Councils Join Tory Attack On The Licensed Taxi Trade With No Go Areas.

In the wake of the Bank Junction Taxi access scandal, and with Oxford Street, Tottenham Court Road, and Baker Street to follow suit, Camden and Hackney have unveiled plans to ban Taxis from more of our working area.

If you are going to be weak, just sit back, bend over and get shafted without a fight, there will be much more to follow. 

If you are expecting your org to fight tooth and nail on your behalf, you are very misguided. 

The members of the New United Trade Group have all signed a good behaviour clause in the new engagement policy, so won’t be doing anything on your behalf that might upset TfL, for fear of exclusion from the secret, un-minuted meetings. 

We need leaders will backbone! 

Not unopened war chests

It’s time to stand up and say:“ENOUGH’s ENOUGH”.

We need a War Council, not self-interested egotistic empire builders

Because that’s exactly what we are facing, a war on Taxis drivers and our trade. 

While London’s Cabbies are stressing over how they are going to find the money to pay their tax bills, Theresa May stands up and tells Europe ‘we must save’ Uber, an illegally operating predatory company that doesn’t pay UK taxes, a company her husband has a conflict of interest in with his investment group.

You couldn’t make it up. 

A New Game's Afoot! 

Both Camden and Hackney have published online consultations, but don’t count on them as they(like TfL) take no notice if consultations... they just go in and do what ever they want, knowing that any resistance will be weak. 

Camden’s consultation closes on the 20th of February 2018. 

Up for closure...Frederick St, to be joined by roads around Mount Pleasant. If you feel you’d like to have your opinion heard, click this link below:

 https://consultations.wearecamden.org/supporting-communities/proposed-walking-and-cycling-improvements-and-traf-1/

The biggest threat to your right to ply for hire is being launched by Hackney again. 

If you’d like to be heard, click their link below:

 https://consultation.hackney.gov.uk/streetscene/city-fringe-ultra-low-emission-streets-1/

The Hackney consultation is about the closure of several streets around Shoreditch to all but electric vehicles. It will be many years before the majority of London Taxis are electric.

Remember the proposed 20mph around schools that were suddenly rolled out borough wide, and then quickly escalated to neighbouring boroughs?

If access is restricted in Shoreditch, it won’t be long before other boroughs follow suit. 

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT :

Another kick in the wallet comes from Westminster City Council who never wanting to miss a revenue raising trick, have now implemented new parking charges to pre 2015 diesel Taxis, 50% higher than petrol vehicles.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2Fr9Rbn
via IFTTT

Private Eye just masterfully exposed the ridiculous reality of Tory cronyism

Since the neoliberal age began under Margaret Thatcher in the late 1970s, Britain’s formerly state-owned industries and assets have been systematically sold off one by one into the hands of private companies and individuals. 

Not content with selling almost the entirety of Britain’s family silver, both the Tories and New Labour continued this neoliberal privatisation bonanza, concocting ever-more outlandish schemes that conveniently siphoned off taxpayer’s money and assets into the hands of private individuals and corporations, rather than back into the public purse.

Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) were one such method. First envisioned by the Tories under John Major, and which proliferated under the New Labour administration of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, PFIs are essentially scams used by governments to finance infrastructure projects by borrowing money from private companies. They left the incumbent government looking good in the short term as PFIs allowed them to keep the borrowing off the balance sheet, but they burdened future governments with the cost of paying off the exorbitant amount of interest attached to such schemes.

The British taxpayer will fork out more than £200Bn because of these PFI scams – a method which has now been exposed as costing 40% more than if governments had simply used public money for the projects. All of this £200Bn of taxpayer’s money will end up being trousered by already wealthy private shareholders.

It is often argued that PFI scams were allowed to proliferate under New Labour because Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were desperate to shed New Labour of the ‘tax and spend’ label that the Tories had successfully branded them in previous decades. Ultimately though, New Labour’s choice to use such obviously short-termist and financially irresponsible schemes was because, seemingly devoid of any principles or willingness to fight, they simply capitulated to the Tories’ neoliberal political arguments instead.

Not only did the Tories have the super-rich media barons almost exclusively on their side, the 1970s heralded the invention of ‘thinktanks’. 

These supposedly ‘independent’ institutions were set up by wealthy groups and individuals with the sole aim of pushing a political agenda. And what, I hear you ask, was their political agenda of choice? 

Privatisation, of course.

Privatisation is essentially a far more efficient way for governments to ensure the money they spend remains in the pockets of their ‘own kind’ – the super rich elite.

