WAKEY WAKEY!

"ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING."

There cannot be one Licensed London Taxi driver who feels that Uber and their junior partners, HM Government, are not pulling out all the stops to crush the Licensed Taxi Trade.

The Grim Reaper

The Tory Party have openly promoted, lobbied and even distributed flyers for their American bosses.

The Prime Minister's hubby, Philip May brokered a deal between his wife's bosses and the Saudis.

When Uber's silent partners, TfL decided they had to save their own skins by appearing to chastise Uber for its multitude of transgressions, they knew the facade was only temporary.

TfL could have, should have revoked Uber's license.

During the Prime Minister's cabinet reshuffle, Uber have appointed their favourite flag bearer Jo Johnson, as Minister of State at the Department for Transport and Minister for London.

Brothers Grimm news for the Taxi trade

If ever there was a time for Taxi drivers to scream blue murder from the rooftops, it is now!

If Uber win their appeal, the trade will not survive. There are other ride sharing companies waiting in the wings.

We would be engulfed by a tsunami of unregulated transport companies, with unemployable slaves stealing our livelihood and destroying our way of life.

Last year Uber were worth $70bn.
This year Uber are worth $45bn.

Uber's rape stats are up. Their crash stats are up. Their fraud stats are up. Their value is down.

Uber knows if they win London, they win the world.

Taxi drivers begin a week of protests, on Monday 15th January 2018.

• TfL currently allow an unlicensed and unfit Operator to flout the law

• TfL currently allow 13,000 PH drivers to work without DBS checks

• TfL currently allow PH drivers to work without medical certificates

• TfL currently allow PH drivers to illegally accept direct bookings

• TfL currently license PH drivers whose license has been revoked elsewhere

• TfL colluded with an unfit Operator during a police investigation

• TfL conspired with an unfit Operator to streamline PH applications

• TfL refused to initiate checks on an unfit Operator for 5 years

• TfL assisted an unfit Operator to illegally circumnavigate regulations

• TfL lied to the GLA about PH on/off insurance

• TfL lied to the GLA about checking unfit Operator's modus operandi

• TfL lied to the GLA about an unfit Operator's nonexistent contact number

• TfL has caused mental, physical and financial stress to legitimate Taxi drivers

Do not think that defeating Uber into regulation is the end of our fight.

TfL pushed us under a bus. We survived - but we have not emerged unscathed.

We intend to make TfL pay.

If the Taxi trade can show drivers disgust at the way their Government and Regulator are treating them, someone will sit up and take notice.

I have heard all the excuses why certain drivers will not attend. Some openly admit they will work whilst their colleagues protest.

I have heard "It'll do no good. Uber are too powerful."

Really? How do you think TfL were forced to refuse their boss's license?

It wasn't by carrying on regardless.

I have heard "All the last demo I attended did, was promote Uber and alienate the public."

Really? How do you think we forced the rape stats into the media?

It wasn't by carrying on regardless.

I have heard "We'll lose the public by pissing them off."
Really? Which public is that? Those who threw us overboard years ago? Or those stuck on buses?
Unfortunately we must disrupt the status quo to effect change.
Unless we shout from those aforementioned roof tops, how else are we going to get the authorities to listen?

It won't be by carrying on regardless.

I have heard "What good has a demo done?"

How do you think we got the rape stats beyond Shawcross and Chapman and into mainstream media?
It wasn't by carrying on regardless. It was by protest.
Now everyone knows how dangerous Uber is.

If you don’t wish to protest, then don't. No need to make up excuses.

You won't be missed. You never were.

There are plenty of us who are prepared to stand and fight!
This is the beginning of the end for deregulation.
To the victor, the spoils.

Transport for London started this.
We will finish it!

See you there.

TO BE, OR NOT TO BE

SHOULD WE PROTEST IN JANUARY?

Let’s not forget Uber are still operating as they have been for the past five or so years. In that sense, what has changed?

Despite the following, TfL have allowed Uber to continue to operate under appeal:
• Uber's approach to reporting serious criminal offences including a rise in sexual assaults & rapes.
• Uber's approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
• Uber's approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
• Uber's approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.
• An increase in road traffic accidents.
• VAT avoidance allowing 'Uber' the ability to directly undercut taxi drivers regulated fare*

*Orthodox licensing looked at the licensable activity and didn't concern itself with the financial background; R v Warrington Crown Court, ex p CC of Cheshire:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020620/wngton-1.htm

However, the climate has changed and now all sorts of criminality is taken into account; see para 11.27 of the s.182 Guidance:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020620/wngton-1.htm

And see Hanif v East Lindsey:
https://www.docdroid.net/ENML8VD/ac9800809qbdadmin.pdf#page=2

(a) Why should Taxi drivers have to fund a VAT case against 'Uber' when TfL have the legal tools to ensure Uber pay their correct taxes?

(b) If TfL decided that 'Uber' was not a 'fit & proper' company on public safety grounds they had the power to revoke Uber's license without allowing them to operate while under appeal on public safety grounds [s 17(2) 1998 PH act].

(c) Was TfL's decision not to renew Uber's license a financial decision or a public safety decision?
Given the fact point (b) granted TfL an immediate right to revoke Uber’s license on public safety grounds, we believe that the Mayor took the option not to protect the public, but instead to protect TFL financially – If the Mayor had revoked Uber’s license on public safety grounds and not allowed them to operate while under appeal, TfL would be exposed to a financial claim for any losses should Uber have won the appeal.

(d) So ask yourself, does TfL really want a legal battle with Uber?

(e) If the answer to (d) is Yes, then why didn't TfL revoke Uber’'s license and protect the public while the appeal process was carried out?

(f) TfL instructed Deloitte to undertake a review of Uber's 'booking process'; they claim that the driver accepts the booking before the operator. If TfL believe this to be the case, why are they still allowing them to operate illegally?

(g) Uber’s T&C's claim that the driver is contracted to Uber BV, the customer pays their fare to Uber BV, the customer’s receipt is provided by Uber BV.

If TfL/Deloitte are correct it'd suggest that the booking investigation would confirm (1) the customer makes the request to; (2) the unlicensed Uber BV, who  are making the provision for the invitation of the booking (3) the driver accepts the booking (4) Uber London do nothing, and just record the booking after the driver has accepted.

(h) If we are not going to peacefully protest over this illegal process, what happens when we are steamrollered by Taxify, Lyft or any other Private Hire tech company who want to break the rules and operate here. After all, Taxify have already admitted the driver accepts the job before the operator.

(i)

by Chris Johnson

Editor's note:

Will this email to Mike Brown, ever receive a reply?