Bournemouth Taxi Association fears over new bill to cut red tape for drivers

Taxi deregulation is a

Taxi deregulation is a "charter for rapists, thieves and paedophiles"

First published in News
Last updated
by

CONTROVERSIAL plans to cut red tape for taxi and private hire drivers have been slammed as “a charter for thieves, rapists and paedophiles.”

The stinging criticism from the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye, comes as Dorset’s PCC, Martyn Underhill, prepares to fight the changes currently going through Parliament.

He believes if they go ahead it could risk increasing the incidents of people being raped and sexually assaulted after a night out.

Currently, only licensed private hire drivers can get behind the wheel of a marked private hire vehicle; drivers have to be relicensed and there are restrictions on vehicles operating across local authority boundaries.

But under the Deregulation Bill, the limited safeguards are to be swept away, despite widespread opposition.

And in a bid to try and prevent the much-feared changes, Mr Underhill has joined forces with PCCs across England and Wales to lobby Ken Clarke to remove a series of measures from the Deregulation Bill.

The concerns are backed by licensing officials, police, the taxi trade and organisations that work with victims of rape and sexual assault.

The group is calling on the government to ensure that people can be “Be Sure, Be Safe” when getting into a private hire cab.

It follows two high-profile court cases concerning taxi drivers committing sexual offences.

In 2009, former Bournemouth taxi driver John Worboys was jailed indefinitely for drugging and sexually assaulting female passengers.

And last year, Bournemouth cabbie Terence Collins was jailed for 16 years after raping a 14-year-old girl and 20-year-old woman.

Mr Underhill said: “People need to be sure that when they get into a marked private hire vehicle they know it’s genuine and driven by a licensed operator.

“These new measures put people at risk which is why we have written to Ken Clarke, to urge him to introduce a dedicated Taxi Bill.”

John Tye, chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, said: “I would put it to Parliament that it is a charter for thieves, rapists and paedophiles.

“That may seem extreme but that is an understatement, especially in Bournemouth considering our nightlife.

“You are going to have young girls trying to find a taxi and putting themselves at risk through no fault of their own.

“The Government will be putting them at risk. It’s insanity.”

The issue is being discussed at a meeting of Bournemouth council’s licensing board this morning.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:25am Thu 3 Jul 14

Arthur Maureen says...

De-regulation works perfectly well in other regions, not sure what all the fuss is about..
De-regulation works perfectly well in other regions, not sure what all the fuss is about.. Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 11

10:34am Thu 3 Jul 14

BournemouthMum says...

'And last year, Bournemouth cabbie Terence Collins was jailed for 16 years after raping a 14-year-old girl and 20-year-old woman....' And he was a LICENSED operator, as was Worboys - which weakens their argument against deregulation doesn't it.
'And last year, Bournemouth cabbie Terence Collins was jailed for 16 years after raping a 14-year-old girl and 20-year-old woman....' And he was a LICENSED operator, as was Worboys - which weakens their argument against deregulation doesn't it. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 41

10:37am Thu 3 Jul 14

AmsterdamMan says...

Just a little tip to lone women that use taxis...Text the number plate to a friend. Although this will not always be successful due to drunkenness etc but it will certainly lower the odds.
Just a little tip to lone women that use taxis...Text the number plate to a friend. Although this will not always be successful due to drunkenness etc but it will certainly lower the odds. AmsterdamMan
  • Score: 22

10:42am Thu 3 Jul 14

Buzetti says...

AmsterdamMan wrote:
Just a little tip to lone women that use taxis...Text the number plate to a friend. Although this will not always be successful due to drunkenness etc but it will certainly lower the odds.
or photograph the number plate/ private hire plate and text that....
[quote][p][bold]AmsterdamMan[/bold] wrote: Just a little tip to lone women that use taxis...Text the number plate to a friend. Although this will not always be successful due to drunkenness etc but it will certainly lower the odds.[/p][/quote]or photograph the number plate/ private hire plate and text that.... Buzetti
  • Score: 17

10:46am Thu 3 Jul 14

Harveypoole says...

The highlighted cases show that a licensed cab (taxi or private hire) makes a potential victim feel safe due to the regulations etc. It is obviously impossible to make sure there are no bad apples in any barrel and Collins and Worboys prove this, but allowing anyone to drive a private hire vehicle at any time when it is not working opens up so many more opportunities and must be stopped. A lot of the other proposals to update the law are understandable after all they were written in the 19th century.
The highlighted cases show that a licensed cab (taxi or private hire) makes a potential victim feel safe due to the regulations etc. It is obviously impossible to make sure there are no bad apples in any barrel and Collins and Worboys prove this, but allowing anyone to drive a private hire vehicle at any time when it is not working opens up so many more opportunities and must be stopped. A lot of the other proposals to update the law are understandable after all they were written in the 19th century. Harveypoole
  • Score: -2

10:57am Thu 3 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers. Hessenford
  • Score: 33

11:15am Thu 3 Jul 14

BournemouthMum says...