Conservatism, as the definition of the word implies, is all about attempting to maintain the status quo – it is an ever-evolving ideology created by a ruling elite who were afraid of losing their dominance to simply retain whatever powers and wealth they could. However, the genius of neoliberalism was that it enabled the Conservatives (and the pro-neoliberal New Labour Party) to allow the ruling class to wrestle back more power and more wealth than they could ever have hoped for, and concentrate it in the hands of an even smaller group of people than before.

However, not content with seeing their wealth and power increase dramatically over the last four decades, the ruling elite are always on the lookout for new scams to pull to ensure they remain wealthy and powerful – and simply handing jobs to their mates is another method they use to ensure they stay as top dogs, and everybody else remains fighting eachother for the scraps.

Cronyism is nothing new in politics – with most people having heard of the phrase ‘jobs for the boys’. But the neoliberal age, with what has essentially become a virtual merging of politics and business, has seen brazen political cronyism run rampant.

And so, here’s Private Eye’s take on just how ridiculous the reality of Tory cronyism has become under neoliberalism:

So, after reading that, don’t you think Britain might be due for a little bit of a change? How about electing somebody who has always stood up for the little guy rather than the interests of their super-rich mates. How about voting in someone who has fought tirelessly to end the scourge of poverty and homelessness. Someone who has always stood up to the establishment and done everything in his power to try and put a stop to a seemingly endless stream of corruption and war. Someone with principles and a vision of how Britain really should be. Someone who truly believes Britain should be a more equal, more just, more tolerant society. 

It is clear that neoliberalism is the problem, and Britain finally has someone willing to solve it.

Source : evolvepolitics.com

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

Uber’s cover-up of data breach is worse than the crime

On Nov. 21, 2017, Uber Technologies, Inc., the embattled San Francisco ride-hailing company, disclosed that two hackers had stolen data concerning 57 million driver and rider accounts, including phone numbers, email addresses and names of Uber riders from a third-party server and demanded $100,000 to delete their copy of the data.

In a classic example of the “cover-up being worse than the crime,” Uber shockingly revealed that it acquiesced to the hacker’s demands by paying the $100,000 ransom and then engaged in a plan to cover-up the hack for more than a year wherein Uber’s customers and drivers were never informed that their personal information had been stolen. Uber’s inexplicable delay in informing the public and its customers of the 2016 data breach has placed it in the regulatory and legal cross-hairs of the Federal Trade Commission, at least three European government agencies, the National Privacy Commission of the Philippines, the New York State Attorney General’s office, the New Mexico Attorney General, and the Los Angeles City Attorney (through a lawsuit filed earlier this month).

Data breaches at companies large and small can and will happen, but Uber’s current and, likely future, regulatory and legal entanglements reveal that hiding, ignoring or covering up a data breach is far worse than simply addressing the breach when it occurs.

While recklessly irresponsible, Uber’s attempted cover-up of the 2016 hack and data breach sadly mirrors the approach utilized by many companies seeking to avoid their responsibilities under various data breach notification laws. Based on information currently available, Uber attempted to conceal the 2016 data breach that affected 57 million accounts. In addition to the names, emails and phone numbers of riders, about 600,000 U.S. drivers’ license numbers were accessed. In private, Uber acquiesced to the demands of the hackers and then went further by attempting to hide the breach.

Uber’s chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, under the watch of former chief executive, Travis Kalanick, arranged a deal with the hackers to pay the $100,000 ransom. According to the New York Times, Uber tracked down the hackers and pushed them to sign nondisclosure agreements. To further conceal the damage, Uber executives also made it appear as if the payout had been part of a “bug bounty” – a common practice among technology companies in which they pay hackers to attack their software to test for soft spots. The details of the breach and cyber-attack remained hidden until November 21, 2017 when Dara Khosrowshahi, Uber’s new CEO as of August, disclosed the breach to the public as part of an attempt to regain public trust in the company after Uber’s purportedly toxic workplace culture came under scrutiny under ousted CEO Travis Kalanick.

While Mr. Khosrowshahi seeks to get in front of Uber’s breach cover-up by voluntarily disclosing details of the hack and Uber’s failure to notify customers, the response by regulators shows that we are venturing into a world where a company’s failure to comply with data breach notification laws by ignoring or covering up the breach will no longer be tolerated. As a result of Uber’s efforts to conceal the data breach, Uber’s chief security officer was fired. A Federal Trade Commission spokesman said the agency is “closely evaluating the serious issues raised,” while Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn) said on Twitter that the Senate Commerce Committee should hold hearings to “demand Uber explain their outrageous breach – and inexplicable delay in informing its consumers and drivers.” According to The Wall Street Journal, the New York Attorney General’s office has opened an investigation.

