Monday, 25 March 2019



As you may have noticed, Taxi drivers are in Parliament Square, three days every week, protesting against their unjustified exclusion from the Mayor's Transport Strategy.

For your convenience we have listed five main bullet points outlining our grievances, below.

1. Availability and convenience:
TfL and the Mayor have omitted any door-to-door service for London's travelling public.
Not everyone wants to, or is able to, get from their origin to their desired destination by walking, cycling or by bus.
Licensed London Taxis may be hailed on the street or pre booked via many apps.

2. A travel lifeline:
Every Taxi is a Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle.
Taxis provide 23,000 WAV's.
TfL buses offer only 8,000 WAV's.
Taxi drivers are capable of assisting people with disabilities. Bus drivers are not.

3. Safety and reliability:
Other than the freedom of personal choice for Londoners and visitors to the capital for a door-to-door service; Taxis are essential for Londoners who, at certain times might feel unsafe, such as LGBT, ethnic minorities or lone females coming out onto a strange street, from a relative's home, a restaurant, or business meeting, into an area where they might feel threatened or vulnerable.
Are they expected to walk home?
Or wait at a bus stop?
Some people feel vulnerable on a bus with strangers.
Would all Londoners or visitors to London wish to walk, cycle or travel by bus wearing fine clothes and expensive accessories, or hail a Taxi?
Are London's travelling public expected to lug shopping or cases, in all weathers, onto a bus or down the tube?
This basic freedom of choice is being denied London travellers.

4. Manufactured demise of a 365 year icon:
With Taxis being prohibited from all these new road strategies, Taxi journeys will travel further than necessary, take longer than necessary and cost the passenger more than necessary.
Using a Taxi will no longer be expedient or financially viable for the consumer. London’s Taxi trade will die.

5. Where buses go, Taxis go - Law:
Taxis are denied access to Bank Junction between 7am and 7pm, and due to be prohibited from Tottenham Court Road, Oxford Street, Piccadilly Circus, Holborn, huge swathes of Bloomsbury, Old Street, and from Tooley Street all the way to Greenwich and Lewisham, with the threat of more to come. No one is taking responsibility for this manufactured genocide of London's iconic Taxi trade.
The Mayor, TfL's Commissioner Mike Brown, and various councillors are playing pass the parcel with their responsibilities.
Camden, Hackney and Islington Councils have failed to do any Equality Impact Assessments (EqIA) on their discriminatory road changes. Londoners expect to be protected by every Council's Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).

To solve this insulting annoyance of bureaucratic deniability, we propose that a law be drawn up to intrinsically link the rights of Bus access to Taxi access.
There is no reasonable argument to deny Taxis access to all Bus Lanes and access to all roads where buses are permitted.
Taxis need to be protected by law.

What is distressing, is the fact that the part played by Taxis in the 2010 Mayor's Transport Strategy, has been removed from the current MTS, proving this is not an oversight, but a plan to erase Taxis from London's Transport system.
Platitudes from Councils about children and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease might hold water if they did not grant access to buses.
Can one only get COPD from a Taxi?

Ten years ago the media constantly complained about Health & Safety issues, and disabled access was a huge concern at the forefront of political thinking and social planning.
Now, via the gig economy and a financial thirst for deregulation, Health & Safety no longer matters, and disabled access has been relegated to an afterthought.

These protests are not against either House, or its members.
We leave Millbank alone and ensure there is access to all emergency and government vehicles in and around the Square.
The idea of being in Parliament Square is a plea to the seat of power.
The reason we are there three days a week is born from a fear of 'out of sight, out of mind'.
TfL refuse to address our concerns or negotiate.
Therefore we have nothing left but peaceful protest.

Thank you for your time and patience. 

Saturday, 23 March 2019



(Intro music)

"Universally Challenged. (applause)
Asking the questions, Bumba Clartcoigne."

BC: "Hello and welcome again to Universally Challenged.
We welcome back last week’s losers, Transport Network University of Corruption.
And their new challengers, the Conservative University of Nefarious Tories.