Hessenford wrote:
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 17

11:51am Thu 3 Jul 14

Redgolfer says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
Deregulation also means no cab industry as been shown in places where deregulation has taken place, cheaper fares ?, they are set by different local authorities, Bournemouth and Poole fares are exactly the same.
Bournemouth Licensed Taxi drivers have to have and pay for a CRB check every 3 years but if they have a criminal record it does not mean that they are not fit to be a driver, ask the Licensing authorities how they work that out and they will tell you ''Human Rights''.
How often do you have to wait for a taxi in Bournemouth, the only time between 1am and 4am on a Sunday morning, there are 250 Hackney Taxis in Bournemouth and over 700 Private Hire Taxis, is that not enough.
My criticism of Bournemouth Licensing is that they refused to follow other Authorities who have insisted on Audio and CCTV in every cab whenever the cab is on duty and please do not tell me that infringes every-bodies rights as material would only be used in either the cabbie or the customer making a complaint, which would mean a SAFER ENVIRONMENT for ALL.
Finally you say its a win win for taxi users, may I remind you that there are other ways of getting home other than Taxis, More buses at the weekend, not drinking and then driving home, getting picked up by family members, where deregulation has occurred there is not a taxi industry as no wages for anybody, at the present drivers are struggling with money as are the general public.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.[/p][/quote]Deregulation also means no cab industry as been shown in places where deregulation has taken place, cheaper fares ?, they are set by different local authorities, Bournemouth and Poole fares are exactly the same. Bournemouth Licensed Taxi drivers have to have and pay for a CRB check every 3 years but if they have a criminal record it does not mean that they are not fit to be a driver, ask the Licensing authorities how they work that out and they will tell you ''Human Rights''. How often do you have to wait for a taxi in Bournemouth, the only time between 1am and 4am on a Sunday morning, there are 250 Hackney Taxis in Bournemouth and over 700 Private Hire Taxis, is that not enough. My criticism of Bournemouth Licensing is that they refused to follow other Authorities who have insisted on Audio and CCTV in every cab whenever the cab is on duty and please do not tell me that infringes every-bodies rights as material would only be used in either the cabbie or the customer making a complaint, which would mean a SAFER ENVIRONMENT for ALL. Finally you say its a win win for taxi users, may I remind you that there are other ways of getting home other than Taxis, More buses at the weekend, not drinking and then driving home, getting picked up by family members, where deregulation has occurred there is not a taxi industry as no wages for anybody, at the present drivers are struggling with money as are the general public. Redgolfer
  • Score: 12

12:03pm Thu 3 Jul 14

rozmister says...

Redgolfer wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
Deregulation also means no cab industry as been shown in places where deregulation has taken place, cheaper fares ?, they are set by different local authorities, Bournemouth and Poole fares are exactly the same.
Bournemouth Licensed Taxi drivers have to have and pay for a CRB check every 3 years but if they have a criminal record it does not mean that they are not fit to be a driver, ask the Licensing authorities how they work that out and they will tell you ''Human Rights''.
How often do you have to wait for a taxi in Bournemouth, the only time between 1am and 4am on a Sunday morning, there are 250 Hackney Taxis in Bournemouth and over 700 Private Hire Taxis, is that not enough.
My criticism of Bournemouth Licensing is that they refused to follow other Authorities who have insisted on Audio and CCTV in every cab whenever the cab is on duty and please do not tell me that infringes every-bodies rights as material would only be used in either the cabbie or the customer making a complaint, which would mean a SAFER ENVIRONMENT for ALL.
Finally you say its a win win for taxi users, may I remind you that there are other ways of getting home other than Taxis, More buses at the weekend, not drinking and then driving home, getting picked up by family members, where deregulation has occurred there is not a taxi industry as no wages for anybody, at the present drivers are struggling with money as are the general public.
If someone has a criminal record for getting in a fight when they were 17 and they're now 45 I don't see why that should mpact on them working as a taxi driver. It has to be looked at on a case by case basis.
[quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.[/p][/quote]Deregulation also means no cab industry as been shown in places where deregulation has taken place, cheaper fares ?, they are set by different local authorities, Bournemouth and Poole fares are exactly the same. Bournemouth Licensed Taxi drivers have to have and pay for a CRB check every 3 years but if they have a criminal record it does not mean that they are not fit to be a driver, ask the Licensing authorities how they work that out and they will tell you ''Human Rights''. How often do you have to wait for a taxi in Bournemouth, the only time between 1am and 4am on a Sunday morning, there are 250 Hackney Taxis in Bournemouth and over 700 Private Hire Taxis, is that not enough. My criticism of Bournemouth Licensing is that they refused to follow other Authorities who have insisted on Audio and CCTV in every cab whenever the cab is on duty and please do not tell me that infringes every-bodies rights as material would only be used in either the cabbie or the customer making a complaint, which would mean a SAFER ENVIRONMENT for ALL. Finally you say its a win win for taxi users, may I remind you that there are other ways of getting home other than Taxis, More buses at the weekend, not drinking and then driving home, getting picked up by family members, where deregulation has occurred there is not a taxi industry as no wages for anybody, at the present drivers are struggling with money as are the general public.[/p][/quote]If someone has a criminal record for getting in a fight when they were 17 and they're now 45 I don't see why that should mpact on them working as a taxi driver. It has to be looked at on a case by case basis. rozmister
  • Score: 3