In addition, New Mexico’s Attorney General issued a letter to Uber demanding that the company provide more information within 10 days and referred to the breach and Uber’s response as “gravely concerning.”

Overseas, Britain’s Information Commissioner’s Office, which oversees data protection in the country, said it would assess how the breach affected people in the U.K. and what steps Uber would need to take to better comply with data-protection requirements. The office has the power to fine Uber up to £500,000 ($665,000) for any wrongdoing. The deputy commissioner of the Information Commissioner’s Office noted that “[d]eliberately concealing breaches from regulators and citizens could attract higher fines for companies.” Likewise, data protection agencies and regulators in the Netherlands (the location of Uber’s European operations), Italy and the Philippines have launched investigations into the incident and were incensed by Uber’s lack of transparency and failure to adequately respond to protect customers once it learned of the data breach.

In California, Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer filed a lawsuit earlier this month against Uber asserting that Uber violated California’s Data Breach Notification Law (California Civil Code Section 1798.82) by failing to promptly report the breach. Under California Civil Code Section 1798.82, California companies are required to report hacks “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay.” At a news conference at Los Angeles City Hall, Los Angeles City Attorney Feuer stated, “[w]e’re taking action because we believe very strongly in the importance of protecting consumers.”

While it is not yet known how many drivers in California were affected by the hack and Uber’s cover-up, the City of Los Angeles’ lawsuit seeks $2,500 for each violation of the law. It has been reported that about 600,000 U.S. Drivers’ license numbers were accessed in the attack. Even by conservative estimates, Uber’s exposure in the City Attorney’s lawsuit alone could reach tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars.

Conclusion

The Uber breach and cover-up is an ongoing and developing story that reinforces the importance of transparency and taking data breach notification laws seriously. We continue to advise our clients to take proactive and vigilant steps now to ensure personal information and critical data in their possession is adequately protected. We also stress the importance of correctly and lawfully responding to a data breach should it occur at our clients’ businesses. The first step is to develop and disseminate a basic privacy practice and strategy to reduce the risk of a data breach actually occurring. As a starting point, limiting the personal information collected and retained can provide the strongest protection since a hacker cannot steal data containing personally identifiable information if the company does not keep such data. Companies should next focus on securing any private or sensitive data that they must maintain to prevent any unauthorized access. The use and retention of highly trained information security professionals is essential at this stage.

Even with the most sophisticated security measures in place to protect the disclosure of private information, companies are at risk to a hack or data breach. For this reason, a data breach response plan is essential to guide a company if, and when, a breach occurs. For California corporations, the retention of legal counsel to prepare the data breach response strategy is highly recommended to ensure that all measures comply with California’s existing data breach notification law.

Uber’s recent regulatory and legal troubles regarding its failure to properly notify its drivers and customers of the 2016 data breach serve as a reminder that the cover-up is often worse than the crime

Source : The Signal 

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

You Can Buy Diesel/Petrol From Any Garage In UK, But You Won't Get This With Electric Charging.

Garden Bridge Trust refuses to hand over meeting records

Critics say the charity behind the aborted Garden Bridge has ‘gone rogue’ after it refused to provide its public sector sponsor Transport for London with records of its key decisions despite the loss of close to £50 million of taxpayers’ money 

The AJ revealed earlier this month that TfL had called upon the Garden Bridge Trust to produce copies of the minutes of its board meetings.

As well as funding and helping to establish the trust in late 2013, TfL oversees the charity and had the right to attend these meetings.

However, following pressure from London Assembly’s oversight committee, TfL’s commissioner Mike Brown admitted before Christmas that it had failed to keep copies of the minutes.

The oversight committee is continuing to investigate the scandal of the £200m Heatherwick-designed bridge amid continuing questions about how an estimated £46.4 million could have been spent on the project without construction being started.

In a letter dated January 9, replying to the request from TfL’s director of city planning Alex Williams, the trust’s executive director Bee Emmott (pictured) said the organisation did not consider that it was required to produce the minutes.

While the Garden Bridge’s 2015 deed of grant sets out TfL’s right to inspect copies of the trust’s records of the project’s progress along with income and expenditure, Emmott argued that this was never intended to include the ‘dealings of the trust’.

In the letter, she wrote: ‘As you know, we have been through an investigation by the Charity Commission, and have given them everything that they have asked for and been given a clean bill of health; and we have been through the Hodge Review, and given her everything that she had asked for – and we feel that there has to be a limit.

The trust’s refusal to provide copies of the minutes is astonishing. It begs the question of what they are trying to hide

‘The time taken up by these exercises was both costly and a distraction from the primary business of the trust, and we do not feel it is right to add to that burden, on a purely speculative basis, at a time when the trust’s now very limited resources need to concentrate on closing down operations in a business-like way.’

