The ArgusProposals could 'destroy' passenger safety culture in taxis (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Proposals could 'destroy' passenger safety culture in taxis warns Brighton union boss

The Argus: Proposals could 'destroy' passenger safety in taxis Proposals could 'destroy' passenger safety in taxis

Public safety could be put at risk by proposals to deregulate the taxi industry, union figures have warned.

A GMB union representative and Brighton cab driver said drivers could resort to direct action after amendments to a Bill passed the committee stage of Parliament.

The plan to introduce unregulated taxi drivers would harm the industry and could put women at risk of assault, the union claimed.

Mick Hildreth, GMB secretary for the taxi industry and operations manager for City Cabs in Brighton, said: “The Government’s proposals will destroy the tremendous passenger safety culture, established over many years in the industry. The proposals will also potentially lead to more women being put at risk to assault and attack who have to travel late at night, by unregulated drivers.”

Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: “I’m deeply concerned that deregulation could cause serious damage to the industry.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Transport said: “These proposals will bring significant benefits for the taxi and private hire trades.”

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:10am Fri 4 Apr 14

Brighton90 says...

This is the same Union who argued against having CCTV cameras in all taxis within the city for the safety of both passengers and taxi drivers. Now the GMB want to argue against deregulated drivers because it could put female passengers at risk. Hypocritical.
This is the same Union who argued against having CCTV cameras in all taxis within the city for the safety of both passengers and taxi drivers. Now the GMB want to argue against deregulated drivers because it could put female passengers at risk. Hypocritical. Brighton90
  • Score: 2

11:31am Fri 4 Apr 14

whatevernext2013 says...

maybe the same taxi drivers could stop blocking the roads around the train station ,as you can see by the picture they block the roads around the station on a daily basis
maybe the same taxi drivers could stop blocking the roads around the train station ,as you can see by the picture they block the roads around the station on a daily basis whatevernext2013
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Fri 4 Apr 14

FC says...

whatevernext2013 wrote:
maybe the same taxi drivers could stop blocking the roads around the train station ,as you can see by the picture they block the roads around the station on a daily basis
I can only assume you're stupid. 5 of those taxis have their lights off and are likely to be dropping people off at the station. The others will be on their way to park AT the station to pick people up.

But also, deregulation is a moronic idea.
[quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: maybe the same taxi drivers could stop blocking the roads around the train station ,as you can see by the picture they block the roads around the station on a daily basis[/p][/quote]I can only assume you're stupid. 5 of those taxis have their lights off and are likely to be dropping people off at the station. The others will be on their way to park AT the station to pick people up. But also, deregulation is a moronic idea. FC
  • Score: 3

12:20pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Pebbles says...

Dear Brighton90

Let me educate you:

What this actually means is that local councils will not have the power to exclusively licence private hire vehicles that work within their respective areas.

Currently, a local authority like Brighton & Hove has the responsibilty to issue ph driver and vehicle licences for such drives and vehicles that work within the area.

The new proposed changes mean that any ph driver and vehicle can be issued with a national style licence & be able to work in any area that is desired.

On the face of it this could be considered a very good way to go and could possibly be supported by the general public.

The other side of it means that local authorites will no longer be able carry one-to-one checks on the ph driver/vehicle and no ph driver will have to undertake a 'knowledge test' of the area that is intended to work.

Effectively a ph driver/vehicle that is licensed in Liverpool can work in Brighton and vice versa.

Furthermore, only minimum standards would apply. This means that any local authority that has set specific standards for their respective ph licensing will have to rip out those conditions of licensing.

During the Consultation period the GMB made the point that such changes could lead to making it extremely difficult for investigating complaints and especially identifying vehicles.

With regard to your statement about CCTV:

One of the conditions of licensing imposed by Brighton & Hove City Council for all its respective Hackney Carriage and Private Hire fleet is Compulsory CCTV, as you well know.

The GMB made it very clear that such Compulsory CCTV for conditions of licensing would not be able to be imposed on private hire vehicles should any any proposed changes to the Private Hire trade be passed because of the 'minimum standards' clause.