12:35pm Thu 3 Jul 14

glennzilla says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected!
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.[/p][/quote]It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected! glennzilla
  • Score: 6

12:46pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

glennzilla wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected!
You may have some genuine concerns about safety but that could also be use as a tool to obstruct any changes, you can't convince me that the money side has no part to play in your argument, plus I think you insult the general public by claiming that they do not know the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles, it sounds as though you are clutching at straws to prevent these changes.
[quote][p][bold]glennzilla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.[/p][/quote]It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected![/p][/quote]You may have some genuine concerns about safety but that could also be use as a tool to obstruct any changes, you can't convince me that the money side has no part to play in your argument, plus I think you insult the general public by claiming that they do not know the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles, it sounds as though you are clutching at straws to prevent these changes. Hessenford
  • Score: 8

1:11pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Bmthborn says...

Hessenford wrote:
glennzilla wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Hessenford wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected!
You may have some genuine concerns about safety but that could also be use as a tool to obstruct any changes, you can't convince me that the money side has no part to play in your argument, plus I think you insult the general public by claiming that they do not know the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles, it sounds as though you are clutching at straws to prevent these changes.
Money cannot play a part, as licensed drivers can still put their private hire on the road, this bill going through parliament will allow people without a valid licence to drive the private hire, thus rendering any enforcement useless. I agree that the trade has had licensed drivers convicted of sexual offences, but this could actually make the practice of preying on individuals organised with criminals with existing records driving the vehicles. The only financial benefit would be to the owner of the private hire vehicle as his partner, friend or family members could use it. However to protect the public the trade do not want this to happen.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]glennzilla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.[/p][/quote]It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected![/p][/quote]You may have some genuine concerns about safety but that could also be use as a tool to obstruct any changes, you can't convince me that the money side has no part to play in your argument, plus I think you insult the general public by claiming that they do not know the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles, it sounds as though you are clutching at straws to prevent these changes.[/p][/quote]Money cannot play a part, as licensed drivers can still put their private hire on the road, this bill going through parliament will allow people without a valid licence to drive the private hire, thus rendering any enforcement useless. I agree that the trade has had licensed drivers convicted of sexual offences, but this could actually make the practice of preying on individuals organised with criminals with existing records driving the vehicles. The only financial benefit would be to the owner of the private hire vehicle as his partner, friend or family members could use it. However to protect the public the trade do not want this to happen. Bmthborn
  • Score: -1

1:17pm Thu 3 Jul 14

glennzilla says...

Hessenford wrote:
glennzilla wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected!
You may have some genuine concerns about safety but that could also be use as a tool to obstruct any changes, you can't convince me that the money side has no part to play in your argument, plus I think you insult the general public by claiming that they do not know the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles, it sounds as though you are clutching at straws to prevent these changes.
Actually some of the proposals are good, some are impractical and this particular one is of great concern not just to the taxi industry but to the Police , Licensing Authorities and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crime. Could you explain how these groups are fiscally challenged by this proposal?
I doubt very much that there is not one Taxi or Private Hire driver that has not been subjected to abuse when refusing to pick up members of the public on the grounds it would be in breach of the regulations. It is because of this that I can claim not to 'insult' MOST of the general public.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]glennzilla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.[/p][/quote]It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected![/p][/quote]You may have some genuine concerns about safety but that could also be use as a tool to obstruct any changes, you can't convince me that the money side has no part to play in your argument, plus I think you insult the general public by claiming that they do not know the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles, it sounds as though you are clutching at straws to prevent these changes.[/p][/quote]Actually some of the proposals are good, some are impractical and this particular one is of great concern not just to the taxi industry but to the Police , Licensing Authorities and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crime. Could you explain how these groups are fiscally challenged by this proposal? I doubt very much that there is not one Taxi or Private Hire driver that has not been subjected to abuse when refusing to pick up members of the public on the grounds it would be in breach of the regulations. It is because of this that I can claim not to 'insult' MOST of the general public. glennzilla
  • Score: -4

1:25pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Redgolfer says...

