Hero cabbie chased down and caught thugs who snatched his takings, court hears

A taxi driver has told the Old Bailey he chased and caught a teenager who had snatched his takings as he felt “violated”.

Gary Cox, above, was flagged down in Marylebone by two men who asked to be taken to Victoria on December 3. 

He told the court that one man then pounced “like a gazelle” to steal his cash bag and they tussled before the thieves fled with about £35. Mr Cox gave chase, grabbing one thief by the hood before he struggled free. 

“I must say for a fat bloke he ran really fast,” he said. 

Mr Cox later picked out a 17-year-old in an identity parade. 

The teenager, who cannot be identified, is also accused of taking a moped at knifepoint in St John’s Wood.  He denies two counts of robbery. 

The trial continues.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2HHUGjw
via IFTTT

Basildon taxi firm forced to expand into Canvey as Uber arrives

A BASILDON taxi firm has been forced to expand into Canvey and Castle Point to combat the influx of Uber drivers taking their business.

Uber drivers, excluded from operating in Chelmsford, Southend and Rayleigh, have been accused of zoning in on Basildon instead.

In March, the ridesharing app was “geo-fenced” from Southend, Chelmsford and Rayleigh, which prevents the driver operating in those locations.

Chris Cowley from Laindon, who manages the office of Basildon’s A & B Taxis, claims that Uber’s decision to make these Essex towns no-go zones is driving their business to Basildon.

“Poor old Basildon is excluded from this zone,” he said.

Mr Cowley, 67, whose company has 170 cabs in their fleet, said: “You see them a lot at Festival Leisure Park, and more and more at the station.

“There are lots more at weekends, because people drive for Uber as a part time job.

“Our drivers are very disgruntled. A lot of them assume that Uber is illegal.

“We are having to go into new ventures and expand because of Uber, as in Basildon, business is getting tight.”

Uber’s decision to restrict their drivers from operating in Southend, Chelmsford and Rayleigh comes as Uber is poised to appeal a decision by Transport for London decision to withdraw its operating license. In order to appease TfL, Uber has responded to concerns about it operating outside London by restricting its business in certain areas.

The withdrawal of Uber from Southend has proved to be good news for the town’s minicab drivers, who report that business is now booming for them.

One said: “Down on the ranks now it’s much busier, and at weekends you notice it the most - I just hope they don’t come back.”

Meanwhile, in Basildon, taxi drivers are now struggling to eek out a living.

“Business is definitely slower,” said Peter, a driver for Laindon Taxis.

“A lot of our old passengers are now trying Uber out now for the first time, it’s like a new toy on their phone. People coming out of the station are now ignoring the taxi cabs waiting there, they walk right past us and hop straight into an Uber.”

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2reTh9Q
via IFTTT

More Than 100 Uber Driver Have Been Accused Of Sexual Assault In Last 4 Years

More than 100 Uber drivers have been accused of sexually assaulting or abusing their passengers in the past four years, shocking investigation reveals

More than 100 Uber drivers have been accused of sexually assaulting or abusing their passengers in the past four years.

The drivers were arrested, are wanted by police, or have been named in civil suits relating to the incidents, a CNN investigation has found.

At least 31 drivers have been convicted for crimes ranging from forcible touching and false imprisonment to rape, and dozens of criminal and civil cases are pending.

An investigation has found that 103 drivers have been accused of sexually assaulting or verbally abusing passengers 

Last year Uber driver John David Sanchez was sentenced to 80 years in prison after pleading guilty to 34 charges including rape and sodomy of an unconscious person.

Sanchez was initially arrested about a month after a woman told police she was raped by Sanchez in February of 2016.

he was fired by Uber but investigators later found a number of other women said they were also sexually assaulted by him in 2007, 2011 and 2013, but had not reported the attacks.

CNN found that that Sanchez is just one of at least 103 Uber drivers in the U.S. who have been accused of sexually assaulting or abusing their passengers in the past four years.

The network said its analysis came from a review of police reports, federal court records and county court databases for 20 major U.S. cities.

Five drivers across various states told CNN they were not provided any kind of sexual harassment or assault training.

In a statement, Uber said: 'These stories are horrific and our hearts go out to the victims.

Uber driver John David Sanchez was sentenced to 80 years in prison after pleading guilty to 34 charges including rape and sodomy of an unconscious person

'We worked with CNN to understand their findings and determined that Uber did 2.4 billion trips in the U.S. in that same period.