However, the council ignored this information provided by the GMB and presssed ahead with Compulsory CCTV for all Hackney Carriages and Private Hire vehicles with the full knowledge that the Department of Transport & the Law Commission changes would mean that no such condition could be imposed on any private hire vehicle licence.

..... but you know all of this dont you :)

AP
Dear Brighton90 Let me educate you: What this actually means is that local councils will not have the power to exclusively licence private hire vehicles that work within their respective areas. Currently, a local authority like Brighton & Hove has the responsibilty to issue ph driver and vehicle licences for such drives and vehicles that work within the area. The new proposed changes mean that any ph driver and vehicle can be issued with a national style licence & be able to work in any area that is desired. On the face of it this could be considered a very good way to go and could possibly be supported by the general public. The other side of it means that local authorites will no longer be able carry one-to-one checks on the ph driver/vehicle and no ph driver will have to undertake a 'knowledge test' of the area that is intended to work. Effectively a ph driver/vehicle that is licensed in Liverpool can work in Brighton and vice versa. Furthermore, only minimum standards would apply. This means that any local authority that has set specific standards for their respective ph licensing will have to rip out those conditions of licensing. During the Consultation period the GMB made the point that such changes could lead to making it extremely difficult for investigating complaints and especially identifying vehicles. With regard to your statement about CCTV: One of the conditions of licensing imposed by Brighton & Hove City Council for all its respective Hackney Carriage and Private Hire fleet is Compulsory CCTV, as you well know. The GMB made it very clear that such Compulsory CCTV for conditions of licensing would not be able to be imposed on private hire vehicles should any any proposed changes to the Private Hire trade be passed because of the 'minimum standards' clause. However, the council ignored this information provided by the GMB and presssed ahead with Compulsory CCTV for all Hackney Carriages and Private Hire vehicles with the full knowledge that the Department of Transport & the Law Commission changes would mean that no such condition could be imposed on any private hire vehicle licence. ..... but you know all of this dont you :) AP Pebbles
  • Score: 9

1:33pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Brighton90 says...

Pebbles wrote:
Dear Brighton90

Let me educate you:

What this actually means is that local councils will not have the power to exclusively licence private hire vehicles that work within their respective areas.

Currently, a local authority like Brighton & Hove has the responsibilty to issue ph driver and vehicle licences for such drives and vehicles that work within the area.

The new proposed changes mean that any ph driver and vehicle can be issued with a national style licence & be able to work in any area that is desired.

On the face of it this could be considered a very good way to go and could possibly be supported by the general public.

The other side of it means that local authorites will no longer be able carry one-to-one checks on the ph driver/vehicle and no ph driver will have to undertake a 'knowledge test' of the area that is intended to work.

Effectively a ph driver/vehicle that is licensed in Liverpool can work in Brighton and vice versa.

Furthermore, only minimum standards would apply. This means that any local authority that has set specific standards for their respective ph licensing will have to rip out those conditions of licensing.

During the Consultation period the GMB made the point that such changes could lead to making it extremely difficult for investigating complaints and especially identifying vehicles.

With regard to your statement about CCTV:

One of the conditions of licensing imposed by Brighton & Hove City Council for all its respective Hackney Carriage and Private Hire fleet is Compulsory CCTV, as you well know.

The GMB made it very clear that such Compulsory CCTV for conditions of licensing would not be able to be imposed on private hire vehicles should any any proposed changes to the Private Hire trade be passed because of the 'minimum standards' clause.

However, the council ignored this information provided by the GMB and presssed ahead with Compulsory CCTV for all Hackney Carriages and Private Hire vehicles with the full knowledge that the Department of Transport & the Law Commission changes would mean that no such condition could be imposed on any private hire vehicle licence.