Hessenford wrote:
glennzilla wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected!
You may have some genuine concerns about safety but that could also be use as a tool to obstruct any changes, you can't convince me that the money side has no part to play in your argument, plus I think you insult the general public by claiming that they do not know the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles, it sounds as though you are clutching at straws to prevent these changes.
Those in the trade are NOT clutching at straws to prevent these changes, as a Hackney Night time taxi driver, the MAJORITY of the public do NOT know the difference between Hackney Cabs and Private Hire cabs, that is why you see the public trying to flag down PHs and then moaning when they do not stop and pick them up.
In Bournemouth Hackney Cabs are either yellow or Black with roof signs and they are allowed and INSURED to pick up customers at ranks and at road sides in the Borough in which they are licensed, ie Bournemouth.
Private hire cabs can be any colour EXCEPT yellow or black, they have not got roof signs on their cabs, normally have stickers on side of the cab ''no booking, no ride'', they cannot pick up passengers without a prior booking with a taxi company and if they do, that procedure invalidates their insurance and that also applies to other cabs outside their licensing towns without a booking.
If you make a booking with any cab company then one of their cars can come and pick you up.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]glennzilla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.[/p][/quote]It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected![/p][/quote]You may have some genuine concerns about safety but that could also be use as a tool to obstruct any changes, you can't convince me that the money side has no part to play in your argument, plus I think you insult the general public by claiming that they do not know the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles, it sounds as though you are clutching at straws to prevent these changes.[/p][/quote]Those in the trade are NOT clutching at straws to prevent these changes, as a Hackney Night time taxi driver, the MAJORITY of the public do NOT know the difference between Hackney Cabs and Private Hire cabs, that is why you see the public trying to flag down PHs and then moaning when they do not stop and pick them up. In Bournemouth Hackney Cabs are either yellow or Black with roof signs and they are allowed and INSURED to pick up customers at ranks and at road sides in the Borough in which they are licensed, ie Bournemouth. Private hire cabs can be any colour EXCEPT yellow or black, they have not got roof signs on their cabs, normally have stickers on side of the cab ''no booking, no ride'', they cannot pick up passengers without a prior booking with a taxi company and if they do, that procedure invalidates their insurance and that also applies to other cabs outside their licensing towns without a booking. If you make a booking with any cab company then one of their cars can come and pick you up. Redgolfer
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Thu 3 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

Redgolfer wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
Deregulation also means no cab industry as been shown in places where deregulation has taken place, cheaper fares ?, they are set by different local authorities, Bournemouth and Poole fares are exactly the same.
Bournemouth Licensed Taxi drivers have to have and pay for a CRB check every 3 years but if they have a criminal record it does not mean that they are not fit to be a driver, ask the Licensing authorities how they work that out and they will tell you ''Human Rights''.
How often do you have to wait for a taxi in Bournemouth, the only time between 1am and 4am on a Sunday morning, there are 250 Hackney Taxis in Bournemouth and over 700 Private Hire Taxis, is that not enough.
My criticism of Bournemouth Licensing is that they refused to follow other Authorities who have insisted on Audio and CCTV in every cab whenever the cab is on duty and please do not tell me that infringes every-bodies rights as material would only be used in either the cabbie or the customer making a complaint, which would mean a SAFER ENVIRONMENT for ALL.
Finally you say its a win win for taxi users, may I remind you that there are other ways of getting home other than Taxis, More buses at the weekend, not drinking and then driving home, getting picked up by family members, where deregulation has occurred there is not a taxi industry as no wages for anybody, at the present drivers are struggling with money as are the general public.
Well said Redgolfer, spot on.
[quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.[/p][/quote]Deregulation also means no cab industry as been shown in places where deregulation has taken place, cheaper fares ?, they are set by different local authorities, Bournemouth and Poole fares are exactly the same. Bournemouth Licensed Taxi drivers have to have and pay for a CRB check every 3 years but if they have a criminal record it does not mean that they are not fit to be a driver, ask the Licensing authorities how they work that out and they will tell you ''Human Rights''. How often do you have to wait for a taxi in Bournemouth, the only time between 1am and 4am on a Sunday morning, there are 250 Hackney Taxis in Bournemouth and over 700 Private Hire Taxis, is that not enough. My criticism of Bournemouth Licensing is that they refused to follow other Authorities who have insisted on Audio and CCTV in every cab whenever the cab is on duty and please do not tell me that infringes every-bodies rights as material would only be used in either the cabbie or the customer making a complaint, which would mean a SAFER ENVIRONMENT for ALL. Finally you say its a win win for taxi users, may I remind you that there are other ways of getting home other than Taxis, More buses at the weekend, not drinking and then driving home, getting picked up by family members, where deregulation has occurred there is not a taxi industry as no wages for anybody, at the present drivers are struggling with money as are the general public.[/p][/quote]Well said Redgolfer, spot on. boardsandphotos
  • Score: -1

2:06pm Thu 3 Jul 14

glennzilla says...

