Dave Davies Talks About His Battle With TfL And Boris Johnson

Thank you for your kind words Semtex; I hold you in high regard and respect you commitment and perseverance.

My battle with TFL started in 2008 when I was told that I had been targeted by the PCO because I sold my Taxi Emissions systems at nearly half the price of competitors and refused to be part of the cartel which rigged the price and bunged the PCO. 

(this info came from an inspector who worked at Penton st)

The High Court Judicial Review that followed was heard by a Judge who had previously worked for TFL (but did not declare that at the time) and who ignored the facts and evidence and contradicted a previous High Court ruling to find in TFLs favour.

At that point I realised that the Judicial system was rigged and in the years since have tried every course of action possible to expose the corruption. 

I tried complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman, TFLs own fraud investigations team (obviously pointless), the Met, the GLA transport Committee and Environment Committee, individual Assembly Members asked questions for years, my Local MP (who was at the time Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change tried to challenge Johnson with no success and many other MPs have tried to challenge TFL with no success.

I have had limited success in the media (because that is controlled as well)

The Sunday Times exposed Tim Yeo in an undercover sting, following information I had given them about the corrupt Taxi Age Limit. Yeo was deselected by his constituency but then tried to sue the Sunday Times. 

The Judge dismissed his case saying that he was dishonest but no action was ever taken against Yeo. His improper and unlawful Taxi Age Limit which has scrapped 10,000 taxis is still in place today.

I concluded that the only way to expose the corruption is by a Statutory Public Inquiry (which is led by a Judge and can force witnesses to attend)
I share your reservations but feel that this is the only way to expose TFL.

A good analogy is the Phone Hacking Inquiry.
For years many celebrities and senior politicians called for a Public Inquiry into Phone Hacking.

Everyone knew it was going on but no one could do anything because the media would not report it; they were involved . The Met would not investigate it because they were involved. The Government would not do anything because they were involved.

It was only when the facts were exposed in the Judicial format of the Public Inquiry that the Police were forced to investigate. They could not cover it up any more.

Following Operation Weeting many people were taken to court; some were even convicted.

The Phone Hacking Public Inquiry in itself may not have achieved much but it did expose the improper conduct and I would think there is very little Phone Hacking taking place now.

In the same way a Public Inquiry could expose TFL.

I accept that it may take a while but if Taxi Drivers protested on a daily basis and called for an urgent and immediate Public Inquiry then it may happen.

The minute a Public Inquiry is initiated there could be a suspension of issuing new PH licenses pending that Inquiry. There could also be a suspension of the Taxi Age Limit.

There may be another way of exposing TFL but I dont know what it is.

The capitulation of Sadiq Khan when he was appointed as Mayor gives an idea of how powerful the corruption is. He made promises that he would take action yet has now been shown to be complicit.

I am always available to meet with anyone who wants to speak; Semtex, the UCG, the LCDC, DDD, ITA ?

Good Luck






Publish 
Delete 
Mark as spam 

Moderate comments for this blog. 

Posted by Anonymous to  Taxi Leaks at 6:43 PM

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2gKkEkg
via IFTTT

LCDC Demand Personal Hearing For Member Suspended Over Twitter Video.

As many of you on Twitter are aware, LCDC member Sean Stockings received a letter from Peter Blake at TfL on December 2nd, informing him that he had been suspended. This followed his tweet of a picture of TfL boss Leon Daniels, along with Mike Brown, at a restaurant in Mayfair.

He was given 28 days to appeal against charges that were never stipulated and the suspension had no timescale.

The LCDC have instructed our solicitors to represent our member in this matter - below is their strongly worded response to TfL.

Below is the letter sent to TfL by Sean's legal representative. 

Further to your telephone conversation with Ms. Payton this afternoon, I write to confirm that as the representative of Mr. Stockings he wishes to "appeal" his undetermined suspension and request a personal hearing.

Clearly, as also discussed, the nature of the allegation will have to be disclosed prior to any representations being made - it would be Kafkaesque to require representations prior to providing details of the alleged behaviour complained of - to that end we shall require the investigation file and the determination decision. I understand that this will be provided prior to the personal hearing and in good time...