..... but you know all of this dont you :)

AP
May I ask why you bothered? You cannot assume from what I wrote that I did nof know this. Also I think you listen to union trash too much
[quote][p][bold]Pebbles[/bold] wrote: Dear Brighton90 Let me educate you: What this actually means is that local councils will not have the power to exclusively licence private hire vehicles that work within their respective areas. Currently, a local authority like Brighton & Hove has the responsibilty to issue ph driver and vehicle licences for such drives and vehicles that work within the area. The new proposed changes mean that any ph driver and vehicle can be issued with a national style licence & be able to work in any area that is desired. On the face of it this could be considered a very good way to go and could possibly be supported by the general public. The other side of it means that local authorites will no longer be able carry one-to-one checks on the ph driver/vehicle and no ph driver will have to undertake a 'knowledge test' of the area that is intended to work. Effectively a ph driver/vehicle that is licensed in Liverpool can work in Brighton and vice versa. Furthermore, only minimum standards would apply. This means that any local authority that has set specific standards for their respective ph licensing will have to rip out those conditions of licensing. During the Consultation period the GMB made the point that such changes could lead to making it extremely difficult for investigating complaints and especially identifying vehicles. With regard to your statement about CCTV: One of the conditions of licensing imposed by Brighton & Hove City Council for all its respective Hackney Carriage and Private Hire fleet is Compulsory CCTV, as you well know. The GMB made it very clear that such Compulsory CCTV for conditions of licensing would not be able to be imposed on private hire vehicles should any any proposed changes to the Private Hire trade be passed because of the 'minimum standards' clause. However, the council ignored this information provided by the GMB and presssed ahead with Compulsory CCTV for all Hackney Carriages and Private Hire vehicles with the full knowledge that the Department of Transport & the Law Commission changes would mean that no such condition could be imposed on any private hire vehicle licence. ..... but you know all of this dont you :) AP[/p][/quote]May I ask why you bothered? You cannot assume from what I wrote that I did nof know this. Also I think you listen to union trash too much Brighton90
  • Score: -9

2:38pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Pebbles says...

Brighton90 wrote:
Pebbles wrote:
Dear Brighton90

Let me educate you:

What this actually means is that local councils will not have the power to exclusively licence private hire vehicles that work within their respective areas.

Currently, a local authority like Brighton & Hove has the responsibilty to issue ph driver and vehicle licences for such drives and vehicles that work within the area.

The new proposed changes mean that any ph driver and vehicle can be issued with a national style licence & be able to work in any area that is desired.

On the face of it this could be considered a very good way to go and could possibly be supported by the general public.

The other side of it means that local authorites will no longer be able carry one-to-one checks on the ph driver/vehicle and no ph driver will have to undertake a 'knowledge test' of the area that is intended to work.

Effectively a ph driver/vehicle that is licensed in Liverpool can work in Brighton and vice versa.

Furthermore, only minimum standards would apply. This means that any local authority that has set specific standards for their respective ph licensing will have to rip out those conditions of licensing.

During the Consultation period the GMB made the point that such changes could lead to making it extremely difficult for investigating complaints and especially identifying vehicles.

With regard to your statement about CCTV:

One of the conditions of licensing imposed by Brighton & Hove City Council for all its respective Hackney Carriage and Private Hire fleet is Compulsory CCTV, as you well know.

The GMB made it very clear that such Compulsory CCTV for conditions of licensing would not be able to be imposed on private hire vehicles should any any proposed changes to the Private Hire trade be passed because of the 'minimum standards' clause.

However, the council ignored this information provided by the GMB and presssed ahead with Compulsory CCTV for all Hackney Carriages and Private Hire vehicles with the full knowledge that the Department of Transport & the Law Commission changes would mean that no such condition could be imposed on any private hire vehicle licence.

..... but you know all of this dont you :)

AP
May I ask why you bothered? You cannot assume from what I wrote that I did nof know this. Also I think you listen to union trash too much
Thank you for your comment in reply to mine:

Not quite sure what "May I ask why you bothered?" means ? Please explain?

I based my comment on the contents of your post and the obvious agenda contained within.

The GMB made the point in person to the HCO and in writing to the licensing committee that with the looming changes proposed from the Law Commission/DfT that any proposals for compulsory CCTV in PH vehicles would end up being unenforceable.. and this would pertain to any local council.

