Taxi drivers cancel strike threat as Southampton City Council agree to demands

Taxi drivers cancel strike threat as council agree to demands

Taxi drivers cancel strike threat as council agree to demands

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

THE threat of strike action by Southampton cabbies has been averted.

Angry taxi drivers had threatened to blockade the city centre and take legal action if city council chiefs ploughed ahead with a controversial reversal of their policy.

But yesterday the council’s licensing committee voted against reducing the lifespan of Southampton taxis by two years.

The committee had only voted in September to extend the lifespan of cabs to nine years, or 12 if they are wheelchair adapted, to give hard-pressed members of the trade some financial respite.

But city council leader Simon Letts had brought it back before the committee after Associated British Ports, the Southampton Hoteliers Association and Destination Southampton wrote to the council.

They expressed their “concern” at the committee’s decision in September, saying older vehicles would affect the image of the city, while there were also concerns that older vehicles could lead to more emissions.

But after cabbies argued their case at the meeting yesterday, the committee unanimously voted to reject council officers’ recommendations to reduce the lifespan back to the original levels of seven and ten years.

Committee member Don Thomas said it was only back before them due to “lobbying”, while colleague Beryl Harris summed up the panel’s feelings when she said: “We are elected councillors and we made a decision through the democratic process, so why should that be overturned by three letters?”

Some taxi drivers had said they would “bring the city to a standstill” and take legal action if the change had gone through, but the committee’s decision has now averted any action.

Cabbies were left disappointed during a chaotic meeting after the committee voted to withdraw a subsidy, meaning they would only have to pay £250 for the cost of taxicams.

The subsidy was introduced alongside the cameras, which are compulsory for all drivers, back in 2009.

But from September drivers and proprietors must foot the entire bill of more than £700 to fit the cameras as the council looks to cut costs.

Some councillors were unhappy that they were not presented with the option of making cameras voluntary after the subsidy ends.

Members of the trade had appealed to the council to keep the subsidy, arguing that it was “unfair” to force them to keep the cameras without any financial help.

The council is now set to write to Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Hayes in a bid to get some funding to subsidise the cameras.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:11am Wed 9 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

Good news, common sense prevailed.
Good news, common sense prevailed. bigfella777
  • Score: 5

6:15am Wed 9 Apr 14

loosehead says...

Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money. loosehead
  • Score: -2

6:37am Wed 9 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
Were those people ever caught? Yes cameras provide evidence but they Dont stop the crime from happening to start with like the cabby who was robbed in Millbrook last month.
The cameras that are fitted are a certain make specified by the council which is why they are so dear. There are much cheaper systems on the market and as the sound recording had been disallowed now you should be able to fit any system providing it has 7 day recording.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]Were those people ever caught? Yes cameras provide evidence but they Dont stop the crime from happening to start with like the cabby who was robbed in Millbrook last month. The cameras that are fitted are a certain make specified by the council which is why they are so dear. There are much cheaper systems on the market and as the sound recording had been disallowed now you should be able to fit any system providing it has 7 day recording. bigfella777
  • Score: 7

7:05am Wed 9 Apr 14

aldermoorboy says...

shambles
shambles aldermoorboy
  • Score: -4

7:31am Wed 9 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 2

11:43am Wed 9 Apr 14

loosehead says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
so you think it's an invasion of privacy? so a young lady in a cab wouldn't feel more secure & safe if she knew the camera was recording her trip?
My niece said she used to get a free ride home every week from any taxi cab?
I know taxi drivers & no way would she get free trips home every week.
So I guess these cameras stop some drivers getting the payment for the journey then?
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]so you think it's an invasion of privacy? so a young lady in a cab wouldn't feel more secure & safe if she knew the camera was recording her trip? My niece said she used to get a free ride home every week from any taxi cab? I know taxi drivers & no way would she get free trips home every week. So I guess these cameras stop some drivers getting the payment for the journey then? loosehead
  • Score: 1

12:48pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Outside of the Box says...

So the cabbies have decided that Cllr Rayment is doing a great job of gridlocking the city on her own.

Well Done Perry
So the cabbies have decided that Cllr Rayment is doing a great job of gridlocking the city on her own. Well Done Perry Outside of the Box
  • Score: 1

1:00pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

loosehead wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
so you think it's an invasion of privacy? so a young lady in a cab wouldn't feel more secure & safe if she knew the camera was recording her trip?
My niece said she used to get a free ride home every week from any taxi cab?
I know taxi drivers & no way would she get free trips home every week.
So I guess these cameras stop some drivers getting the payment for the journey then?
I really don't understand how it can be construed as anything BUT an invasion of privacy.