glennzilla wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
glennzilla wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected!
You may have some genuine concerns about safety but that could also be use as a tool to obstruct any changes, you can't convince me that the money side has no part to play in your argument, plus I think you insult the general public by claiming that they do not know the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles, it sounds as though you are clutching at straws to prevent these changes.
Actually some of the proposals are good, some are impractical and this particular one is of great concern not just to the taxi industry but to the Police , Licensing Authorities and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crime. Could you explain how these groups are fiscally challenged by this proposal?
I doubt very much that there is not one Taxi or Private Hire driver that has not been subjected to abuse when refusing to pick up members of the public on the grounds it would be in breach of the regulations. It is because of this that I can claim not to 'insult' MOST of the general public.
I've just re-read the first line of the 2nd paragraph and realise that it is contradictory. It should read "I doubt very much that there are any Taxi or Private Hire Drivers that have not been subjected to abuse....."
[quote][p][bold]glennzilla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]glennzilla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.[/p][/quote]It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected![/p][/quote]You may have some genuine concerns about safety but that could also be use as a tool to obstruct any changes, you can't convince me that the money side has no part to play in your argument, plus I think you insult the general public by claiming that they do not know the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles, it sounds as though you are clutching at straws to prevent these changes.[/p][/quote]Actually some of the proposals are good, some are impractical and this particular one is of great concern not just to the taxi industry but to the Police , Licensing Authorities and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crime. Could you explain how these groups are fiscally challenged by this proposal? I doubt very much that there is not one Taxi or Private Hire driver that has not been subjected to abuse when refusing to pick up members of the public on the grounds it would be in breach of the regulations. It is because of this that I can claim not to 'insult' MOST of the general public.[/p][/quote]I've just re-read the first line of the 2nd paragraph and realise that it is contradictory. It should read "I doubt very much that there are any Taxi or Private Hire Drivers that have not been subjected to abuse....." glennzilla
  • Score: -3

2:53pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Victor_Meldrew_Lives! says...

The standard of some taxis and their drivers in Bournemouth need to dramatically improve.

Drivers that barely speak English - how is communication supposed to take place.
Some drivers do NOT know the area well.
Taxis that are dirty inside and smell.

Best avoided. The worst taxis are the ones at the Train Station.
The standard of some taxis and their drivers in Bournemouth need to dramatically improve. Drivers that barely speak English - how is communication supposed to take place. Some drivers do NOT know the area well. Taxis that are dirty inside and smell. Best avoided. The worst taxis are the ones at the Train Station. Victor_Meldrew_Lives!
  • Score: 10

3:24pm Thu 3 Jul 14

uniterep says...

Dear reader,

I am both a local and national rep for Unite the Union cab section and I have been working on both the law commission review and deregulation items extensively - nationally both with ministers, MPs and Lords.

First off, any person who cannot see the inherent dangers in two of the three clauses are frankly mad! I shall explain further.

Secondly, it is not a respective argument that this is cost impacting in so far as loss of business either.

Thirdly, we should not be a nation that adopts a policy of ' race to the bottom '.

Fourth, this will only impact private hire operators directly, but indirectly will affect hackney carriages.

So, where to begin? In 2011 Norman Baker Mp decided to withdraw the proposals by the Transport Select Committee led by Louise Ellman Mp, a committee with decades of experience in dealing with specific transport issues and hands the reign over to the uk law commission.

What was called an ' extensive consultation ' ensued and was completed in November 2013. The initial report expected in December 2013 was delayed due to parliamentary counsel until a proposed date of April 2014.

When the Minister who had taken over from Norman Baker, namely Baroness Susan Kramer learned of this, she immediately and without parliamentary consultation of 12 weeks, decided to add three clauses to the now ' deregulation bill '. This occurred on 14 March 2014 and has steadily progressed amid huge opposition from all concerned organisations across the uk, now into the Lords.

Save to say that the organisations opposed are as follows:

Institute of Licensing:
National Association of Enforcement Officers :
Police Crime Commissioners:
Association of Chief Police Officers :
Suzy Lamplugh Trust:
Unite the Union
RMT
GMB
Women's Voluntary Aid Charities
and many more

On 19th April in a Westminster Hall debate, cross party support was opposed to the clauses in the bill sue to safety concerns. Latterly on 23/6/14 the tory and libdem whips TOLD their respective MPs they MUST vote in favour to keep them. Thereby actually propagating and condoning potential legal activity.

As far as legal activity of this nature is concerned. It is fair to draw on two reported cases of wild cards. But these pale into insignificance numerically given statistics from The Met Police in London where these practises currently happen. In 2013 alone 214 sexual assaults , 54 leading to rape trials and 50 of those being committed to prison. All because of the lack of regulation by allowing anyone to drive a private hire vehicle without a valid licence.

Additionally, a leading rape trial QC stated that this was more than likely ' the tip of the iceberg ' as many wouldn't even report.

Given those harrowing figures and a scenario that would most definitely play out in the entire uk, it is not far from comprehension to believe that this is mad, mad, mad.