Unfortunately at the end of the lengthy conversation I am no further forward in understanding who determined Mr. Stockings behaviour was a) inappropriate and b) so inappropriate that only the "proper course of action" was to suspend his license. I note our calls were recorded, please be advised that we shall require transcripts of same (for your information the calls were made between 12.00 noon and 2.00 p.m. from telephone 02074051999 to Kieran and yourself on your general number) as we shall refer to the misleading information during the course of the hearing.

Whilstyouindicatedthatthereasonforthesuspensionwasthatthe"HeadofLicensing"haddecided thatMr.Stockingswas"notafitpersontoholdsuchalicense"; you refused to answer whether it was Mr. Peter Blake in his capacity of Head of Licensing that had made this decision, confirming when queried that The London Cab Order 1934 had been amended to give the Head of Licensing the same powers as those formerly enjoyed by the Commissioner of Police. It would appear from your enclosuresthatTFLmaybeoftheviewthatanyemployeecanmakethisdecision,isthisthecase? Itwouldappearthat"afitandproper"testwasmadewithout reference to behaviour which could reach a criminal standard, this seems at odds with the licensing provisions as to what constitutes a fit and prper person. Whilst we are aware that the assessment was made as a result of the tweet and video sent by Mr. Stockings we can see no reason why the tweet and video justified such a sanction and look forward to that being explained within a determination decision.

We spoke at first with Kieran whom we understand answers enquiries by telephone and he was asked to advise from the file a) the Act which was said to have been breached, b) who assessed the behaviour as inappropriate, c) whether there was evidence other than the video and tweet (i.e. who had made an allegation and whether they had submitted any statement) and d) whether other sanctions were considered Whilst he was unable to advise the Act, who assessed and whether there was evidence he did suggest that the reason for the suspension was due to a finding that the video was both "harassing" and "intimidating".

He seemed to suggest that this was from the file and "Bobby" and when we asked to speak with Bobby (who clearly had more information) we were transferred to "Dennis" which was you and you implied you preferred Mr. Win. You cleared up the Harassing and intimidation point and explained that the digital file did not indicate this (which was of concern as it was not within the letter) - so at least we are aware that this is not an allegation analogous to a Public Order Act offences 

It is strange that the initial letter is not more detailed regarding what findings were made and why - I am also surprised that no time limit was attached to the suspension. How would Mr. Stockings know whether to "appeal" without this being sent out clearly? Perhaps if Mr. Blake has taken on a quasi-Judicial role then he should make a quasi-judicial determination so that a person is aware from the start and the determination provided, especially if TFL requests representations In short he letter is badly worded and unclear and expects a response from an unknown determination.

We look forward to receiving the hearing date and requested material.

Kind Regards,

Keima Payton

Payton Solicitors - on behalf of the LCDC 

Source : The Badge LCDC publication. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2hCOSdf
via IFTTT

Does Anyone Know How To Take The Batteries Out ?......By Semtex

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2hW6BZN
via IFTTT

City Of London Want Us Banned From Bank Junction. It's The Gloves Off Time.

Here we go again!

Apparently the City of London has been in full consultation with the Taxi trade and again we've been sold down the river, as another done deal unfolds. 

Trevor Merralls, UCG general secretary met with the City of London transport section on Monday, to put our case across regarding Bank Junction.

CoL explained their reasons for making the area bus and cycle only, including cycle fatalities at this dangerous junction detailing pollution & congestion. 

They produced figures on what traffic would be like with cycles and buses only. The UCG have asked them to include Taxi's in these figures and by Taxi's they should differentiate between us and PH.

 

By no means do Taxi's cause the build up of traffic at the junction. This is caused by large numbers of PH vehicles, construction lorries, delivery vehicles etc.

The UCG made them aware they view the proposal's as a restriction on our trade. Trevor made it known it will affect city workers and tourists to the area, severely impacting on their travel routes. They also made it clear, the London Taxi trade are 100% wheelchair compliant and this will inconvenience disabled city workers.

The UCG have  asked that Taxi's be included in this trial.

As a trade, we have always had historical links to the City, a city we have served for centuries. 