"Let’s meet the teams. And first, the TNUC’s."

LO: "I'm Lea Onsea, reading off and on insurance for the gullible."

SK: "Hi, I'm Sadie Kant, reading Self Photography."

BC: "And their captain."

DK: "I'm Dara Kosimjoking and I'm reading Grayling the Riot Act."

SM: "Hello I'm Steve Macanacka, reading The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, by Leo Toy Story."

BC: "CUNT’s?"

CG: "I'm Cross Greything and I'm reading my professional obituary."

DC: "Call me Dave. I'm reading ... from  ... the Goldman Sachs … autocue."

BC: "And their captain."

TS: "Hello my name's Terry Sammay, and I'm reading Dances with Warfarin."

GO: "George Oddborn, reading Speed & Kentucky Ham, by William Burroughs."

BC: "Let’s go straight into the game.

"Here’s your starter for ten. Other than buses, who can use Bus Lanes?"

Buzz! "TNUC, Kant."

SK: "Did you know my Dad was a bus driver?"

BC: "Wrong answer. It was Taxis, cycles and motorcycles."

SK: "Really?"

BC: "Another starter, and no conferring.
Name three types of Uber."

Buzz! "CUNT, Oddborn."

GO: "Blackrock, Evening Standard and 9Yards Capital."

BC: "No. I can pass it over."

Buzz! "TNUC, Onsea."

LO: "Was it UberRape, UberCrash and UberHack?"

BC: "Correct.

"For a bonus of five points each. Can you name three boroughs where Taxis are banned on roads where buses are not?"

(Audible team whispers)

DK: "Okay. I think I had Mike sign them off in Camden, Hackney and Islington."

BC: "Correct. You also could’ve had the City of Westminster and the City of London.

"Starter for ten. How much is the drop on the Taxi meter?"

Buzz! "TNUC, Macanacka."

SM: "Eighty pence."

BC: "Three pounds."

SM: "No?"

BC: "Starter for ten."

SM: "Are you sure?"

BC: "What is the London icon which takes more passengers per month door to door than any illegal tax avoiding minicab company does in a year?"

Buzz! "CUNT, Sammay."

TS: "It’s that great American, Netherlands based industry I prostituted my integrity for at Davos."

BC: "No. It’s the three hundred and sixty five year old, iconic Black Cab Industry which employs over one hundred thousand people in London alone.

"Get your thinking caps on. Here’s your starter again.
For ten points which door to door service offers three times as many Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles than Buses, and over five thousand percent more than minicabs?"

Buzz! "CUNT, Cuckold."

DC: "Sajid Javid’s Dad was a bus driver."

BG: "What?"

DC: "Seventeen point four million bastards cost me my job!"

BG: "Ahem. I can pass it over."

Buzz! "TNUC, Onsea."

LO: "Yo Mamma!"

BC: "Excuse me?"

LO: "My mate Pete can get you a prozzy for the price of an Oyster Card."

BC: "Are you mad?"

LO: "What’s in it for me?"

BC: "The answer is ‘Taxis’."

LO: "Fuck ‘em."

BC: "Except for Onsea, here’s your starter for ten. Who perjured herself twice for Uber?"

Buzz! "CUNT, Greything."

CG: "Fraggle Rock."

BC: "Close enough.

“For fifteen bonus points, name one thing TfL has done correctly?

"No one?

"Yes that was a trick question. The answer is TfL have never done anything right,
And on that note, the final scores, according to Diane Abbott are; Transport Network University of Corruption has scored two thousand and eleventy nine. And the Conservative University of Nefarious Tories has scored jam sponge.

(Fade to music)

Friday, 14 September 2018



An Employment Tribunal will define if we are “marketing ourselves to the world” or not, in an independent capacity.

If Chris Johnson loses:- we can transfer the argument across to the reasonable understanding that if we are “marketing ourselves to the world” independently on the App then there is a strong argument that we must be “plying for hire” independently on the App. Is this logical?

