tim

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2014 15:12, tim..... wrote:

"Someone Somewhere" wrote in message
...

Hey - and look something relevant to the subject header and London!
Makes a change from Cambridge minicabs (no Uber in Cambridge...)


http://thenextweb.com/uk/2014/07/03/...s-uber-operati
ng-lawfully-london/

I await the return of Mr Nugent to say "sorry" to me

The matter will not be finally decided - or decided at all - until
it is decided in a court.

Transport against London is not a court and their decisions can be
judicially reviewed.

But who's going to take it to court?

And who's going to prosecute individual minicab drivers (the ones who
are, otherwise, correctly registered and insured).

If TfL think there is no point as they wont win, who's going to do
it? In fact, who else has the right to do it

Isn't the point for them not going to the High Court that private
prosecutions have been taken out by the Licensed Taxi association?

Maybe I misunderstood the article, but I thought that was only against some
Uber drivers who were completely "unregistered"

tim

On 04/07/2014 12:30, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2014 19:18, tim..... wrote:




The PCO (now operating under TaL) has strong form for this sort of
thing. Anything for a quiet life and to hell with the livelihood of
the taxi industry.

It originally decided to do nothing about Welbeck Minicabs and their
Renault Dauphines. History records that something happened nevertheless.

Hum,

1962!!!!!

It used to be routine for police to beat up suspects in that era

are you going to use that "fact" to prove that they still do so today?

tim

What are you talking about?

Let me remind you that taxis in England and Wales outside London are
licensed under an Act passed in 1847.

Are you under the impression that people today are "cleverer" than they
were then?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 04/07/2014 12:30, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2014 19:18, tim..... wrote:




The PCO (now operating under TaL) has strong form for this sort of
thing. Anything for a quiet life and to hell with the livelihood of
the taxi industry.

It originally decided to do nothing about Welbeck Minicabs and their
Renault Dauphines. History records that something happened nevertheless.

Hum,

1962!!!!!

It used to be routine for police to beat up suspects in that era

are you going to use that "fact" to prove that they still do so today?

tim

What are you talking about?

I looked up the date of the incident that *you* used to prove that the
licensing authority don't take action against miscreants


Let me remind you that taxis in England and Wales outside London are
licensed under an Act passed in 1847.

Are you under the impression that people today are "cleverer" than they
were then?

We aren't discussing "users" we are discussing the authorities and it was
you that suggested a 50 year old case was relevant

tim

On 04/07/2014 20:44, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 04/07/2014 12:30, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2014 19:18, tim..... wrote:




The PCO (now operating under TaL) has strong form for this sort of
thing. Anything for a quiet life and to hell with the livelihood of
the taxi industry.

It originally decided to do nothing about Welbeck Minicabs and their
Renault Dauphines. History records that something happened
nevertheless.

Hum,

1962!!!!!

It used to be routine for police to beat up suspects in that era

are you going to use that "fact" to prove that they still do so today?

tim

What are you talking about?

I looked up the date of the incident that *you* used to prove that the
licensing authority don't take action against miscreants


Let me remind you that taxis in England and Wales outside London are
licensed under an Act passed in 1847.

Are you under the impression that people today are "cleverer" than
they were then?

We aren't discussing "users" we are discussing the authorities and it
was you that suggested a 50 year old case was relevant

A 53-year-old (and still current) interpretation of a law from the
middle of the 1800s.

What's wrong with that?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 04/07/2014 20:44, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 04/07/2014 12:30, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2014 19:18, tim..... wrote:




The PCO (now operating under TaL) has strong form for this sort of
thing. Anything for a quiet life and to hell with the livelihood of
the taxi industry.

It originally decided to do nothing about Welbeck Minicabs and their
Renault Dauphines. History records that something happened
nevertheless.

Hum,

1962!!!!!

It used to be routine for police to beat up suspects in that era

are you going to use that "fact" to prove that they still do so today?

tim

What are you talking about?

I looked up the date of the incident that *you* used to prove that the
licensing authority don't take action against miscreants


Let me remind you that taxis in England and Wales outside London are
licensed under an Act passed in 1847.

Are you under the impression that people today are "cleverer" than
they were then?

We aren't discussing "users" we are discussing the authorities and it
was you that suggested a 50 year old case was relevant

A 53-year-old (and still current) interpretation of a law from the middle
of the 1800s.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing - as an issue of law.

But it's worthless as an issue of current procedure.

You were using the fact that the licensing authority didn't act in this
instance until (presumably) someone else took the issue to court to show
that today's licensing authority would be equally delinquent. And, of
course, it shows no such thing.

Do you always post stuff and then immediately forget that which you post

tim

On 05/07/2014 11:49, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 04/07/2014 20:44, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 04/07/2014 12:30, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
On 03/07/2014 19:18, tim..... wrote:

The PCO (now operating under TaL) has strong form for this sort of
thing. Anything for a quiet life and to hell with the livelihood of
the taxi industry.

It originally decided to do nothing about Welbeck Minicabs and their
Renault Dauphines. History records that something happened
nevertheless.

Hum,
1962!!!!!



It used to be routine for police to beat up suspects in that era

are you going to use that "fact" to prove that they still do so today?

tim

What are you talking about?

I looked up the date of the incident that *you* used to prove that the
licensing authority don't take action against miscreants


Let me remind you that taxis in England and Wales outside London are
licensed under an Act passed in 1847.

Are you under the impression that people today are "cleverer" than
they were then?

We aren't discussing "users" we are discussing the authorities and it
was you that suggested a 50 year old case was relevant

A 53-year-old (and still current) interpretation of a law from the
middle of the 1800s.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing - as an issue of law.

But it's worthless as an issue of current procedure.

You were using the fact that the licensing authority didn't act in this
instance until (presumably) someone else took the issue to court to show
that today's licensing authority would be equally delinquent. And, of
course, it shows no such thing.

Do you always post stuff and then immediately forget that which you post

In that case let me apologise for being led astray, firstly by your
comment: "Hum, 1962!!!!!"

I took that as a claim that no legal ruling from as "long ago" as 1962
could possibly be relevant to our current all-singing, all-dancing,
everyone-allowed-to-do-as-they-effin-well-like modern society.

It's hard to see what else "1962!" was supposed to say.

Secondly, you claimed:

"It used to be routine for police to beat up suspects in that era".

I took that as firther amplification of your apparent view that nothing
dating from before [a very recent date, whatever it is] still has any
validity.

Perhaps we can step back a few paces?

(a) Of what relevance was your "Hum, 1962!!!!!"?

(b) What did you mean by "It used to be routine for police to beat up
suspects in that era" and what on Earth does it have to do with the
matter at hand (enforcement of the law on unlicensed plying for hire)?