    AFS firemen with Taxi during the blitz.

We are one of the last liveried occupations. In two world war's there were two city of London regiment's, in which cab driver's also served some paying the ultimate price. 

We deserve better.

Restricting Taxi's from Bank Junction gives working people in the vicinity two option's. Bus or tube, both of which are owned by TfL so the restriction on our trade is creating a state assisted cartel for TfL on journeys in this area.

The UCG made it very clear we will fight this with every mean's possible every inch of the way.

Today's announcement means that the trade will be taking action, starting with the official UCG protest scheduled to take place on 12 January at 17.00 till 20.00 

This will be followed on the 16th of January by five days of action, in the form of a mass ply for hire, which I believe is being called by the Independent Taxi Alliance (ITA) 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2gFZAex
via IFTTT

Uber whistleblower says company erased data during raid on Montreal offices

Montreal

Uber whistleblower says company erased data during raid on Montreal offices

Lawsuit alleges 'Uber would lock down the office and immediately cut all connectivity'

Samuel Spangenberg says he helped Uber remotely erase data on computers during Revenu Québec raids of the company's Montreal offices in May 2015. (Sean Henry/CBC )

A former security employee at Uber says he was part of an "incident response team" that helped remotely erase data when Revenu Québec raided the company's Montreal offices last year.

Samuel Spangenberg worked as a forensic investigator for Uber at the company's head office in San Francisco for 11 months in 2015.

He made the allegation in a sworn statement in October as part of a wrongful dismissal lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the state of California.

In the statement, Spangenberg mentioned Revenu Québec's raid on Uber's Montreal offices in May 2015.

After that raid, Revenu Québec alleged that Uber had remotely erased data on the office's computers as soon as the raid began.

Taxi monopoly over: Quebec City, Montreal airports allow Uber

Spangenberg said in his statement that's exactly what happened, and that he helped do it.

'Cut all connectivity'

Spangenberg's statement said it was standard practice at Uber during police or government raids to "lock down the office and immediately cut all connectivity so that law enforcement could not access Uber's information."

"I would then be tasked with purchasing all new equipment for the office within the day, which I did when Uber's Montreal office was raided," Spangenberg said.

Spangenberg said that after such raids, data was often subject to "litigation holds" by law enforcement.

He said Uber "routinely deleted files which were subject to litigation holds," a practice which he said he objected to.

'Attempt to obstruct justice'

Revenu Québec has always maintained that Uber tried to block access and delete information during its raid, something that Spangenberg's statement now backs up.

Superior court judge Guy Cournoyer wrote that Uber's conduct during May 2015 raids 'had all the characteristics of an attempt to obstruct justice'. (Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press)

After the raid, Uber tried to challenge the validity of Revenu Québec's search warrants in Quebec superior court.

During that proceeding, Revenu Québec investigators told a judge that on the the day of the raid, smartphones and laptops seized appeared to have been remotely restarted and that data they were looking for was then encrypted from the company's head office in San Francisco.

In a decision released in May upholding Revenu Québec's warrants, Superior court judge Guy Cournoyer wrote that Uber's conduct "had all the characteristics of an attempt to obstruct justice."

Uber tried to appeal Cournoyer's decision in the Quebec court of appeal. The court refused to hear the case. Uber is now trying to have its appeal heard in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Uber denies 'each and every allegation'

Uber fired Spangenberg in February.  

He has filed a lawsuit in California alleging he was fired based on age discrimination and whistleblower retaliation.  

Court documents said that Uber told Spangenberg he was being fired because he violated the company's code of conduct when he reformatted his company laptop.

In court documents filed in May, Uber said it "generally denies each and every allegation contained in the plaintiff's complaint."

On Wednesday, Uber Canada spokesman Jean-Christophe de Le Rue reaffirmed that denial in a written statement to CBC News.

"We have always said and want to reaffirm that no information has been deleted," he said.

"Following the agreement reached this summer with Revenu Québec, we continue collaborating with them on matters related to our operations in Quebec."

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2gNlG3M
via IFTTT

Uber Blames Humans For Self-Driving Car Traffic Offences As California Orders A Halt To Trials.