Plying for hire is all about availability and exhibition and probably not very different to marketing oneself as available for hire, we have our Taxi hire light on when we are marketing our availability for hire, and off when we’re not marketing ourselves “for hire”  (*I'll come back to this point).

Chris is bringing an “employment case” against MyTaxi, subject to raising £18,000 - it's not a regulatory case – therefore, we must not confuse the two.
If Chris loses the case, it'll be because MyTaxi has successfully argued that he is “marketing himself to the world” via the App as an independent Taxi business and not integrated into MyTaxi's business.
The taxi trade should then be able to take the arguments from the employment tribunal case and argue that the judgment potentially tells us that we are operating independently on the app and “marketing ourselves to the world” independently via an app. Therefore, in my opinion, we would have a strong argument in asking, how is this different to plying for hire?


My opinion is;

The level of control MyTaxi exert over the driver, i.e. terminating or suspending drivers without reason, fixed airport fares, a minimum £10 charge greater than the metered fare, etc. I don't see how an employment tribunal judge could say that we are operating independently and on our own, there is simply too much “control” applied by MyTaxi for this to be the case. I believe we are a limb-b workers (a limb-b worker is just a category of self-employment with worker rights)
We will not lose our self-employed status if Chris wins his worker rights claim.

*Coming back to plying for hire. To obtain a statutory declaration of plying for hire, especially on Apps would be a good thing and I would support anyone for trying, but the problem in doing so, in my opinion, is a judge would have to look at all aspects of existing case law, and would potentially take the Uber employment tribunal case into consideration as well, where it was decided that the driver WAS NOT “marketing himself to the world” independently.
Which begs the question, is “plying for hire” and “marketing yourself to the world” one of the same thing?

The Uber employment tribunal found that Uber is in control. Uber deactivate/suspend drivers, control fare prices. In the same way as MyTaxi fix fares, deactivate and suspend drivers, etc.

This fits with the argument that if Uber, as an Operator, is in control and accepting the booking (we allege the driver does, but that's a different matter and potentially a breach the 1998 PH act), then the booking must be pre-booking to fit with Private Hire legislation.

A judgement which found that Uber was “marketing itself to the world” independently, because Private Hire drivers cannot 'ply for hire' independently, also not find that MyTaxi to be “marketing itself to the world” independently, as London Taxi drivers cannot “ply for hire” outside the Met?

This was highlighted when the Dad’s Defending Daughters, supported by the LCDC, went to Brighton to highlight out of area app jobs.

Uber situation:-

• Uber in control of the driver.

• An App job is a pre-booking.

• Result: Driver is a worker for Uber and has limb-b worker rights.

MyTaxi situation:-

• Is MyTaxi in control of the driver?

• How can MyTaxi offer jobs to drivers outside of their licensed area unless it's a pre-booking?

• Result: Is the taxi driver a worker for MyTaxi, and would Chris win a claim for worker rights?

Maybe it is wise to suggest, we should first understand if we are “marketing ourselves to the world independently” or not, on an App, before we ask if we are “plying for hire” on the App.
To do this we would need to support Chris in his employment tribunal case against MyTaxi.


If Chris wins, drivers using the app will be entitled to basic protections such as National Minimum Wage, paid annual leave and protection under anti-discrimination legislation. Given the increasing market dominance of these Apps, these are important rights, and winning may well stop Apps like MyTaxi illegitimately undercutting individuals who are genuinely operating on their own account.
If Chris loses, we are potentially plying for hire on the App, and MyTaxi would not be able to offer Private Hire on the app.
Maybe the employment argument also supports anyone trying to obtain a declaration of plying for hire.

If we fail to support an employment tribunal case against MyTaxi, then corporate apps will eat us alive, especially when the Taxi fleet is reduced because more diesel cabs are coming off the road than can be replaced by electric alternatives, coupled with very few Knowledge students - what happens when MyTaxi have more demand than supply?
Would they put minicabs on the App to meet demand? We have seen that scenario before.
These are loopholes we must close to protect our future.