Anyone wanting further clarity or info then please email me
Paul.landau@unitethe
union.org

This is danger waiting to happen
Dear reader, I am both a local and national rep for Unite the Union cab section and I have been working on both the law commission review and deregulation items extensively - nationally both with ministers, MPs and Lords. First off, any person who cannot see the inherent dangers in two of the three clauses are frankly mad! I shall explain further. Secondly, it is not a respective argument that this is cost impacting in so far as loss of business either. Thirdly, we should not be a nation that adopts a policy of ' race to the bottom '. Fourth, this will only impact private hire operators directly, but indirectly will affect hackney carriages. So, where to begin? In 2011 Norman Baker Mp decided to withdraw the proposals by the Transport Select Committee led by Louise Ellman Mp, a committee with decades of experience in dealing with specific transport issues and hands the reign over to the uk law commission. What was called an ' extensive consultation ' ensued and was completed in November 2013. The initial report expected in December 2013 was delayed due to parliamentary counsel until a proposed date of April 2014. When the Minister who had taken over from Norman Baker, namely Baroness Susan Kramer learned of this, she immediately and without parliamentary consultation of 12 weeks, decided to add three clauses to the now ' deregulation bill '. This occurred on 14 March 2014 and has steadily progressed amid huge opposition from all concerned organisations across the uk, now into the Lords. Save to say that the organisations opposed are as follows: Institute of Licensing: National Association of Enforcement Officers : Police Crime Commissioners: Association of Chief Police Officers : Suzy Lamplugh Trust: Unite the Union RMT GMB Women's Voluntary Aid Charities and many more On 19th April in a Westminster Hall debate, cross party support was opposed to the clauses in the bill sue to safety concerns. Latterly on 23/6/14 the tory and libdem whips TOLD their respective MPs they MUST vote in favour to keep them. Thereby actually propagating and condoning potential legal activity. As far as legal activity of this nature is concerned. It is fair to draw on two reported cases of wild cards. But these pale into insignificance numerically given statistics from The Met Police in London where these practises currently happen. In 2013 alone 214 sexual assaults , 54 leading to rape trials and 50 of those being committed to prison. All because of the lack of regulation by allowing anyone to drive a private hire vehicle without a valid licence. Additionally, a leading rape trial QC stated that this was more than likely ' the tip of the iceberg ' as many wouldn't even report. Given those harrowing figures and a scenario that would most definitely play out in the entire uk, it is not far from comprehension to believe that this is mad, mad, mad. Anyone wanting further clarity or info then please email me Paul.landau@unitethe union.org This is danger waiting to happen uniterep
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Thu 3 Jul 14

joeinpoole says...

I had a Hackney license as a driver in Poole for 5 years, working on and off whilst building another business, and I drove both private hire and hackney cabs (whatever was available to me at the time).

I could never really understand why when I was driving a vehicle with a Taxi plate (i.e. Hackney), I could stop on ranks and be flagged down, but whilst driving a PH-plated vehicle I could not. It didn't make it any safer or any cheaper for the public. In fact it often made it less convenient for them and possibly less safe too. If a girl alone at 3am tried to flag me down when I was driving a PH vehicle I was obliged to drive past. To stop could have cost me my livelihood and, had I given her a lift, she would have been uninsured in the case of an accident.

The fact that Hackney plates are limited (to about 70 in Poole) whilst PH plates are not creates a false market. Poole BC issue one or two new Hackney plates per year (which nowadays have to be for disabled-friendly vehicles) and they go to whoever has been on the waiting list the longest for the basic license fee. Hackney plates can later be traded on the open market for whatever the market will pay. Last time I heard it was £15-25K in Poole. In Bournemouth they can cost far more. Hackney plates don't make money for the Council but restricting their numbers does make very good money for the lucky few that have them. By way of contrast in Wimbourne (different licensing area) Hackney plates are unlimited and it doesn't appear to be a problem.

Personally I don't see how restricting the number of particular VEHICLES (i.e. not drivers) that can stop on taxi ranks benefits the public in any way. We don't restrict the number of hairdressers or butchers that can operate in an area ... so why taxis?

As I understand it some of the laws governing 'Hackney Carriages' quite literally date from the time of King John. Perhaps it is time that they were revised for the modern age.
I had a Hackney license as a driver in Poole for 5 years, working on and off whilst building another business, and I drove both private hire and hackney cabs (whatever was available to me at the time). I could never really understand why when I was driving a vehicle with a Taxi plate (i.e. Hackney), I could stop on ranks and be flagged down, but whilst driving a PH-plated vehicle I could not. It didn't make it any safer or any cheaper for the public. In fact it often made it less convenient for them and possibly less safe too. If a girl alone at 3am tried to flag me down when I was driving a PH vehicle I was obliged to drive past. To stop could have cost me my livelihood and, had I given her a lift, she would have been uninsured in the case of an accident. The fact that Hackney plates are limited (to about 70 in Poole) whilst PH plates are not creates a false market. Poole BC issue one or two new Hackney plates per year (which nowadays have to be for disabled-friendly vehicles) and they go to whoever has been on the waiting list the longest for the basic license fee. Hackney plates can later be traded on the open market for whatever the market will pay. Last time I heard it was £15-25K in Poole. In Bournemouth they can cost far more. Hackney plates don't make money for the Council but restricting their numbers does make very good money for the lucky few that have them. By way of contrast in Wimbourne (different licensing area) Hackney plates are unlimited and it doesn't appear to be a problem. Personally I don't see how restricting the number of particular VEHICLES (i.e. not drivers) that can stop on taxi ranks benefits the public in any way. We don't restrict the number of hairdressers or butchers that can operate in an area ... so why taxis? As I understand it some of the laws governing 'Hackney Carriages' quite literally date from the time of King John. Perhaps it is time that they were revised for the modern age. joeinpoole
  • Score: 8