'But even one incident on our platform is too many which is why safety is Uber's top priority for 2018 and beyond.

'We recently strengthened our safety approach with new features including an emergency button, driver screening improvements, and the addition of the former Secretary of Homeland Security to head up Uber's Safety Advisory Board.

'This is just a start and we are committed to doing even more

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2w9X4KE
via IFTTT

More Good News As It Looks like the gig is up for Uber in California

The California Supreme Court has issued a decision with major implications for Uber, the gig economy, and the question of worker classification more broadly. 

In Dynamex Operations West, Inc., the court holds – for purposes of California wage orders (which govern minimum wages, maximum hours, and meal and rest breaks) – that the appropriate test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor is the so-called ABC test. 

Under that test, a hiring entity that wants to classify workers as independent contractors has the burden of establishing each of the following three things:

(A) that the worker is free from control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact;

(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and

(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.

All three factors are difficult for a firm like Uber to establish (my view is that they lose on all three), but the second prong ought to be impossible for Uber to satisfy. Meeting prong (B) requires Uber to prove that its drivers are performing work outside the usual course of Uber’s business. Since Uber’s business is all about providing transportation services to passengers, driving people is in the usual course of Uber’s business. Indeed, the only way Uber can win on prong (B) is to convince a judge that it is not in the transportation business, but is instead a technology company. Uber has been making this argument, but the appropriate response to it has already been offered. The U.K Uber tribunal, for example, called the idea “faintly ridiculous.” Judge Chen deemed it “fatally flawed.” As Chen put it:

Uber is no more a “technology company” than Yellow Cab is a “technology company” because it uses CB radios to dispatch taxi cabs, John Deere is a “technology company” because it uses computers and robots to manufacture lawn mowers, or Domino Sugar is a “technology company” because it uses modern irrigation techniques to grow its sugar cane. Indeed, very few (if any) firms are not technology companies if one focuses solely on how they create or distribute their products. If, however, the focus is on the substance of what the firm actually does (e.g., sells cab rides, lawn mowers, or sugar), it is clear that Uber is most certainly a transportation company.

Being a transportation company, Uber will fail to satisfy prong (B). 

That means under the California Supreme Court’s test, Uber drivers are employees

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2w19l3K
via IFTTT

BREAKING NEWS : Uber's Brighton Licence Turned Down a By Council

Following the hearing on Monday 23 April, Brighton & Hove City Council’s licensing panel has decided against renewing Uber Britannia Ltd’s Private Hire Operator Licence in the city.

The unanimous decision was taken as the members of the panel were not satisfied that UBL are a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold an operator’s licence under the terms of Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the council’s licensing objectives.

The panel considered all circumstances relating to the application and the factors operating in Brighton & Hove. This included a number of issues raised by those objecting to the application, which they found to carry very little or no evidential weight.

However, the panel did have significant concerns about the company’s data breach and UBL’s lack of commitment to use only Brighton & Hove licensed drivers in the city. These formed the basis of the decision to not renew the licence.

Chair of the licensing panel, Councillor Jackie O’Quinn, said: “When making Hackney Carriage and Private Hire operator licensing decisions, our priority is the safety of residents and visitors and, due to the data breach and the lack of commitment to using drivers licensed here, we were not satisfied that UBL are a fit and proper person to hold an operator’s licence in the city.

“All Brighton & Hove private hire and Hackney Carriage drivers in the city operate under the same licences and guidelines contained in the Blue Book and undergo the same background checks, whichever company they drive for. In the original application in 2015, UBL gave a firm commitment to adhere to the standards set out in the Blue Book and only to use Brighton & Hove licensed drivers. We do not feel the spirit of this commitment has been kept to. In the panel’s view, large numbers of taxis operating in the city that do not meet our Blue Book standards puts the safety of residents and visitors at potential risk.

“We recognise there are strong feelings on this issue and would like to thank all those who took the time to make submissions to the hearing.”

The hearing was held in public to make the process as open and transparent as possible. As well as representatives from Uber, the panel heard views for and against renewing the licence from interested parties, including residents and the local taxi trade.