Assurances from Mr McNamara and friends have landed us where we are today, please don’t let us walk blindly into oblivion.

Be lucky,
Fred C. Dobbs

Wednesday, 27 June 2018



Most of us are unsurprised by the verdict, but remain confounded as to how.

We hoped justice would prevail, but deep down, with meetings between Dara and Mike going on in secret, and Transport for London ominously pronouncing that Uber has met 'some' of their requirements, in the lead up to this short and sweet case, we knew an arrangement had been made.

Let us not forget that TfL and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan were forced into this situation by the hard graft of Chris Johnson, Danny O’Regan and a few others who blew the Bellany emails into the public domain.

Sadiq Khan does not want to be remembered for being the man who got rid of Uber.
Never mind his broken promises and embarrassing climb downs, or his selfie obsession. He knows if he is seen as the man who beat Uber, the Establishment would ruin him.

TfL cannot stab their partners-in-crime in the back. Uber know where all the bodies are buried.
Why do you think TfL never ‘revoked’ Uber’s license?
Why do you think TfL never questioned Uber’s modus operandi?

If there was not so much interest in this case, TfL and Uber would have come to pre-trial agreement.
Mike Brown had been testing the water for months.
In the end the two partners were forced into a face off in public.
What we got was a case which was contested about as hard as the infamous ‘Black Sox’ game.
Uber’s license appeal case was reminiscent of the ‘Meter’ case, in which Jo Bertram perjured herself and TfL failed to hide their disinterest.

Although Judge Emma Arbuthnot did seem to suffer from an attention deficiency disorder at crucial moments in the trial, I believe her decision was made easy by TfL's compliance to Uber's suggestion of a temporary license.

We can look into Judge Arbuthnot's husband and his links with SC Strategy Limited, who are linked to the Qatar Investment Authority, who invested the best part of £2 billion into Uber.
But show me a Tory who is not directly or indirectly linked to investors in Uber, and I will show you an honest Uber executive.
Even our Prime Minister and her unctuous predecessor have links with Uber.

Uber’s General Manager, Tom Eldridge admitted that Uber has traded illegally since 2012.
On three previous occasions Uber have admitted in court that their app puts the prospective passenger in direct contact with a driver. And that the driver, not the Operator, accepts the job.
None of Uber’s drivers hold an Operator’s License.
This in itself makes every job accepted by an Uber driver illegal. Two million illegal jobs a week that should have been accepted by Taxi drivers only.

Of those two million jobs stolen every week from Taxi drivers, none of them were insured, because of their illegal status.
Will the insurance industry be claiming their money back from claimants?
I doubt it. They will just up our premiums.

Let’s finish with a quote from my ol’ mate George Carlin:

“There’s a reason education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, ever be fixed.

It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you’ve got.

Because the Owners, the Owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real Owners now, the big Owners! The Wealthy - the real Owners! The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions.

Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have Owners! They own you!
They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls!

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying to get what they want.
Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don’t want:

They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests.

That’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard thirty fucking years ago. They don’t want that!

You know what they want? They want obedient workers.
Obedient workers; people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later because they own this fucking place!
It's a big club, and you ain’t in it!  You, and I, are not in the big club.

By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe.
All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy.
The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.
Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what colour shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cock suckers who don’t give a fuck about you….they don’t give a fuck about you… they don’t give a fuck about you!

They don’t care about you at all… at all… at all!  And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain wilfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth.

It's called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

Sound familiar?

Be lucky!

Wednesday, 10 January 2018



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.

Monday, 1 January 2018



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:

However, the climate has changed and now all sorts of criminality is taken into account; see para 11.27 of the s.182 Guidance:

And see Hanif v East Lindsey:

(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.


by Chris Johnson

Editor's note:
Will this email to Mike Brown, ever receive a reply?