3:36pm Thu 3 Jul 14

ekimnoslen says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
'And last year, Bournemouth cabbie Terence Collins was jailed for 16 years after raping a 14-year-old girl and 20-year-old woman....' And he was a LICENSED operator, as was Worboys - which weakens their argument against deregulation doesn't it.
I think that you may have scored an own goal there. If currently registered cabbies have committed such offences ir would seem that both INCREASED regulation and background checks are called for.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: 'And last year, Bournemouth cabbie Terence Collins was jailed for 16 years after raping a 14-year-old girl and 20-year-old woman....' And he was a LICENSED operator, as was Worboys - which weakens their argument against deregulation doesn't it.[/p][/quote]I think that you may have scored an own goal there. If currently registered cabbies have committed such offences ir would seem that both INCREASED regulation and background checks are called for. ekimnoslen
  • Score: 2

5:38pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Dahlia77 says...

I wish the Echo would sort out the way the script is displayed when quotes are used by people who comment. I give up when there is more than 1 persons quote to read. Does this annoy anyone else?
Sorry to hijack the original post.
I wish the Echo would sort out the way the script is displayed when quotes are used by people who comment. I give up when there is more than 1 persons quote to read. Does this annoy anyone else? Sorry to hijack the original post. Dahlia77
  • Score: 4

7:06pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Bmthborn says...

joeinpoole wrote:
I had a Hackney license as a driver in Poole for 5 years, working on and off whilst building another business, and I drove both private hire and hackney cabs (whatever was available to me at the time).

I could never really understand why when I was driving a vehicle with a Taxi plate (i.e. Hackney), I could stop on ranks and be flagged down, but whilst driving a PH-plated vehicle I could not. It didn't make it any safer or any cheaper for the public. In fact it often made it less convenient for them and possibly less safe too. If a girl alone at 3am tried to flag me down when I was driving a PH vehicle I was obliged to drive past. To stop could have cost me my livelihood and, had I given her a lift, she would have been uninsured in the case of an accident.

The fact that Hackney plates are limited (to about 70 in Poole) whilst PH plates are not creates a false market. Poole BC issue one or two new Hackney plates per year (which nowadays have to be for disabled-friendly vehicles) and they go to whoever has been on the waiting list the longest for the basic license fee. Hackney plates can later be traded on the open market for whatever the market will pay. Last time I heard it was £15-25K in Poole. In Bournemouth they can cost far more. Hackney plates don't make money for the Council but restricting their numbers does make very good money for the lucky few that have them. By way of contrast in Wimbourne (different licensing area) Hackney plates are unlimited and it doesn't appear to be a problem.

Personally I don't see how restricting the number of particular VEHICLES (i.e. not drivers) that can stop on taxi ranks benefits the public in any way. We don't restrict the number of hairdressers or butchers that can operate in an area ... so why taxis?

As I understand it some of the laws governing 'Hackney Carriages' quite literally date from the time of King John. Perhaps it is time that they were revised for the modern age.
Unfortunately you are missing the point. This is deregulation of private hire vehicles, not delimitation of hackney carriages. These 3 items added to the deregulation bill have not been thought out and our local council are against it, but our local mp still votes to keep these items in the bill and the other did not attend parliament that night I believe. So many people against it but it will become law and everyone will have to put up with the fall out.
[quote][p][bold]joeinpoole[/bold] wrote: I had a Hackney license as a driver in Poole for 5 years, working on and off whilst building another business, and I drove both private hire and hackney cabs (whatever was available to me at the time). I could never really understand why when I was driving a vehicle with a Taxi plate (i.e. Hackney), I could stop on ranks and be flagged down, but whilst driving a PH-plated vehicle I could not. It didn't make it any safer or any cheaper for the public. In fact it often made it less convenient for them and possibly less safe too. If a girl alone at 3am tried to flag me down when I was driving a PH vehicle I was obliged to drive past. To stop could have cost me my livelihood and, had I given her a lift, she would have been uninsured in the case of an accident. The fact that Hackney plates are limited (to about 70 in Poole) whilst PH plates are not creates a false market. Poole BC issue one or two new Hackney plates per year (which nowadays have to be for disabled-friendly vehicles) and they go to whoever has been on the waiting list the longest for the basic license fee. Hackney plates can later be traded on the open market for whatever the market will pay. Last time I heard it was £15-25K in Poole. In Bournemouth they can cost far more. Hackney plates don't make money for the Council but restricting their numbers does make very good money for the lucky few that have them. By way of contrast in Wimbourne (different licensing area) Hackney plates are unlimited and it doesn't appear to be a problem. Personally I don't see how restricting the number of particular VEHICLES (i.e. not drivers) that can stop on taxi ranks benefits the public in any way. We don't restrict the number of hairdressers or butchers that can operate in an area ... so why taxis? As I understand it some of the laws governing 'Hackney Carriages' quite literally date from the time of King John. Perhaps it is time that they were revised for the modern age.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately you are missing the point. This is deregulation of private hire vehicles, not delimitation of hackney carriages. These 3 items added to the deregulation bill have not been thought out and our local council are against it, but our local mp still votes to keep these items in the bill and the other did not attend parliament that night I believe. So many people against it but it will become law and everyone will have to put up with the fall out. Bmthborn
  • Score: -6