Emmott - who worked at the bridge’s designer Heatherwick Studio before joining the Garden Bridge Trust - added that the trust had concerns about commercial confidentiality and was not covered by Freedom of Information laws.

She added: ‘As you know, TfL have been invited to trust board meetings and have attended the great majority of them, and have therefore been able to observe all dealings of the trust.’

TfL’s legal chief Howard Carter has now responded to Emmott to insist that the minutes be produced, demanding that she respond within 10 days.

‘I see no reason why the term “project records” would not encompass something as significant as board minutes, which are, clearly, the primary record for all significant decisions that were made in respect of the project,’ Carter wrote in his letter of January 22. ‘I am sure that on further consideration the trustees will accept that it is right and proper that its decision-making is entirely transparent to the public.’

The project is dead – I cannot see how concerns about ‘commercial confidentiality’ can apply in this instance

London Assembly and oversight committee member Tom Copley, who has been calling for the minutes to be published for several months, said TfL might now need to consider legal action to force the trust’s hand.

‘Arrogance and hubris have been the hallmark of the Garden Bridge Trust’s attitude to scrutiny and challenge over the years since its unfortunate inception,’ he said.

‘But even by their standards, the trust’s refusal to provide TfL with copies of the minutes of their board meetings is astonishing. It begs the question of what they are trying to hide – not just from the public but from the organisation that bankrolled them with millions of pounds of taxpayer cash.

‘The fact this project was set up at arms-length from TfL despite the level of public money being spent on it has led to problems with transparency and accountability from the very beginning.

‘Given the trust is winding up and the project is dead I cannot see how concerns about “commercial confidentiality” can apply in this instance. The trust may want the bridge to die as it lived – shrouded in secrecy – but taxpayers deserve to know what decisions were taken by those responsible for the loss of their money.’

Dan Anderson, a tourist attractions expert at consultant Fourth Street who has closely followed the Garden Bridge saga, said TfL and the trust seemed to be trying to top each other in terms of ‘outrageous’ behaviour.

‘TfL put £46 million into this project – they should have some proper documents somewhere,’ he said. ‘And now it appears that the Garden Bridge Trust has gone rogue and won’t provide them. How on earth did we get to this place?’

The Garden Bridge Trust declined to comment.

Vince Cable: TfL chief should face inquiry over £7m Garden Bridge grant

Transport for London boss Mike Brown should face investigation after overseeing a 2016 decision to plough millions of pounds of public money into the Garden Bridge, apparently in contravention of its own rules, Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable has said

Amid continuing scrutiny over how an estimated £46.4 million was spent on the aborted project, Mike Brown last week confirmed that TfL had made a crucial judgement call in deciding to sign off a £7 million payment to the Garden Bridge Trust when the latter was poised to sign its construction contract with Bouygues in early 2016.

Brown, who has been TfL commissioner since September 2015, made the admission in a newly published letter to the chair of the London Assembly’s oversight committee. Len Duvall. In it he acknowledged that TfL had concluded that the trust had met all six conditions set out in the funding agreement between the two organisations.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2E7FZRP
via IFTTT

London Taxi Radio TV Exclusive : Readdressing The Balance

On Friday afternoon, the Independent Taxi Alliance called the fifth in its series of protests, on behalf of the London Taxi trade. The venue, Aldwych and the Strand.

The police blocked all approaches to normal traffic but Taxis were allowed through to join the colleagues.
The Taxis soon encircled the location and were left unhindered to continue their three hour protestation. 

Weary of the constant misrepresentation of our grievances, 'London Taxi Radio TV' sent along three presenters plus cameraman, to film tangential and record exactly what was said to a news team from London Live Satellite TV channel, who had called earlier to arrange an interview.

Below is the must watch account of what was explained to the presenter plus what the channel the actually put out.

  

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2DAN9Ru
via IFTTT

LCDC members vote to ban Gett from advertising in their in house paper “The Badge”

You may have seen on Twitter last night, that the London Cab Drivers Club members have decided NOT to advertise the on line app GETT in the Badge anymore.

The reason for the ban is that GETT have now confirmed, they will be fitting 500 London taxis with mapping cameras to gain Data.

This Data, can then be sold to anyone they like (including UBER?) and be used in autonomous vehicles.

Just think about this.... they can and will sell the Knowledge we earned through sweat & toil over many years on our scooters. 

The club made this statement today:

We, like you are just taxi drivers and cannot tell people what to do.  But I explained to GETT today, we feel their move is just a Bridge to far and we will no longer be accepting advertising from them.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2F5KlIB
via IFTTT