If Uber decide to appeal against the decision, their drivers licensed with Brighton & Hove can continue to operate in the city while the appeal is heard. Any appeal must be made to the Magistrates Court in Edward Street, Brighton within 21 days of notification of this decision

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT FROM KENNY ETHERIDGE.

Remember all those who scoffed at us going down to support the Brighton Hackney drivers?

How we proved that a London driver can work the App in Brighton. That the App has no idea until after the job is accepted.

WELL DONE TO ALL THOSE BRIGHTON DRIVERS WHO MADE US WELCOME 

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2jmTIuD
via IFTTT

Breaking News Uber’s Brighton Licence Turned Down By Council

Following the hearing on Monday 23 April, Brighton & Hove City Council’s licensing panel has decided against renewing Uber Britannia Ltd’s Private Hire Operator Licence in the city.

The unanimous decision was taken as the members of the panel were not satisfied that UBL are a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold an operator’s licence under the terms of Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the council’s licensing objectives.

The panel considered all circumstances relating to the application and the factors operating in Brighton & Hove. This included a number of issues raised by those objecting to the application, which they found to carry very little or no evidential weight.

However, the panel did have significant concerns about the company’s data breach and UBL’s lack of commitment to use only Brighton & Hove licensed drivers in the city. These formed the basis of the decision to not renew the licence.

Chair of the licensing panel, Councillor Jackie O’Quinn, said: “When making Hackney Carriage and Private Hire operator licensing decisions, our priority is the safety of residents and visitors and, due to the data breach and the lack of commitment to using drivers licensed here, we were not satisfied that UBL are a fit and proper person to hold an operator’s licence in the city.

“All Brighton & Hove private hire and Hackney Carriage drivers in the city operate under the same licences and guidelines contained in the Blue Book and undergo the same background checks, whichever company they drive for. In the original application in 2015, UBL gave a firm commitment to adhere to the standards set out in the Blue Book and only to use Brighton & Hove licensed drivers. We do not feel the spirit of this commitment has been kept to. In the panel’s view, large numbers of taxis operating in the city that do not meet our Blue Book standards puts the safety of residents and visitors at potential risk.

“We recognise there are strong feelings on this issue and would like to thank all those who took the time to make submissions to the hearing.”

For more details on the decision, view or download the Uber Britannia Ltd licensing application decision letter 1 May 2018 (PDF 451KB).

The hearing was held in public to make the process as open and transparent as possible. As well as representatives from Uber, the panel heard views for and against renewing the licence from interested parties, including residents and the local taxi trade.

If Uber decide to appeal against the decision, their drivers licensed with Brighton & Hove can continue to operate in the city while the appeal is heard. Any appeal must be made to the Magistrates Court in Edward Street, Brighton within 21 days of notification of this decision.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2jmTaVB
via IFTTT

WhatsApp’s Founder Jan Koum Quits Facebook, Following Differences Over Privacy.

When Facebook paid $19bn for WhatsApp in 2014, it seemed like an astonishing price for a messaging app that had very little revenue. Four years later, it now has more than a billion users, but still barely makes a cent.

Much of that might be down to Jan Koum, WhatsApp’s founder and, until yesterday, its boss, who has always sought to keep the app independent. Koum announced last night that he was leaving Facebook to collect rare Porsches and play ultimate frisbee.

It has to be one of the better Silicon Valley leaving notes; the question now is what happens to WhatsApp

ENCRYPTED DEPARTURE

Koum did not elaborate on why he was leaving WhatsApp, but the Washington Post reports that his departure is down to clashes with Facebook management over the parent company's apparent attempts to use personal data and weaken encryption.

WhatsApp’s founder, who grew up in Communist Ukraine, has always been a staunch privacy supporter and occasionally a critic of advertising-supported social media, and it seems possible that his philosophy differed from Mark Zuckerberg’s.

WHAT’S NEXT FOR WHATSAPP?

Since buying WhatsApp, Facebook has struggled with the question how to make money from it. An initiative to have businesses pay to communicate through the service has often been mulled, but so far struggled to take off.

Meanwhile the app’s encryption has often been criticised by politicians and police, who say it makes it more difficult to catch criminals. Interestingly, Koum’s departure comes as Russia and Iran both crack down on encrypted app Telegram.

As Facebook itself faces growing political scrutiny, could the company be tempted to weaken WhatsApp’s encryption as a potential bargaining chip

Source : Telegraph.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2rcCcxv
via IFTTT