Whether a particular individual would feel safer or not is another matter, it is still an invasion of privacy. It's a question of whether we feel the tradeoff is worth it. I personally don't, you clearly feel otherwise. But I really don't see how this isn't an invasion of privacy. I'd feel safer if we had a camera in your house so I can feel safer that you aren't plotting to axe murder me in my sleep. Is this an invasion of privacy?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]so you think it's an invasion of privacy? so a young lady in a cab wouldn't feel more secure & safe if she knew the camera was recording her trip? My niece said she used to get a free ride home every week from any taxi cab? I know taxi drivers & no way would she get free trips home every week. So I guess these cameras stop some drivers getting the payment for the journey then?[/p][/quote]I really don't understand how it can be construed as anything BUT an invasion of privacy. Whether a particular individual would feel safer or not is another matter, it is still an invasion of privacy. It's a question of whether we feel the tradeoff is worth it. I personally don't, you clearly feel otherwise. But I really don't see how this isn't an invasion of privacy. I'd feel safer if we had a camera in your house so I can feel safer that you aren't plotting to axe murder me in my sleep. Is this an invasion of privacy? Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 2

1:07pm Wed 9 Apr 14

at_123 says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling!
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling! at_123
  • Score: 5

1:31pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

at_123 wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling!
Err, we use public restrooms all the time in the presence of strangers. We'd still consider it an invasion of privacy if there was a camera on the wall. I would, anyway. Little Richard might disagree.

I'm not even going to bother addressing your deliberate attempt to twist my words regarding racism, beyond telling you that if you have to resort to those sorts of rhetorical gambits, your point is very weak.
[quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling![/p][/quote]Err, we use public restrooms all the time in the presence of strangers. We'd still consider it an invasion of privacy if there was a camera on the wall. I would, anyway. Little Richard might disagree. I'm not even going to bother addressing your deliberate attempt to twist my words regarding racism, beyond telling you that if you have to resort to those sorts of rhetorical gambits, your point is very weak. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Wed 9 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

at_123 wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling!
Whose car is it then, what if you are using your cab in your free time should your private life be recorded as well?
[quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling![/p][/quote]Whose car is it then, what if you are using your cab in your free time should your private life be recorded as well? bigfella777
  • Score: 2

2:00pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
shambles
No ....... you must have made a mistake. You should have posted this comment on the Maria Miller story ...... you know ..... one of those wonderful Tories that you praise so much
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: shambles[/p][/quote]No ....... you must have made a mistake. You should have posted this comment on the Maria Miller story ...... you know ..... one of those wonderful Tories that you praise so much Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Wed 9 Apr 14

at_123 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
at_123 wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling!
Whose car is it then, what if you are using your cab in your free time should your private life be recorded as well?
I think were's talking about the passengers here - presumably the driver switches off the camera when he's not working
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling![/p][/quote]Whose car is it then, what if you are using your cab in your free time should your private life be recorded as well?[/p][/quote]I think were's talking about the passengers here - presumably the driver switches off the camera when he's not working at_123
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Wed 9 Apr 14

at_123 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
at_123 wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling!
Whose car is it then, what if you are using your cab in your free time should your private life be recorded as well?
surely the discussion is about the 'privacy' of passengers not drivers who I assume switch the cameras off when not working - now if they were required to keep them on then, it would be an invasion of privacy
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling![/p][/quote]Whose car is it then, what if you are using your cab in your free time should your private life be recorded as well?[/p][/quote]surely the discussion is about the 'privacy' of passengers not drivers who I assume switch the cameras off when not working - now if they were required to keep them on then, it would be an invasion of privacy at_123
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Wed 9 Apr 14

at_123 says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
at_123 wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling!
Err, we use public restrooms all the time in the presence of strangers. We'd still consider it an invasion of privacy if there was a camera on the wall. I would, anyway. Little Richard might disagree.

I'm not even going to bother addressing your deliberate attempt to twist my words regarding racism, beyond telling you that if you have to resort to those sorts of rhetorical gambits, your point is very weak.
you're the one who said racial abuse is just another form of name calling - which seems to be to be a rather weak point.
Re cameras - so our privacy is invaded every time we go into a bank, supermarket, go into an office block - think that's more analogous to cameras in a cab as they are places of work and people at work have the right to be protected from all the nutters out there
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling![/p][/quote]Err, we use public restrooms all the time in the presence of strangers. We'd still consider it an invasion of privacy if there was a camera on the wall. I would, anyway. Little Richard might disagree. I'm not even going to bother addressing your deliberate attempt to twist my words regarding racism, beyond telling you that if you have to resort to those sorts of rhetorical gambits, your point is very weak.[/p][/quote]you're the one who said racial abuse is just another form of name calling - which seems to be to be a rather weak point. Re cameras - so our privacy is invaded every time we go into a bank, supermarket, go into an office block - think that's more analogous to cameras in a cab as they are places of work and people at work have the right to be protected from all the nutters out there at_123
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

at_123 wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
at_123 wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling!
Err, we use public restrooms all the time in the presence of strangers. We'd still consider it an invasion of privacy if there was a camera on the wall. I would, anyway. Little Richard might disagree.

I'm not even going to bother addressing your deliberate attempt to twist my words regarding racism, beyond telling you that if you have to resort to those sorts of rhetorical gambits, your point is very weak.
you're the one who said racial abuse is just another form of name calling - which seems to be to be a rather weak point.
Re cameras - so our privacy is invaded every time we go into a bank, supermarket, go into an office block - think that's more analogous to cameras in a cab as they are places of work and people at work have the right to be protected from all the nutters out there
What nutters?
[quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling![/p][/quote]Err, we use public restrooms all the time in the presence of strangers. We'd still consider it an invasion of privacy if there was a camera on the wall. I would, anyway. Little Richard might disagree. I'm not even going to bother addressing your deliberate attempt to twist my words regarding racism, beyond telling you that if you have to resort to those sorts of rhetorical gambits, your point is very weak.[/p][/quote]you're the one who said racial abuse is just another form of name calling - which seems to be to be a rather weak point. Re cameras - so our privacy is invaded every time we go into a bank, supermarket, go into an office block - think that's more analogous to cameras in a cab as they are places of work and people at work have the right to be protected from all the nutters out there[/p][/quote]What nutters? Charlie Bucket
  • Score: -1

3:50pm Wed 9 Apr 14

george h says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
at_123 wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
at_123 wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling!
Err, we use public restrooms all the time in the presence of strangers. We'd still consider it an invasion of privacy if there was a camera on the wall. I would, anyway. Little Richard might disagree.

I'm not even going to bother addressing your deliberate attempt to twist my words regarding racism, beyond telling you that if you have to resort to those sorts of rhetorical gambits, your point is very weak.
you're the one who said racial abuse is just another form of name calling - which seems to be to be a rather weak point.
Re cameras - so our privacy is invaded every time we go into a bank, supermarket, go into an office block - think that's more analogous to cameras in a cab as they are places of work and people at work have the right to be protected from all the nutters out there
What nutters?
What nutters?

The passengers of course, silly!

The passengers should have a union to protect their interests. Not just protection against drivers who don't know the area, but protection from local businesses like ABP, the hoteliers and the tourism development company who fondly imagine that to assist their own interests the taxi punters should pay more in fares to fund taxi renewal more often Rip-Off Britain is alive and well and in Southampton.

It has clearly missed the attention of Nu-Labour's very middle-class Cllr Simon Letts that he is elected, yes elected ..... not by ABP etc, but by the people of Southampton to represent their interests. Not the interests of local business bigwigs. About time there was another clearout at the Civic Centre, and we'll get a shot at that ourselves in May.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling![/p][/quote]Err, we use public restrooms all the time in the presence of strangers. We'd still consider it an invasion of privacy if there was a camera on the wall. I would, anyway. Little Richard might disagree. I'm not even going to bother addressing your deliberate attempt to twist my words regarding racism, beyond telling you that if you have to resort to those sorts of rhetorical gambits, your point is very weak.[/p][/quote]you're the one who said racial abuse is just another form of name calling - which seems to be to be a rather weak point. Re cameras - so our privacy is invaded every time we go into a bank, supermarket, go into an office block - think that's more analogous to cameras in a cab as they are places of work and people at work have the right to be protected from all the nutters out there[/p][/quote]What nutters?[/p][/quote]What nutters? The passengers of course, silly! The passengers should have a union to protect their interests. Not just protection against drivers who don't know the area, but protection from local businesses like ABP, the hoteliers and the tourism development company who fondly imagine that to assist their own interests the taxi punters should pay more in fares to fund taxi renewal more often Rip-Off Britain is alive and well and in Southampton. It has clearly missed the attention of Nu-Labour's very middle-class Cllr Simon Letts that he is elected, yes elected ..... not by ABP etc, but by the people of Southampton to represent their interests. Not the interests of local business bigwigs. About time there was another clearout at the Civic Centre, and we'll get a shot at that ourselves in May. george h
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Wed 9 Apr 14

loosehead says...

bigfella777 wrote:
at_123 wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling!
Whose car is it then, what if you are using your cab in your free time should your private life be recorded as well?
many cabs are used by more than one driver so wouldn't you want to know what the other driver gets up to in your cab?
Taking sex for payment is illegal but I know through taxi drivers this goes on so all this rubbish about privacy is exactly that rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling![/p][/quote]Whose car is it then, what if you are using your cab in your free time should your private life be recorded as well?[/p][/quote]many cabs are used by more than one driver so wouldn't you want to know what the other driver gets up to in your cab? Taking sex for payment is illegal but I know through taxi drivers this goes on so all this rubbish about privacy is exactly that rubbish. loosehead
  • Score: -1

4:01pm Wed 9 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

at_123 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
at_123 wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then?
So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise?
If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.
I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.
How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling!
Whose car is it then, what if you are using your cab in your free time should your private life be recorded as well?
surely the discussion is about the 'privacy' of passengers not drivers who I assume switch the cameras off when not working - now if they were required to keep them on then, it would be an invasion of privacy
You can't turn it off that's the whole point, its fitted and sealed. The only people who can access it are the police.
[quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]at_123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Unfair to keep the cameras? so the fact that those cameras helped identify the people who had a verbal racial attack on a driver doesn't warrant them being there then? So if we don't want to pay the 1.9% council tax increase we all should cancel our direct debit get into our cars block off all roads in the city centre & we'd reverse the rise? If a car/taxi is kept in tip top condition the age shouldn't matter but if I was a driver & the new cars could say do double the miles per gallon I'd up date as soon as it became clear I'd save a lot of money.[/p][/quote]I would have to say that no, that incident does not warrant the invasion of privacy. A verbal racial attack, whilst not exactly pleasant, is really just another term for name-calling. I don't see that invading everybody's privacy is a reasonable way to curb name-calling.[/p][/quote]How can you have an expectation of privacy when a complete stranger is in the car with you? plus its not your car anyway. As for saying racial abuse is the same as name calling is nonsense - presumably you'd have no problem going back to the days at football grounds when black players faced being jeered at with monkey noises etc and are quite happy to see our black players racially abused in countries like Croatia and Spain - after all its just name calling![/p][/quote]Whose car is it then, what if you are using your cab in your free time should your private life be recorded as well?[/p][/quote]surely the discussion is about the 'privacy' of passengers not drivers who I assume switch the cameras off when not working - now if they were required to keep them on then, it would be an invasion of privacy[/p][/quote]You can't turn it off that's the whole point, its fitted and sealed. The only people who can access it are the police. bigfella777
  • Score: 1

5:42pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Ronnie G says...

I don't feel these cameras should be forced on drivers.
I doubt our councillors would be happy if it were forced upon them to have every single council meeting filmed...
I don't feel these cameras should be forced on drivers. I doubt our councillors would be happy if it were forced upon them to have every single council meeting filmed... Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

5:54pm Wed 9 Apr 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
I don't feel these cameras should be forced on drivers.
I doubt our councillors would be happy if it were forced upon them to have every single council meeting filmed...
ronnie why are these drivers so scared about the police seeing what they do in the taxis?
maybe link the cameras into the meter but then the drivers could turn off the meters so who knows what illegal activity they would then get up to?
maybe make it like America where the cabs are owned by the company not the drivers & they would not be able to use the cabs on family matters could be a solution?
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: I don't feel these cameras should be forced on drivers. I doubt our councillors would be happy if it were forced upon them to have every single council meeting filmed...[/p][/quote]ronnie why are these drivers so scared about the police seeing what they do in the taxis? maybe link the cameras into the meter but then the drivers could turn off the meters so who knows what illegal activity they would then get up to? maybe make it like America where the cabs are owned by the company not the drivers & they would not be able to use the cabs on family matters could be a solution? loosehead
  • Score: -1

8:34pm Wed 9 Apr 14

george h says...

This report was never about cameras or privacy. That's another issue for another day.

What provoked the driver's strike threat was ABP, hoteliers and tourism development trying to twist the arms of Councillors into reducing the life of taxis. The cost of that to be met by taxi drivers and the punters.

The Licencing Committee very properly said NO.

The committee at least, unlike Cllr Simon Letts, understood that the paying passengers are largely the hard-working people of the city, and not just visitors and tourists. Letts, got a bit above himself in caving in to the demands of the directors of those businesses; probably none of whom reside in Southampton.
This report was never about cameras or privacy. That's another issue for another day. What provoked the driver's strike threat was ABP, hoteliers and tourism development trying to twist the arms of Councillors into reducing the life of taxis. The cost of that to be met by taxi drivers and the punters. The Licencing Committee very properly said NO. The committee at least, unlike Cllr Simon Letts, understood that the paying passengers are largely the hard-working people of the city, and not just visitors and tourists. Letts, got a bit above himself in caving in to the demands of the directors of those businesses; probably none of whom reside in Southampton. george h
  • Score: 3

10:46pm Wed 9 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

george h wrote:
This report was never about cameras or privacy. That's another issue for another day.

What provoked the driver's strike threat was ABP, hoteliers and tourism development trying to twist the arms of Councillors into reducing the life of taxis. The cost of that to be met by taxi drivers and the punters.

The Licencing Committee very properly said NO.

The committee at least, unlike Cllr Simon Letts, understood that the paying passengers are largely the hard-working people of the city, and not just visitors and tourists. Letts, got a bit above himself in caving in to the demands of the directors of those businesses; probably none of whom reside in Southampton.
Or the director of West Quay Cars who has contracts with those companies? Its funny that isn't it.
[quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: This report was never about cameras or privacy. That's another issue for another day. What provoked the driver's strike threat was ABP, hoteliers and tourism development trying to twist the arms of Councillors into reducing the life of taxis. The cost of that to be met by taxi drivers and the punters. The Licencing Committee very properly said NO. The committee at least, unlike Cllr Simon Letts, understood that the paying passengers are largely the hard-working people of the city, and not just visitors and tourists. Letts, got a bit above himself in caving in to the demands of the directors of those businesses; probably none of whom reside in Southampton.[/p][/quote]Or the director of West Quay Cars who has contracts with those companies? Its funny that isn't it. bigfella777
  • Score: 2

7:42am Thu 10 Apr 14

loosehead says...

george h wrote:
This report was never about cameras or privacy. That's another issue for another day.

What provoked the driver's strike threat was ABP, hoteliers and tourism development trying to twist the arms of Councillors into reducing the life of taxis. The cost of that to be met by taxi drivers and the punters.

The Licencing Committee very properly said NO.

The committee at least, unlike Cllr Simon Letts, understood that the paying passengers are largely the hard-working people of the city, and not just visitors and tourists. Letts, got a bit above himself in caving in to the demands of the directors of those businesses; probably none of whom reside in Southampton.
from articles I've read in the past West Quay cabs aren't the good guys but more like the bullies.
I've seen at the coach station two Taxi Drivers setting to a car driver for parking to pick up family & the taxi's wanted to park there Police were called & the driver needed medical help.
this all happened in a drop off pick up point that those drivers took over as a their own taxi rank.
[quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: This report was never about cameras or privacy. That's another issue for another day. What provoked the driver's strike threat was ABP, hoteliers and tourism development trying to twist the arms of Councillors into reducing the life of taxis. The cost of that to be met by taxi drivers and the punters. The Licencing Committee very properly said NO. The committee at least, unlike Cllr Simon Letts, understood that the paying passengers are largely the hard-working people of the city, and not just visitors and tourists. Letts, got a bit above himself in caving in to the demands of the directors of those businesses; probably none of whom reside in Southampton.[/p][/quote]from articles I've read in the past West Quay cabs aren't the good guys but more like the bullies. I've seen at the coach station two Taxi Drivers setting to a car driver for parking to pick up family & the taxi's wanted to park there Police were called & the driver needed medical help. this all happened in a drop off pick up point that those drivers took over as a their own taxi rank. loosehead
  • Score: 1

8:57am Thu 10 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
I don't feel these cameras should be forced on drivers.
I doubt our councillors would be happy if it were forced upon them to have every single council meeting filmed...
ronnie why are these drivers so scared about the police seeing what they do in the taxis?
maybe link the cameras into the meter but then the drivers could turn off the meters so who knows what illegal activity they would then get up to?
maybe make it like America where the cabs are owned by the company not the drivers & they would not be able to use the cabs on family matters could be a solution?
Why does the wish for privacy automatically indicate dishonesty? This is the big fallacy that's being leveraged to erode our freedoms.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: I don't feel these cameras should be forced on drivers. I doubt our councillors would be happy if it were forced upon them to have every single council meeting filmed...[/p][/quote]ronnie why are these drivers so scared about the police seeing what they do in the taxis? maybe link the cameras into the meter but then the drivers could turn off the meters so who knows what illegal activity they would then get up to? maybe make it like America where the cabs are owned by the company not the drivers & they would not be able to use the cabs on family matters could be a solution?[/p][/quote]Why does the wish for privacy automatically indicate dishonesty? This is the big fallacy that's being leveraged to erode our freedoms. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 3

9:40am Thu 10 Apr 14

george h says...

"Why does the wish for privacy automatically indicate dishonesty? This is the big fallacy that's being leveraged to erode our freedoms."

Spot on Charlie.

The ones who chant the mantra "Nothing to fear, nothing to hide" have a lot to answer for. The freedoms we had in the long gone country I was proud to be born into are mostly gone with the apologists for more police, and ever more security mostly to blame. CCTV spreading like a rash. No longer is travel very pleasant. Everywhere, the little Hitlers popping up like weeds in a garden.
"Why does the wish for privacy automatically indicate dishonesty? This is the big fallacy that's being leveraged to erode our freedoms." Spot on Charlie. The ones who chant the mantra "Nothing to fear, nothing to hide" have a lot to answer for. The freedoms we had in the long gone country I was proud to be born into are mostly gone with the apologists for more police, and ever more security mostly to blame. CCTV spreading like a rash. No longer is travel very pleasant. Everywhere, the little Hitlers popping up like weeds in a garden. george h
  • Score: 0

8:36am Sat 12 Apr 14

Datarater says...

Labour sells out to its Unite paymasters again.
Labour sells out to its Unite paymasters again. Datarater
  • Score: 0

9:09am Sat 12 Apr 14

george h says...

Datarater wrote:
Labour sells out to its Unite paymasters again.
A little ridiculous Datarater, when it's the very opposite.

Whatever our views on the Labour Party; and I'd wager mine are not much different to yours, this was an attempted sellout by Simon Letts to ABP, the big hotel businesses, the tourism development company and I'd wager one of the bigger taxi companies.

It's a well trodden path with big business. First try to raise already adequate standards that impose costs on every small business and sole traders and the customer.

Secondly, big business, with their economies of scale have a greater ability and financial stability to withstand short-term losses. Their smaller competitors and sole traders suffer most and many go out of business.

Finally, the bigger taxi companies with a cosy relationship to ABP, cruise companies, hoteliers etc then capture more of the market and prices to the customer rise to cover their earlier losses. Worth it though to drive competitors out of business.

It's an old trick, and that braincell-free-zone Simon Letts fell for it. Nothing to do with Unison; and if it were, Unison would in this case be protecting the interests of the consumer, taxi passengers, who are by no means only visitors or tourists.
[quote][p][bold]Datarater[/bold] wrote: Labour sells out to its Unite paymasters again.[/p][/quote]A little ridiculous Datarater, when it's the very opposite. Whatever our views on the Labour Party; and I'd wager mine are not much different to yours, this was an attempted sellout by Simon Letts to ABP, the big hotel businesses, the tourism development company and I'd wager one of the bigger taxi companies. It's a well trodden path with big business. First try to raise already adequate standards that impose costs on every small business and sole traders and the customer. Secondly, big business, with their economies of scale have a greater ability and financial stability to withstand short-term losses. Their smaller competitors and sole traders suffer most and many go out of business. Finally, the bigger taxi companies with a cosy relationship to ABP, cruise companies, hoteliers etc then capture more of the market and prices to the customer rise to cover their earlier losses. Worth it though to drive competitors out of business. It's an old trick, and that braincell-free-zone Simon Letts fell for it. Nothing to do with Unison; and if it were, Unison would in this case be protecting the interests of the consumer, taxi passengers, who are by no means only visitors or tourists. george h
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Sat 12 Apr 14

loosehead says...

As I've nothing to hide I've not broken any laws I'm not scared of ID cards & if part of my job was having a camera running watching me so be it as many workers already have that in one form or another.
Make it so no taxi is owned by the driver & they can only use them whilst working & there would be no problem on privacy would there?
As I've nothing to hide I've not broken any laws I'm not scared of ID cards & if part of my job was having a camera running watching me so be it as many workers already have that in one form or another. Make it so no taxi is owned by the driver & they can only use them whilst working & there would be no problem on privacy would there? loosehead
  • Score: 0

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