"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 18:03, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 18:41, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 09:18, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:10 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
Seriously?

Because a taxi is - in its very essence - a *private* space
which
can be
hired by the passenger to the exclusion of others. It is not a
bus.
If a
bus is what is wanted, buses are available.


What? There's a bus that takes me from Heathrow to outside my
house in
Shadwell?

Provided you're willing to change a few times, yes.


More times than the TfL planner can cope with to get outside my
house.

That's a problem you have with buses. Not everyone has it.

The fact that you do is not a good reason for disrupting the
legitimate livelihood of others.

How is my saying "if you wont provide a legitimate way of my sharing
a
cab (on an ad hoch basis with someone that I don't know), I wont be
using a cab at all" an attack on a legitimate business

Was that a question?

I'll assume that it was a question.

Your saying anything at all on usenet is not an attack on a legitimate
business. Or at least, not one worth the name.

It is the proposed de-regulation of the licensed taxi trade and the
proposed relaxation of controls on pirate cars which would disrupt the
legitimate livelihood of others.

I explaining to them how they can get business that they have
otherwise
lost

Who is "them"?

cabbies

And how do you propose to "explaining" this to cabbies?

I've just done so

Oh yes very funny.

I didn't mean that I had directly conveyed it to them

I meant that I had written the words that I would use should I want to do so

Which posters are the "cabbies" (as you disrepectfully call them)?

And what makes you "think" they're taking any notice of you?

That's not the point, your issue was that I was "disrupting their
livelihood" by my request.

I was discussing with you the justification for my request, not asking for
it directly


If you don't understand, go buy a dictionary

You don't like losing, do you?

If you are going to make stupid changes to the pitch half way through what's
the point?

tim

On 07/10/2015 20:05, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 18:03, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 18:41, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 09:18, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:10 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
Seriously?

Because a taxi is - in its very essence - a *private* space
which
can be
hired by the passenger to the exclusion of others. It is not a
bus.
If a
bus is what is wanted, buses are available.


What? There's a bus that takes me from Heathrow to outside my
house in
Shadwell?

Provided you're willing to change a few times, yes.


More times than the TfL planner can cope with to get outside my
house.

That's a problem you have with buses. Not everyone has it.

The fact that you do is not a good reason for disrupting the
legitimate livelihood of others.

How is my saying "if you wont provide a legitimate way of my
sharing a
cab (on an ad hoch basis with someone that I don't know), I wont be
using a cab at all" an attack on a legitimate business

Was that a question?

I'll assume that it was a question.

Your saying anything at all on usenet is not an attack on a legitimate
business. Or at least, not one worth the name.

It is the proposed de-regulation of the licensed taxi trade and the
proposed relaxation of controls on pirate cars which would disrupt the
legitimate livelihood of others.

I explaining to them how they can get business that they have
otherwise
lost

Who is "them"?

cabbies

And how do you propose to "explaining" this to cabbies?

I've just done so

Oh yes very funny.

You saw your own error.

That's an improvement.

I didn't mean that I had directly conveyed it to them
I meant that I had written the words that I would use should I want to
do so

Which posters are the "cabbies" (as you disrepectfully call them)?
And what makes you "think" they're taking any notice of you?

That's not the point, your issue was that I was "disrupting their
livelihood" by my request.

Your postings - like mine and everyone else's - are neither here nor
their. It is the argument that the law should be changed which amou8nts
to an attack on the taxi trade.

I was discussing with you the justification for my request, not asking
for it directly

If you don't understand, go buy a dictionary
You don't like losing, do you?

If you are going to make stupid changes to the pitch half way through
what's the point?

You have to be describing your own position there. It certainly isn't mine.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 20:05, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 18:03, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 18:41, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 09:18, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:10 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
Seriously?

Because a taxi is - in its very essence - a *private* space
which
can be
hired by the passenger to the exclusion of others. It is not a
bus.
If a
bus is what is wanted, buses are available.


What? There's a bus that takes me from Heathrow to outside my
house in
Shadwell?

Provided you're willing to change a few times, yes.


More times than the TfL planner can cope with to get outside my
house.

That's a problem you have with buses. Not everyone has it.

The fact that you do is not a good reason for disrupting the
legitimate livelihood of others.

How is my saying "if you wont provide a legitimate way of my
sharing a
cab (on an ad hoch basis with someone that I don't know), I wont be
using a cab at all" an attack on a legitimate business

Was that a question?

I'll assume that it was a question.

Your saying anything at all on usenet is not an attack on a legitimate
business. Or at least, not one worth the name.

It is the proposed de-regulation of the licensed taxi trade and the
proposed relaxation of controls on pirate cars which would disrupt the
legitimate livelihood of others.

I explaining to them how they can get business that they have
otherwise
lost

Who is "them"?

cabbies

And how do you propose to "explaining" this to cabbies?

I've just done so

Oh yes very funny.

You saw your own error.

That's an improvement.

This isn't an English exam , it's a general discussion group

the point is to discuss issue, not pick people up on their spelling.



I didn't mean that I had directly conveyed it to them
I meant that I had written the words that I would use should I want to
do so

Which posters are the "cabbies" (as you disrepectfully call them)?
And what makes you "think" they're taking any notice of you?

That's not the point, your issue was that I was "disrupting their
livelihood" by my request.

Your postings - like mine and everyone else's - are neither here nor
their. It is the argument that the law should be changed which amou8nts to
an attack on the taxi trade.

Not if the contention is that that they will get more business offering this
service, than by not offering it.

There is no-one more protectionist than German Cabbies. Yet they see the
need to offer this type of service.

They understand that cabs are simply too expensive for the individual
travellers who is paying his own fare (and in these more stringent times,
even many who are expensing it) and if they don't offer more competitive
options, they don't get the business at all.