Transit regulators ordered the company to take vehicles off the roads on first day they were launched without permits in Uber’s home town of San Francisco.

California regulators ordered Uber to remove its self-driving vehicles from the road on the same day that the company’s vehicles were caught running red lights – violations the company immediately blamed on “human error”.

“It is essential that Uber takes appropriate measures to ensure safety of the public,” the California department of motor vehicles (DMV) wrote to Uber on Wednesday after it defied government officials and began piloting the cars in San Francisco without permits. “If Uber does not confirm immediately that it will stop its launch and seek a testing permit, DMV will initiate legal action.”

An Uber spokesperson said two red-light violations were due to mistakes by the people required to sit behind the steering wheel and said the company has suspended the drivers.

A video posted by Charles Rotter, an operations manager at Luxor, a traditional cab company, shows one of Uber’s computer-controlled cars plowing through a pedestrian crosswalk in downtown about four seconds after the light turned red. Elsewhere, a photofrom a San Francisco writer showed one of the Uber vehicles entering an intersection against a red light.

“People could die,” Rotter said in an interview later. “This is obviously not ready for primetime.”

The traffic violations and threat of legal action are a significant blow to Uber in its home town, where the California department of motor vehicles has said that Uber requires permits to test the technology on its roads

Despite that stated mandate from a government agency, Uber declared in a blog postthat it did not believe it needed a “testing permit” to launch self-driving vehicles in San Francisco, arguing that the rules don’t apply since the cars have people in them monitoring movements. 

“Most states see the potential benefits, especially when it comes to road safety,” wrote Anthony Levandowski, head of Uber’s advanced technology group. His post announcing the Wednesday launch noted the Volvo XC90s’ “core safety capabilities”.

In his letter to Levandowski, the DMV’s deputy director Brian Soublet noted that 20 companies have already been approved to test self-driving vehicles in California. 

“They are obeying the law and are responsibly testing and advancing their technology,” he said, adding, “This technology holds the promise of true safety benefits on our roadways, but must be tested responsibly.”

The self-driving vehicles of the popular car-sharing company were first unveiled in Pittsburgh in September. The vehicles have technology that allows them to navigate on their own, though licensed drivers sit behind the wheel and can take control as necessary. 

Annie Gaus, a San Francisco writer and producer, said she was riding to work on Wednesday in a Lyft, Uber’s biggest competitor, when she saw one of the Uber self-driving vehicles nearly crash into her

“The Uber car sort of jutted out into the intersection,” she told the Guardian by phone, noting that she and her Lyft driver were both taken aback. “It was close enough that we were both kind of like, ‘Woah.’ It’s close enough that you kind of react and are sort of rattled.” 

Gaus, who has written about technology and has contributed to the Guardian, said the red-light violations on day one of the pilot seem to highlight how the implementation of the technology in a place like San Francisco may be premature. 

“I don’t think anybody has a good understanding of how this works in a city context.”

An Uber spokesperson said both cars running red lights were not part of the pilot and weren’t carrying customers.

“These incidents were due to human error. This is why we believe so much in making the roads safer by building self-driving Ubers,” the statement said. “The drivers involved have been suspended while we continue to investigate.”

The company did not immediately respond to questions about the state’s order to remove the cars from the road.

It’s unclear how law enforcement may address these kinds of violations. 

Asked how the San Francisco police department would respond to a self-driving Uber running a red-light, officer Giselle Talkoff said: “I don’t even know. I guess we could pull them over.” 

After the Guardian sent Talkoff footage of the Uber violation, first reported by the San Francisco Examiner, she said the police were not investigating the specific incident at this time. But she noted officers would follow up in cases in which there was an injury or if they witnessed a violation in person – though she said she wasn’t sure if the “secondary driver” or the company would be held accountable.

“There was a person that was walking very closely,” she said of the footage, pointing out that a pedestrian was entering the street when the Uber car ran the red. 

Talkoff further noted that there aren’t state or federal laws governing self-driving cars. 

“First comes technology, then comes policy. It’s going to be a matter of setting some precedents,” she said, adding, “The companies that are putting these vehicles on the road should have their vehicles operate with due regard to the rules of the road.” 