7:08pm Thu 3 Jul 14

holdinkæft says...

glennzilla wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected!
What a state we are in this country, everyone is afraid.
[quote][p][bold]glennzilla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.[/p][/quote]It's easy to be cynical when the full facts are not presented. The Deregulation of limiting the maximum numbers of licensed vehicles may , in your opinion, work in other towns but that is not what's being discussed in this article. This is one proposal in a whole raft of proposals that is setting out to modernise the archaic and somewhat complicated regulations currently in place. As it stands only licensed, vetted drivers are permitted to drive a licensed Private Hire vehicle and this proposal, if passed, would allow ANYONE to drive the car whilst It is NOT on duty. Those of us in the industry are well aware that most of the general public are oblivious to the distinction between Taxis and Private Hires and what causes us, the police and the organisations that work with victims of sexual crimes is that there is more potential for sexual predators to get access to a private hire vehicle, masquerade as a taxi to snare unsuspecting potential victims. It is not about money and contrary to popular belief those of us in the taxi trade are concerned about public safety because we too have mothers, sisters, daughters and nieces we want protected![/p][/quote]What a state we are in this country, everyone is afraid. holdinkæft
  • Score: -4

9:24pm Thu 3 Jul 14

pete woodley says...

Dahlia77 wrote:
I wish the Echo would sort out the way the script is displayed when quotes are used by people who comment. I give up when there is more than 1 persons quote to read. Does this annoy anyone else?
Sorry to hijack the original post.
YES.
[quote][p][bold]Dahlia77[/bold] wrote: I wish the Echo would sort out the way the script is displayed when quotes are used by people who comment. I give up when there is more than 1 persons quote to read. Does this annoy anyone else? Sorry to hijack the original post.[/p][/quote]YES. pete woodley
  • Score: -4

10:02pm Thu 3 Jul 14

maru says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.
Although the excellent Uber system is not yet available here yet ,I am quite sure it wont be long due to its popularity elsewhere. I have used it many times myself in London and give it full marks.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Licensed taxi drivers have committed sexual offences and other crimes in the past, I suspect that the concerns and motivations of the chairman of Bournemouth Taxi Association, John Tye. are driven more by loss of revenue to his members rather than safety of passengers.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. Of course it's about money. Also, deregulation means no monopoly - i.e. competition, which means cheaper fares for us - the general public. It's a win win situation for taxi users. With Uber (the taxi app) being available now it will change the course of how taxis operate forever - and nothing can change that.[/p][/quote]Although the excellent Uber system is not yet available here yet ,I am quite sure it wont be long due to its popularity elsewhere. I have used it many times myself in London and give it full marks. maru
  • Score: 5

10:33pm Thu 3 Jul 14

oversee says...

The most prolific rapist in British criminal history was a licenced ' black taxi ' driver.
The most prolific rapist in British criminal history was a licenced ' black taxi ' driver. oversee
  • Score: 6

9:58am Fri 4 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Stealing from uniterep, apart from "Institute of Licensing, National Association of enforcement Officers , Police Crime Commissioners, Association of Chief Police Officers, Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Unite the Union, RMT, GMB, Women's Voluntary Aid Charities, and many more" who is actually against this happening?
Stealing from uniterep, apart from "Institute of Licensing, National Association of enforcement Officers , Police Crime Commissioners, Association of Chief Police Officers, Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Unite the Union, RMT, GMB, Women's Voluntary Aid Charities, and many more" who is actually against this happening? breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

9:59am Fri 4 Jul 14

Mike R-B says...

But surely they are easier to trace by having licence numbers displayed.
This ruling will open the flood gates for every Tom, Dick and many immigrants to ply for trade.
But surely they are easier to trace by having licence numbers displayed. This ruling will open the flood gates for every Tom, Dick and many immigrants to ply for trade. Mike R-B
  • Score: -4

5:49pm Fri 4 Jul 14

trishgoddard says...

Of women feel safe with a woman driver... stick to just women drivers... im a female taxi driver in new milton and alot of my customers say they feel safer with female drivers.. it should not be like that but unfortunately it is. x
Of women feel safe with a woman driver... stick to just women drivers... im a female taxi driver in new milton and alot of my customers say they feel safer with female drivers.. it should not be like that but unfortunately it is. x trishgoddard
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree