Former Director of TfLTPH John Mason, took to Twitter late on Friday night, to give his few remaining Taxi driver followers, his take on the Uber appeal division and the verdict of judge Emma Arbuthnot.
In a series of eight tweets John said:
Without wanting to poke the bears that are my last London taxi driver followers, at the end of this week I would put forward the following:
The decision this week was not about whether #Uber should have been licensed.
I read all the skeleton arguments and supporting evidence and I personally feel that TFL put up a strong justification for their action. Given #Uber agreed that the decision was correct then the Magistrate seemed to only have to decide whether #uber were fit and proper now.
I could be wrong of may have missed it but given the speed it looks like those conditions were provisionally agreed between TFL and #Uber if the Magistrate was minded to issue a licence.
I thought Helen was robust and TFL Counsel Martin Chamberlin (Chamberlain) was very good. He led the Add Lee Bus Lane action and was very good from my experience.
I do agree with a lot of the irate taxi drivers and indeed PHV operators that are on Twitter that this decision is inconsistent. I agree that smaller operators and individuals would not get such an easy ride if they admitted what #uber had.
I know a lot of cabbies that may end up reading this may still feel aggrieved that they were licensed in the first place. I maintain they were licensed as the met the conditions of licensing at the time.
I struggle to see what legal action the UCG or any other Org can take that may have any chance of success but I’m not party to info and advice they have.
In conclusion, based on what they admitted they did and what TFL started they did, I am surprised. I don’t buy into the whole Chumoracy (chumocracy) stuff but in this day and age who know?! Maybe it was the Russians?
We've posted Johns tweets as they appeared on tweeter, we didn't edit spellings as we didn't want to be accused of changing his words.
TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT FROM JOHN REID:
So what you are saying now is that the court was only interested in the now time as to whether UBER were fit and proper?
So all the years you spent working in the P.C.O and T.F.L you or your department did not refuse a license to anybody who had a criminal record as all you were interested in was the now time, not the past at all.
So that would mean that Mr. Perry can have his license back when he comes out of prison, because T.F.L are only interested in now time and not what happened in the past?
Please forgive me if like so many other taxi drivers I have missed your point, but I see UBER as murdering, rapping, lying thieves, that sexual assault women and ruin there lives ...but then I’m just a common taxi driver who knows no better.
4 comments:
Well Mr Mason
You obviously did not hear Mr Elvidge say that Uber app was illegal at the time they were issued with their license so how did that meet with the original criteria to obtain their license per haps you did not do your job properly
To consider somebody is fit and proper to run taxi company you should look around the world and the country not just London there is plenty of Proof
I think perhaps, this is just the beginning of your troubles. Your donkey mates will hold your head under.
It’s a pleasure to watch!.
I think perhaps, this is just the beginning of your troubles. Your donkey mates will hold your head under.
It’s a pleasure to watch!.
Post a Comment