A sergeant with the police traffic division said his department was not even aware that Uber had started using autonomous cars in San Francisco. 

Rotter argued that the technology company should be held responsible for sending the vehicles out on the road despite government objections. 

“What this company has done is start operating illegally and push for permission later".

Source :  Guardian News. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2hvABPo
via IFTTT

California Dreaming.... Travis Kalanick's Vision .... By Semtext.

Uber were first licensed just before the Summer of 2012. Two years later on the 3 October,  co-founder, Travis Kalanick, attended the Albert Hall no less, to deliver a presentation to 2000 senior moneymen and women, from the City of London. The audience were no fools, and many of them elite members of the Institute of Directors.

The purpose of Kalanick's address, was to persuade the financial elite, that the mini cab firm, Uber, was well worth investing in.

By and large, the audience of shrewd investors, loved him. The 36 year old Californian university drop out, convinced almost everyone that his dream to fill every country in the world with Uber cars, would effectively make owning a car pointless. After his spiel, he received a standing ovation.

Adding weight to Kalanick's claims, Chancellor of the Exchecker George Osborne informed the assembled IOD members, "clearly the economy is growing, unemployment has fallen sharply and business investment has picked up".

The brief was huge, the possibilities endless and the dream was rapidly becoming real. Travis Kalanick's motto was, "Win at all costs", and up until now, Travis has proved that he was and is, no slouch. He is on record as quoting " When I push a button, something in the world will move !"

Arrogant ? Egotist ? Bully ? Over confident ?

Who knows. 

I suppose it depends on where your dollar is invested. 

One thing is for sure though, Travis Kalanick is a very clever man when it comes to getting a few quid, and it would be foolhardy to underestimate a player of his calibre, in any financial arena. One thing he did say at the event though, was that he would aim for 100,000 Uber cars to be in London by 2018.

As I type, I have no idea of how many of the 600 mini cab licences issued EACH WEEK by TFL, are intended for use with Uber cars, but my guess is it would be a large percentage. However, Uber's mammoth targets were not just about raising finance, they also had to overcome many many different rules, regulations, cultures, criteria and licensing. 

Some countries stood firm against the Californian's plans to take over transport responsibility, and banned him immediately. Other countries however, welcomed him in with open arms. Uber's invitation at the Royal Albert Hall that spring day, was to decide if London would take the Californian's dream of perfect travel, or stick with the world award winning Taxi service, that it already had. 

If you wanted to buy a licence to drive a mini cab in London today, the Regulators, Transport For London, would charge you about £250.

If the Californian's dream of putting 100,000 Uber cars onto London's already massively gridlocked streets is anywhere near realistic, that would net TFL an awful lot of dough. In fact, it would earn them around 25 million pounds !

On a cold November morning at 06.40 in 1983, staff at Unit No 7 of the International Trading Estate in Heathrow, were just preparing for a night shift rosta change over. Unit No 7 belonged to International Bullion Dealers Brinks Mat.  Unbeknown to the staff, six armed robbers, wearing hats, gloves and balaclavas, had pulled right outside in a Transit van, and using essential inside information and highly sophisticated codes, made an unexpected and swift entrance.

Initially believing there was three million pounds in the vaults, the robbers poured petrol over the guards, and produced a box of matches. Looking at the determined eyes of the robbers through slits in the balaclavas, the terrified guards were forced to reveal both parts, of a two part code, to access the huge bullion safe. Acting in sheer terror, the guards tapped the codes into the safe's locking system and the firm from South East London, were in ! 

Once inside, the gang were overwhelmed to find that rather than the three million pounds that they had come for, there was instead a pallet full of 7,000 solid gold bullion bars, stored in 70 cardboard boxes. The heist was labelled "The Crime Of The Century" as the baffled Met's Flying Squad revealed that the gang had escaped into thin air, with 3 tons of gold bars. 

The value ?................26 million pounds!

When Travis Kalanick offered to put 100,000 Uber mini cabs into a City that already boasted the best Taxi Service in the world, London Black Cab drivers could have been forgiven for taking the American's plans with a pinch of salt. After all, not only were Uber unable to comply with much of the licensing criteria of a mini cab Operators Licence, but logistically London could no way make room for 100,000 mini cabs ! 

It was a ludicrous suggestion. The streets and roads of London are still cobbled in many places, demonstrating the lack of change and infrastructure investment since Queen Victoria. Roads, streets and alleyways, unchanged since the Hansom Cabs of our forefathers, expertly navigated the capital, just as we do today.

Sadly for my great trade though, and sadly for my wonderful London that I was born in, the temptation of the pallet of gold bars from California, was too good to turn down by Cameron, TFL and City Hall. Licensing 100,000 Uber mini cabs was going against every sound principle of sensible logistics, infrastructure foresight and LAWFUL criteria, totally.

Despite Uber being unable to satisfy certain lawful licensing criteria that would apply to everyone else, the draw of a blag just slightly short of the whole of the Brinks Mat Gold Bullion Robbery amount, would be just too much to turn down from our Government and Regulators.

TFL had to ask themselves many important questions though. 

Such as.....surely a landline wasn't that important? 

Surely we were being over zealous demanding a London Registration Address ?

What does it matter to us if Uber pay either none or the very minimum amount of tax after fleecing London dry ?

It's no problem of ours if Uber are not accurate in what service they are, ie transport or technical services, is it ?

Now come on, a mobile phone is just as good as a Customs & Excise sealed and calibrated taxi meter, surely, isn't it ?

The topographical London Knowledge exam is old hat, for Christ sake! Anyone can safely navigate around London with a half decent smart phone or sat nav, can't they ? 

OK, granted, it will be hard for Travis to recruit 100,000 Uber drivers with no criminal form, all fit and health and upstanding members of society. 

But just ease up on the entry qualification and criteria, let's stop being so over the top, shall we ? 

Wheelchair accessibility ? 

Not to worry, the infirm and disabled will just have to use other forms of transport. It's no biggy is it ? 

Choice of vehicle ? 

No, don't bog Travis down with that. He's too busy, don't keep driving him mad. Let him use any car that he wants. He's not silly. Can't we let him just get on with it ? 

Not registered in the UK ? So what ? Loads of Companies are registered overseas, aren't they?

The potential of the Californian dream of Travis Kalanick will be and is, an enormous detrimental threat to the very existence and heritage of the Great London Black Cab Trade. With extremely strict criteria of licensing, we are indeed very rigorously controlled. It is nigh on impossible to compete on a level playing field financially, if your vehicle, meter, criminal record checks, medical checks, topographical knowledge standard, personal deportment and access of  vehicle wheelchair requirements are written in stone, as your competitor imposters are subject to none of the above. 

Cameron, City Hall and TFL were only too happy to take the whizz kid's dollar., regardless of the professional casualties and traditions it would drag to death with it. The tragedy of it all though, is that Uber were just not needed in the first place. Contrary to what a senior TFL Officer openly stated, it WASN'T what the public wanted ! And neither did London want it ! Does London need MORE Buses ? 

Of course not ! And neither did they need Uber mini cabs ! 

The London Cab trade have managed very well all of these years without them. Mini cab outfits such as Addisson Lee have also serviced customers who wanted an alternative form of transport. Uber were not required. So why were so many LAWFUL breaches of licensing criteria literally torn up and shredded for Uber ? 

Why was the Californian's dream so welcomed and so easily accommodated in the first place ?

We can only assume folks. But my guess is simple. If Micky McAvoy and Brian Robinson had realized in 1983 how easy it was to earn 25 million pounds without upsetting the Flying Squad, then maybe they wouldn't have ended up with a 25 stretch each, after all.

Travis Kalanick was only seven when the Brinks Mat firm parked the Ford Transit van outside Unit Number 7 on that cold November morning at Heathrow. I bet that even at that young age, he would have known that you didn't need balaclavas, hats, gloves and petrol to earn your wages and keep the wolf from the door. An office, a desk, and a smart business suit, were a much more appropriate attire.

It's simply about, what you know, who you know, and persuading them to be in the coup with you ! You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours ! It's really not that hard when you think about it...................is it ?

Be lucky all.

8829 Semtex.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2hsyUlK
via IFTTT