Judge backs taxi boss in dispute over ‘spy’ cameras in Southampton

LEGAL FIGHT: Taxi boss Kevin May

LEGAL FIGHT: Taxi boss Kevin May

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

A TAXI boss has won his test case against “big brother” spy cameras in cabs.

Kevin May triumphed in his legal battle against Southampton City Council’s requirement to fit digital security cameras that record images and conversations in his taxis.

It could pave the way for around 300 other Hackney carriage and private hire taxis with the cameras already fitted to follow suit, while more than 400 who are yet to install the devices might not need to.

Southampton City Council has vowed to appeal, saying cameras ensure higher safety levels for both passengers and drivers.

Mr May, the city’s largest taxi owner and a director of the biggest firm Radio Taxis, argued the licensing rule breached Article 8 of Human Rights Act.

He said this was because the compulsory CCTV surveillance invaded both the driver and the passenger’s right to privacy.

In 2009 the city council became one of the first councils in England bring in a compulsory requirement for cameras in cabs.

Cabbies cannot switch off the cameras, which cost £700 to install, even when they are using them for family or personal reasons.

But district judge Anthony Callaway ruled the CCTV policy showed “insufficient regard to the respective rights of both passengers and drivers”.

And while he said cameras could curb crime, this alone did not show “pressing social need” for them.

Mr May, who said he has spent £15,000 of his own money in his two-year legal battle, said the verdict was “absolutely correct”.

He said: “There is no consideration whatsoever for the driver or the public’s privacy.

“Big brother is always watching and never switches off. I think there is no difference in them installing them in taxis and their council houses.

“I have nothing against cameras but it should be the driver’s choice.”

Southampton Trade Association chairman Clive Johnson said: “I am very pleased that it has been realised that this is an encroachment on human rights.”

Ian Hall, chairman of the Southampton Hackney Association said: “Cameras are a good idea as a deterrent, particularly at night. Whether the camera should be compulsory is another matter.”

During the court hearing the city council insisted there was an overriding public protection issue in having the cameras.

The court was told that in 2008 and 2009 alone there were seven alleged sexual assaults in taxis in the city.

Peter Savill, representing the city council, said: “It is the council’s duty to protect people. The passenger has the right not to be sexually assaulted.

“When you buy the taxi and licence you submit to a regulatory regime.

“Once a vehicle is licensed as a Hackney carriage it’s always a Hackney carriage.”

In evidence, the council said it had downloaded 32 “incidents” from the cameras – averaging fewer than once a month – after crime reports to the police.

Speaking after the ruling, city council licensing manager Richard Black said: “We introduced this scheme in 2009 in a bid to make journeys in all licensed vehicles safer for both drivers and passengers.

“The cameras act as good deterrent. The footage from the cameras can only be accessed by the council or the police if an allegation is made. It can then be used as evidence to help bring people to justice if a crime has been committed.”

Hampshire Police, meanwhile, said the footage from the CCTV cameras helped in deterring and solving crimes and would be backing the council’s appeal.

Inspector Phil Bates, of the Violent Crime and Licensing Southampton, said: “The council have put in place effective management of the system to ensure data is only used when a matter is being investigated.”

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:12pm Fri 22 Apr 11

sotonbusdriver says...

Bus drivers have had compulsory CCTV fitted in the buses, which covers both passengers, and the operation of ticket machine and money handling by the drivers too.
There was no option for bus drivers to refuse to accept the issues, so I see no reason either for Taxi drivers to have any other outcome to this silly legal case.
The only reason they could have to object is because they are fiddling money and passenger rides in their favour and don't want to get caught doing so.
Bus drivers have had compulsory CCTV fitted in the buses, which covers both passengers, and the operation of ticket machine and money handling by the drivers too. There was no option for bus drivers to refuse to accept the issues, so I see no reason either for Taxi drivers to have any other outcome to this silly legal case. The only reason they could have to object is because they are fiddling money and passenger rides in their favour and don't want to get caught doing so. sotonbusdriver
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Fri 22 Apr 11

Condor Man says...

Let's hope his drivers obey the laws then.
Let's hope his drivers obey the laws then. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Fri 22 Apr 11

Scrutinizer says...

I see your point, though I wouldn't personally like to necessarly go along with you with regard to the "fiddling money" and "passenger rides" suggestion. But anyway, do you agree with me that it's way over the top to have conversations recorded too, even assuming that they are audible in the first place? Surely that really is a step too far?
I see your point, though I wouldn't personally like to necessarly go along with you with regard to the "fiddling money" and "passenger rides" suggestion. But anyway, do you agree with me that it's way over the top to have conversations recorded too, even assuming that they are audible in the first place? Surely that really is a step too far? Scrutinizer
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Fri 22 Apr 11

Scrutinizer says...

Scrutinizer wrote:
I see your point, though I wouldn't personally like to necessarly go along with you with regard to the "fiddling money" and "passenger rides" suggestion. But anyway, do you agree with me that it's way over the top to have conversations recorded too, even assuming that they are audible in the first place? Surely that really is a step too far?
Sorry, my QUOTE facility is still not working properly on here. I was responding to sotonbusdriver's comment on here at 4:12 pm Fri 22.
[quote][p][bold]Scrutinizer[/bold] wrote: I see your point, though I wouldn't personally like to necessarly go along with you with regard to the "fiddling money" and "passenger rides" suggestion. But anyway, do you agree with me that it's way over the top to have conversations recorded too, even assuming that they are audible in the first place? Surely that really is a step too far?[/p][/quote]Sorry, my QUOTE facility is still not working properly on here. I was responding to sotonbusdriver's comment on here at 4:12 pm Fri 22. Scrutinizer
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Fri 22 Apr 11

SotonLad says...

If cabs don't want cameras then that's their choice, but don't go whining to the police when someone assaults the driver or runs off without paying.
If cabs don't want cameras then that's their choice, but don't go whining to the police when someone assaults the driver or runs off without paying. SotonLad
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Fri 22 Apr 11

IronLady2010 says...

Well, I will give Radio Taxi a miss from now on. Surely CCTV protects both passenger and driver considering the data is subject to Privacy Law.

I would feel safer knowing that my husband/wife is travelling in a car where the driver can't make an advance (which happens) or even where a robbery is taken place.

What does Mr May have to hide?

Alongside this can I just add that radio Taxi's were helping prostitutes in homes around the City, maybe this is a reason? Yes I can back this up, the Vice squad know exactly what I mean!
Well, I will give Radio Taxi a miss from now on. Surely CCTV protects both passenger and driver considering the data is subject to Privacy Law. I would feel safer knowing that my husband/wife is travelling in a car where the driver can't make an advance (which happens) or even where a robbery is taken place. What does Mr May have to hide? Alongside this can I just add that radio Taxi's were helping prostitutes in homes around the City, maybe this is a reason? Yes I can back this up, the Vice squad know exactly what I mean! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:50pm Fri 22 Apr 11

oopslolsouthy says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Bus drivers have had compulsory CCTV fitted in the buses, which covers both passengers, and the operation of ticket machine and money handling by the drivers too.
There was no option for bus drivers to refuse to accept the issues, so I see no reason either for Taxi drivers to have any other outcome to this silly legal case.
The only reason they could have to object is because they are fiddling money and passenger rides in their favour and don't want to get caught doing so.
Presumably you owned the bus you drove, did you?
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Bus drivers have had compulsory CCTV fitted in the buses, which covers both passengers, and the operation of ticket machine and money handling by the drivers too. There was no option for bus drivers to refuse to accept the issues, so I see no reason either for Taxi drivers to have any other outcome to this silly legal case. The only reason they could have to object is because they are fiddling money and passenger rides in their favour and don't want to get caught doing so.[/p][/quote]Presumably you owned the bus you drove, did you? oopslolsouthy
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Fri 22 Apr 11

oopslolsouthy says...

SotonLad wrote:
If cabs don't want cameras then that's their choice, but don't go whining to the police when someone assaults the driver or runs off without paying.
So when you get mugged, you won't be going to the police either, since you weren't fitted with CCTV at the time? What a moronic comment.
[quote][p][bold]SotonLad[/bold] wrote: If cabs don't want cameras then that's their choice, but don't go whining to the police when someone assaults the driver or runs off without paying.[/p][/quote]So when you get mugged, you won't be going to the police either, since you weren't fitted with CCTV at the time? What a moronic comment. oopslolsouthy
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Fri 22 Apr 11

dolomiteman says...

Not all taxis are driven by the owners, some are leased and some driven on a comission basis so 'british asian' point is invalid also it does not cost £2300 to have the cameras installed.
it should be up to the taxi's owner if a camera is installed and the customer reseves the right to not travel in any car so can opt for one with cameras if they feel they might be fiddled or fiddled with.
but why would any driver not want a camera unless they were up to no good as it can protect them from false allegations?
Not all taxis are driven by the owners, some are leased and some driven on a comission basis so 'british asian' point is invalid also it does not cost £2300 to have the cameras installed. it should be up to the taxi's owner if a camera is installed and the customer reseves the right to not travel in any car so can opt for one with cameras if they feel they might be fiddled or fiddled with. but why would any driver not want a camera unless they were up to no good as it can protect them from false allegations? dolomiteman
  • Score: 0

10:32pm Fri 22 Apr 11

englishcabby says...

OK, a few comments. As usual when a taxi story appears so do the usual comments.
Sotonbusdriver - I assume from your comments you are self employed, you own your own bus, when you go home you use your bus to take your wife and kids out, and you have had to pay for the camera out of your own pocket, and not by choice? No? Oh, theres a surprise.

As it stands I am not against having a camera fitted, indeed I like the security it gives me, especially when transporting unescorted schoolchildren. However, there is a lot wrong with how its done. The council brought this in virtually overnight, you have no choice in which system you have fitted, and there is no control over when it works. As most taxi's/PH vehicles are also family cars then its not on that it can't be turned off when the vehicle is not being used for work.

Also to the person claiming Radio Taxis were 'helping prostitutes in their homes'. What? I must say I've never seen a taxi in a prostitutes home...
OK, a few comments. As usual when a taxi story appears so do the usual comments. Sotonbusdriver - I assume from your comments you are self employed, you own your own bus, when you go home you use your bus to take your wife and kids out, and you have had to pay for the camera out of your own pocket, and not by choice? No? Oh, theres a surprise. As it stands I am not against having a camera fitted, indeed I like the security it gives me, especially when transporting unescorted schoolchildren. However, there is a lot wrong with how its done. The council brought this in virtually overnight, you have no choice in which system you have fitted, and there is no control over when it works. As most taxi's/PH vehicles are also family cars then its not on that it can't be turned off when the vehicle is not being used for work. Also to the person claiming Radio Taxis were 'helping prostitutes in their homes'. What? I must say I've never seen a taxi in a prostitutes home... englishcabby
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Fri 22 Apr 11

IronLady2010 says...

englishcabby wrote:
OK, a few comments. As usual when a taxi story appears so do the usual comments. Sotonbusdriver - I assume from your comments you are self employed, you own your own bus, when you go home you use your bus to take your wife and kids out, and you have had to pay for the camera out of your own pocket, and not by choice? No? Oh, theres a surprise. As it stands I am not against having a camera fitted, indeed I like the security it gives me, especially when transporting unescorted schoolchildren. However, there is a lot wrong with how its done. The council brought this in virtually overnight, you have no choice in which system you have fitted, and there is no control over when it works. As most taxi's/PH vehicles are also family cars then its not on that it can't be turned off when the vehicle is not being used for work. Also to the person claiming Radio Taxis were 'helping prostitutes in their homes'. What? I must say I've never seen a taxi in a prostitutes home...
it was reffering to helping the pro's in homes rather than streets you idiot. The Vice squad know all about it, we have just had one home shut down, now we're working on the drivers!
[quote][p][bold]englishcabby[/bold] wrote: OK, a few comments. As usual when a taxi story appears so do the usual comments. Sotonbusdriver - I assume from your comments you are self employed, you own your own bus, when you go home you use your bus to take your wife and kids out, and you have had to pay for the camera out of your own pocket, and not by choice? No? Oh, theres a surprise. As it stands I am not against having a camera fitted, indeed I like the security it gives me, especially when transporting unescorted schoolchildren. However, there is a lot wrong with how its done. The council brought this in virtually overnight, you have no choice in which system you have fitted, and there is no control over when it works. As most taxi's/PH vehicles are also family cars then its not on that it can't be turned off when the vehicle is not being used for work. Also to the person claiming Radio Taxis were 'helping prostitutes in their homes'. What? I must say I've never seen a taxi in a prostitutes home...[/p][/quote]it was reffering to helping the pro's in homes rather than streets you idiot. The Vice squad know all about it, we have just had one home shut down, now we're working on the drivers! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

11:25pm Fri 22 Apr 11

englishcabby says...

Idiot? lol. The usual discussion board trick of having no real counter argument so resorting to name calling. Lol.
Idiot? lol. The usual discussion board trick of having no real counter argument so resorting to name calling. Lol. englishcabby
  • Score: 0

9:31am Sat 23 Apr 11

Vonnie says...

The judge was right. The choice of having or not having a camera in a taxi should be the drivers, and he/she should have choice over which system, and the control of when it is on.
SCC treating cab drivers like little children who are not responsible enough to make their own decisions is one thing.
Forcing me as a passenger to be spied on is another. There is far too much big brother surveillance everywhere in this country, and it has not made a ha'porth of difference to the crime rate.
What next? Forcing people to have cameras in their homes if they live in a high crime area!
The judge was right. The choice of having or not having a camera in a taxi should be the drivers, and he/she should have choice over which system, and the control of when it is on. SCC treating cab drivers like little children who are not responsible enough to make their own decisions is one thing. Forcing me as a passenger to be spied on is another. There is far too much big brother surveillance everywhere in this country, and it has not made a ha'porth of difference to the crime rate. What next? Forcing people to have cameras in their homes if they live in a high crime area! Vonnie
  • Score: 0

10:44am Sat 23 Apr 11

oopslolsouthy says...

dolomiteman wrote:
Not all taxis are driven by the owners, some are leased and some driven on a comission basis so 'british asian' point is invalid also it does not cost £2300 to have the cameras installed.
it should be up to the taxi's owner if a camera is installed and the customer reseves the right to not travel in any car so can opt for one with cameras if they feel they might be fiddled or fiddled with.
but why would any driver not want a camera unless they were up to no good as it can protect them from false allegations?
You fail logic forever. Exceptions to the general case do not make the point any less valid.
[quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: Not all taxis are driven by the owners, some are leased and some driven on a comission basis so 'british asian' point is invalid also it does not cost £2300 to have the cameras installed. it should be up to the taxi's owner if a camera is installed and the customer reseves the right to not travel in any car so can opt for one with cameras if they feel they might be fiddled or fiddled with. but why would any driver not want a camera unless they were up to no good as it can protect them from false allegations?[/p][/quote]You fail logic forever. Exceptions to the general case do not make the point any less valid. oopslolsouthy
  • Score: 0

11:44am Sat 23 Apr 11

Wee Willy Wonka says...

IronLady2010 says..."The Vice squad know all about it, we have just had one home shut down, now we're working on the drivers!"

'WE' and 'WE'RE'? It's good to know where you work and that your undervalued opinion is equally unbiased.

Nay, IronLady2010, I think you are ther idiot.
IronLady2010 says..."The Vice squad know all about it, we have just had one home shut down, now we're working on the drivers!" 'WE' and 'WE'RE'? It's good to know where you work and that your undervalued opinion is equally unbiased. Nay, IronLady2010, I think you are ther idiot. Wee Willy Wonka
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Sat 23 Apr 11

get real 10 says...

My only comment is that if Mr May is so against the cameras why does he allow his company Radio taxis to fit them.
My only comment is that if Mr May is so against the cameras why does he allow his company Radio taxis to fit them. get real 10
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Sat 23 Apr 11

SotonLad says...

Wee Willy Wonka wrote:
IronLady2010 says..."The Vice squad know all about it, we have just had one home shut down, now we're working on the drivers!"

'WE' and 'WE'RE'? It's good to know where you work and that your undervalued opinion is equally unbiased.

Nay, IronLady2010, I think you are ther idiot.
Where does IronLady work then? I can think of many possibilities based on the comments.
[quote][p][bold]Wee Willy Wonka[/bold] wrote: IronLady2010 says..."The Vice squad know all about it, we have just had one home shut down, now we're working on the drivers!" 'WE' and 'WE'RE'? It's good to know where you work and that your undervalued opinion is equally unbiased. Nay, IronLady2010, I think you are ther idiot.[/p][/quote]Where does IronLady work then? I can think of many possibilities based on the comments. SotonLad
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Sat 23 Apr 11

Raxx says...

My reading is that the camera rule would be fine if cabbies were able to turn them off when not using the car for work.

'englishcabby' - would you find this an acceptable compromise?
My reading is that the camera rule would be fine if cabbies were able to turn them off when not using the car for work. 'englishcabby' - would you find this an acceptable compromise? Raxx
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Sat 23 Apr 11

IronLady2010 says...

Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee?

If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV.

Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people.

I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear!
Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee? If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV. Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people. I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

12:45am Sun 24 Apr 11

cowley says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee?

If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV.

Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people.

I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear!
IronLady2010, The Real World says...
8:29pm Sat 23 Apr 11
Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee?

If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV.

Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people.

I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear!

Did mummy and daddy not give you enough attention when you were growing up?!
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee? If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV. Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people. I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear![/p][/quote]IronLady2010, The Real World says... 8:29pm Sat 23 Apr 11 Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee? If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV. Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people. I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear! Did mummy and daddy not give you enough attention when you were growing up?! cowley
  • Score: 0

7:51am Sun 24 Apr 11

englishcabby says...

get real 10 wrote:
My only comment is that if Mr May is so against the cameras why does he allow his company Radio taxis to fit them.
'My only comment is that if Mr May is so against the cameras why does he allow his company Radio taxis to fit them.'

Because the council will not plate vehicles without a camera being fitted. Its nothing to do with Radio Taxis. The council have every owner over a barrel.
[quote][p][bold]get real 10[/bold] wrote: My only comment is that if Mr May is so against the cameras why does he allow his company Radio taxis to fit them.[/p][/quote]'My only comment is that if Mr May is so against the cameras why does he allow his company Radio taxis to fit them.' Because the council will not plate vehicles without a camera being fitted. Its nothing to do with Radio Taxis. The council have every owner over a barrel. englishcabby
  • Score: 0

8:13am Sun 24 Apr 11

SotonLad says...

cowley wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee?

If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV.

Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people.

I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear!
IronLady2010, The Real World says...
8:29pm Sat 23 Apr 11
Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee?

If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV.

Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people.

I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear!

Did mummy and daddy not give you enough attention when you were growing up?!
You've quoted twice in the same post!
[quote][p][bold]cowley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee? If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV. Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people. I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear![/p][/quote]IronLady2010, The Real World says... 8:29pm Sat 23 Apr 11 Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee? If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV. Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people. I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear! Did mummy and daddy not give you enough attention when you were growing up?![/p][/quote]You've quoted twice in the same post! SotonLad
  • Score: 0

9:31am Sun 24 Apr 11

cowley says...

SotonLad wrote:
cowley wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee?

If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV.

Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people.

I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear!
IronLady2010, The Real World says...
8:29pm Sat 23 Apr 11
Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee?

If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV.

Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people.

I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear!

Did mummy and daddy not give you enough attention when you were growing up?!
You've quoted twice in the same post!
You've quoted twice in the same post!

so i see sotonlad! do you not make mistakes son?!
[quote][p][bold]SotonLad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cowley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee? If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV. Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people. I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear![/p][/quote]IronLady2010, The Real World says... 8:29pm Sat 23 Apr 11 Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee? If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV. Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people. I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear! Did mummy and daddy not give you enough attention when you were growing up?![/p][/quote]You've quoted twice in the same post![/p][/quote]You've quoted twice in the same post! so i see sotonlad! do you not make mistakes son?! cowley
  • Score: 0

9:57am Sun 24 Apr 11

freemantlegirl2 says...

It is clear the council have not consulted properly on this issue. The SCC are clearly in breach of privacy issues too if the cameras cannot be switched off when the cab is being used for personal journeys.

No-one should have compulsory CCTV and the recording of conversations is unnecessary and intrusive. Whilst I agree that CCTV can help when a crime has been committed it should be up to the cab firms and drivers themselves to elect to install it. The results could then be reviewed after a couple of years to see how those who have it installed have found it, how useful it was instead of shelling out tons of money on equipment for all. The best way to ensure safety is to train cabbies in keeping themselves and passengers safe, to install screens where cars can have them (i.e. London cabs and similar), and perhaps have some sort of personal alarm system. I'm not knowledgeable enough but just to install CCTV isn't enough to prevent incidents.

The fact that the council is appealing is awful and I would urge the cabbies or even the normal council tax payer to complain to the SCC and the ombudsman, it is a terrible waste of money, especially when they are making staff redundant, proposing malicious cuts etc.
It is clear the council have not consulted properly on this issue. The SCC are clearly in breach of privacy issues too if the cameras cannot be switched off when the cab is being used for personal journeys. No-one should have compulsory CCTV and the recording of conversations is unnecessary and intrusive. Whilst I agree that CCTV can help when a crime has been committed it should be up to the cab firms and drivers themselves to elect to install it. The results could then be reviewed after a couple of years to see how those who have it installed have found it, how useful it was instead of shelling out tons of money on equipment for all. The best way to ensure safety is to train cabbies in keeping themselves and passengers safe, to install screens where cars can have them (i.e. London cabs and similar), and perhaps have some sort of personal alarm system. I'm not knowledgeable enough but just to install CCTV isn't enough to prevent incidents. The fact that the council is appealing is awful and I would urge the cabbies or even the normal council tax payer to complain to the SCC and the ombudsman, it is a terrible waste of money, especially when they are making staff redundant, proposing malicious cuts etc. freemantlegirl2
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Sun 24 Apr 11

SotonLad says...

cowley wrote:
SotonLad wrote:
cowley wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee?

If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV.

Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people.

I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear!
IronLady2010, The Real World says...
8:29pm Sat 23 Apr 11
Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee?

If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV.

Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people.

I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear!

Did mummy and daddy not give you enough attention when you were growing up?!
You've quoted twice in the same post!
You've quoted twice in the same post!

so i see sotonlad! do you not make mistakes son?!
You've done it again!
[quote][p][bold]cowley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonLad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cowley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee? If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV. Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people. I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear![/p][/quote]IronLady2010, The Real World says... 8:29pm Sat 23 Apr 11 Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee? If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV. Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people. I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear! Did mummy and daddy not give you enough attention when you were growing up?![/p][/quote]You've quoted twice in the same post![/p][/quote]You've quoted twice in the same post! so i see sotonlad! do you not make mistakes son?![/p][/quote]You've done it again! SotonLad
  • Score: 0

10:17pm Sun 24 Apr 11

oopslolsouthy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee?

If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV.

Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people.

I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear!
Taxis (no apostrophe, see!) aren't a public service, you moron
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Why turn the cameras off? Taxi's are a public service which is charged at an extortionate rate. It's £3.50 or similar just to sit in the bloody thing, what if you don't like the driver? Do you still have to pay that initial fee? If Taxi's want to charge such massive rates then YES they should protect passengers with CCTV. Let's face it, Taxi drivers aren't the most clever of people in society, so YES things do happen to innocent people. I have used a taxi once in the past year and neither of could understand what each other was saying, but when it come to money, the words were crystal clear![/p][/quote]Taxis (no apostrophe, see!) aren't a public service, you moron oopslolsouthy
  • Score: 0

3:35am Mon 25 Apr 11

PaultheCAbDriver says...

The problem here is a clear definition of property rights and when someone is violating them. Obviously, a city bus is city property so the city council, which is the representative of the property owner, has a right to control what goes into the bus. It is allowed to install cameras.
However, a taxicab is NOT owned by the city council---it is owned by the driver, or the company for which the driver works. Therefore, the OWNER should decide who gets the cameras in their cabs. If an owner has cameras installed (or does not have them) and a passenger does not agree to that situation, the passenger is free to choose another mode of transportation. The city council has no more right to install cameras on private property than the individual councilmen have to invite themselves over to your house for dinner. Period. Game/Set/Match.
When the people of the Western countries remember that it was a respect for property rights that brought us our freedoms and prosperity, then we can roll back these idiotic laws in the USA, the UK and elsewhere, and restore freedom.
The problem here is a clear definition of property rights and when someone is violating them. Obviously, a city bus is city property so the city council, which is the representative of the property owner, has a right to control what goes into the bus. It is allowed to install cameras. However, a taxicab is NOT owned by the city council---it is owned by the driver, or the company for which the driver works. Therefore, the OWNER should decide who gets the cameras in their cabs. If an owner has cameras installed (or does not have them) and a passenger does not agree to that situation, the passenger is free to choose another mode of transportation. The city council has no more right to install cameras on private property than the individual councilmen have to invite themselves over to your house for dinner. Period. Game/Set/Match. When the people of the Western countries remember that it was a respect for property rights that brought us our freedoms and prosperity, then we can roll back these idiotic laws in the USA, the UK and elsewhere, and restore freedom. PaultheCAbDriver
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Mon 25 Apr 11

get real 10 says...

englishcabby wrote:
get real 10 wrote: My only comment is that if Mr May is so against the cameras why does he allow his company Radio taxis to fit them.
'My only comment is that if Mr May is so against the cameras why does he allow his company Radio taxis to fit them.' Because the council will not plate vehicles without a camera being fitted. Its nothing to do with Radio Taxis. The council have every owner over a barrel.
I know that,but he could still say no we`re not fitting the cameras here go elsewhere,or would that prevent Radio Taxis making more money out of the poor taxi drivers.Is £85 a week in subs with no work not enough.
[quote][p][bold]englishcabby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]get real 10[/bold] wrote: My only comment is that if Mr May is so against the cameras why does he allow his company Radio taxis to fit them.[/p][/quote]'My only comment is that if Mr May is so against the cameras why does he allow his company Radio taxis to fit them.' Because the council will not plate vehicles without a camera being fitted. Its nothing to do with Radio Taxis. The council have every owner over a barrel.[/p][/quote]I know that,but he could still say no we`re not fitting the cameras here go elsewhere,or would that prevent Radio Taxis making more money out of the poor taxi drivers.Is £85 a week in subs with no work not enough. get real 10
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Sat 30 Apr 11

Supercab says...

CCTV is of untold benefit to both parties in a Taxi situation.
Unfortunately there are a minority of untrustworthy customers and cabbie,s who are quite happy to break the expected rules of trust and honesty and have no conscience about what is right or wrong.
A cabby trusts a customer to be honest and trustworthy and a customer trusts a cabbie to be honest and trustworthy.As a Cabbie what are you going to do if you have an unreliable customer who says you touched her leg ?Or maybe some guy says you made a racist remark ?Or you overcharged them etc.
Your going to say {No I didn't honest and Your going to hope ? Yes Hope? Your going to hope somebody in authority will believe you.Its a gamble,
Its your word against a customers who do you trust?
I heard a story about of 2 girls not wanting to pay the fare and threatening the driver that they would both yes both report him for trying it on unless the driver would let them off the fare? He let them off as he couldn't afford the hassle.
Do you actually think any Radio company will take the risk and still employ/allow you to deal with their customers if there is the slightest whiff of a totally dreamt up allegation or an inference that there is something untoward when dealing with you.No they wont ,All you may be guilty of is being unfortunate enough to pick the wrong person up at the wrong time.
CCTV protects both customers and cabbies and is a reliable witness it can also can be an aid to show what good service you try to give the customers?
If you do the job right then everybody,s happy and whats a problem with an electronic secure witness.
It's going to be a lot less stress and upset than a wrongful or maybe spiteful allegation made against you will be thats for sure? Happy Cabbing :}
CCTV is of untold benefit to both parties in a Taxi situation. Unfortunately there are a minority of untrustworthy customers and cabbie,s who are quite happy to break the expected rules of trust and honesty and have no conscience about what is right or wrong. A cabby trusts a customer to be honest and trustworthy and a customer trusts a cabbie to be honest and trustworthy.As a Cabbie what are you going to do if you have an unreliable customer who says you touched her leg ?Or maybe some guy says you made a racist remark ?Or you overcharged them etc. Your going to say {No I didn't honest and Your going to hope ? Yes Hope? Your going to hope somebody in authority will believe you.Its a gamble, Its your word against a customers who do you trust? I heard a story about of 2 girls not wanting to pay the fare and threatening the driver that they would both yes both report him for trying it on unless the driver would let them off the fare? He let them off as he couldn't afford the hassle. Do you actually think any Radio company will take the risk and still employ/allow you to deal with their customers if there is the slightest whiff of a totally dreamt up allegation or an inference that there is something untoward when dealing with you.No they wont ,All you may be guilty of is being unfortunate enough to pick the wrong person up at the wrong time. CCTV protects both customers and cabbies and is a reliable witness it can also can be an aid to show what good service you try to give the customers? If you do the job right then everybody,s happy and whats a problem with an electronic secure witness. It's going to be a lot less stress and upset than a wrongful or maybe spiteful allegation made against you will be thats for sure? Happy Cabbing :} Supercab
  • 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