Surely you would agree that this would be the case regardless of your own perosnal view on CCTV?

You may like to continue with this on the GMB Brighton & Hove Taxi Section at www.bhtaxiforum.co.u
k if you are currently a member of the forum then please post. If not the please sign up.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton90[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pebbles[/bold] wrote: Dear Brighton90 Let me educate you: What this actually means is that local councils will not have the power to exclusively licence private hire vehicles that work within their respective areas. Currently, a local authority like Brighton & Hove has the responsibilty to issue ph driver and vehicle licences for such drives and vehicles that work within the area. The new proposed changes mean that any ph driver and vehicle can be issued with a national style licence & be able to work in any area that is desired. On the face of it this could be considered a very good way to go and could possibly be supported by the general public. The other side of it means that local authorites will no longer be able carry one-to-one checks on the ph driver/vehicle and no ph driver will have to undertake a 'knowledge test' of the area that is intended to work. Effectively a ph driver/vehicle that is licensed in Liverpool can work in Brighton and vice versa. Furthermore, only minimum standards would apply. This means that any local authority that has set specific standards for their respective ph licensing will have to rip out those conditions of licensing. During the Consultation period the GMB made the point that such changes could lead to making it extremely difficult for investigating complaints and especially identifying vehicles. With regard to your statement about CCTV: One of the conditions of licensing imposed by Brighton & Hove City Council for all its respective Hackney Carriage and Private Hire fleet is Compulsory CCTV, as you well know. The GMB made it very clear that such Compulsory CCTV for conditions of licensing would not be able to be imposed on private hire vehicles should any any proposed changes to the Private Hire trade be passed because of the 'minimum standards' clause. However, the council ignored this information provided by the GMB and presssed ahead with Compulsory CCTV for all Hackney Carriages and Private Hire vehicles with the full knowledge that the Department of Transport & the Law Commission changes would mean that no such condition could be imposed on any private hire vehicle licence. ..... but you know all of this dont you :) AP[/p][/quote]May I ask why you bothered? You cannot assume from what I wrote that I did nof know this. Also I think you listen to union trash too much[/p][/quote]Thank you for your comment in reply to mine: Not quite sure what "May I ask why you bothered?" means ? Please explain? I based my comment on the contents of your post and the obvious agenda contained within. The GMB made the point in person to the HCO and in writing to the licensing committee that with the looming changes proposed from the Law Commission/DfT that any proposals for compulsory CCTV in PH vehicles would end up being unenforceable.. and this would pertain to any local council. Surely you would agree that this would be the case regardless of your own perosnal view on CCTV? You may like to continue with this on the GMB Brighton & Hove Taxi Section at www.bhtaxiforum.co.u k if you are currently a member of the forum then please post. If not the please sign up. Pebbles
  • Score: 8

3:05pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Fairfax Aches says...

The taxi drivers are a law upon themselves and if I was in charge I'd make it my personal mission to hunt them down Judge Dredd style
The taxi drivers are a law upon themselves and if I was in charge I'd make it my personal mission to hunt them down Judge Dredd style Fairfax Aches
  • Score: -8

3:21pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Cgull says...

It's just a shame the GMB don't talk to their members as much as they talk to the press.

Maybe the GMB could ask there members for their views first.
It's just a shame the GMB don't talk to their members as much as they talk to the press. Maybe the GMB could ask there members for their views first. Cgull
  • Score: -3

4:10pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Goldenwight says...

If Caroline Lucas says it then it must be true. Or maybe false, I'm not sure.

But I blame the Greens anyway.
If Caroline Lucas says it then it must be true. Or maybe false, I'm not sure. But I blame the Greens anyway. Goldenwight
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Sheeples says...

Pebbles wrote:
Dear Brighton90

Let me educate you:

What this actually means is that local councils will not have the power to exclusively licence private hire vehicles that work within their respective areas.

Currently, a local authority like Brighton & Hove has the responsibilty to issue ph driver and vehicle licences for such drives and vehicles that work within the area.

The new proposed changes mean that any ph driver and vehicle can be issued with a national style licence & be able to work in any area that is desired.

On the face of it this could be considered a very good way to go and could possibly be supported by the general public.

The other side of it means that local authorites will no longer be able carry one-to-one checks on the ph driver/vehicle and no ph driver will have to undertake a 'knowledge test' of the area that is intended to work.

Effectively a ph driver/vehicle that is licensed in Liverpool can work in Brighton and vice versa.

Furthermore, only minimum standards would apply. This means that any local authority that has set specific standards for their respective ph licensing will have to rip out those conditions of licensing.

During the Consultation period the GMB made the point that such changes could lead to making it extremely difficult for investigating complaints and especially identifying vehicles.

With regard to your statement about CCTV:

One of the conditions of licensing imposed by Brighton & Hove City Council for all its respective Hackney Carriage and Private Hire fleet is Compulsory CCTV, as you well know.

The GMB made it very clear that such Compulsory CCTV for conditions of licensing would not be able to be imposed on private hire vehicles should any any proposed changes to the Private Hire trade be passed because of the 'minimum standards' clause.

However, the council ignored this information provided by the GMB and presssed ahead with Compulsory CCTV for all Hackney Carriages and Private Hire vehicles with the full knowledge that the Department of Transport & the Law Commission changes would mean that no such condition could be imposed on any private hire vehicle licence.

..... but you know all of this dont you :)

AP
So now the GMB are against CCTV due to a 'possible' change being mooted by the Law Commission. What was the reason they apposed it two years ago?

Its funny how the public statement they made against CCTV had no mention of the Law Commission, it did however have the same spelling mistake numerous times!!!!

Joseph would be proud.
[quote][p][bold]Pebbles[/bold] wrote: Dear Brighton90 Let me educate you: What this actually means is that local councils will not have the power to exclusively licence private hire vehicles that work within their respective areas. Currently, a local authority like Brighton & Hove has the responsibilty to issue ph driver and vehicle licences for such drives and vehicles that work within the area. The new proposed changes mean that any ph driver and vehicle can be issued with a national style licence & be able to work in any area that is desired. On the face of it this could be considered a very good way to go and could possibly be supported by the general public. The other side of it means that local authorites will no longer be able carry one-to-one checks on the ph driver/vehicle and no ph driver will have to undertake a 'knowledge test' of the area that is intended to work. Effectively a ph driver/vehicle that is licensed in Liverpool can work in Brighton and vice versa. Furthermore, only minimum standards would apply. This means that any local authority that has set specific standards for their respective ph licensing will have to rip out those conditions of licensing. During the Consultation period the GMB made the point that such changes could lead to making it extremely difficult for investigating complaints and especially identifying vehicles. With regard to your statement about CCTV: One of the conditions of licensing imposed by Brighton & Hove City Council for all its respective Hackney Carriage and Private Hire fleet is Compulsory CCTV, as you well know. The GMB made it very clear that such Compulsory CCTV for conditions of licensing would not be able to be imposed on private hire vehicles should any any proposed changes to the Private Hire trade be passed because of the 'minimum standards' clause. However, the council ignored this information provided by the GMB and presssed ahead with Compulsory CCTV for all Hackney Carriages and Private Hire vehicles with the full knowledge that the Department of Transport & the Law Commission changes would mean that no such condition could be imposed on any private hire vehicle licence. ..... but you know all of this dont you :) AP[/p][/quote]So now the GMB are against CCTV due to a 'possible' change being mooted by the Law Commission. What was the reason they apposed it two years ago? Its funny how the public statement they made against CCTV had no mention of the Law Commission, it did however have the same spelling mistake numerous times!!!! Joseph would be proud. Sheeples
  • Score: 2

5:28pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Stuartpot says...

The sooner the better.
Some services do not need , Compulsory CCTV across the board .NO AUDIO RECORD IS ALLOW . Want they going to do lip read Really
Already we have Dvla , Criminal Check, medical .
We can pass the job over to another out of area licence taxis with out the local polices are force onto us
The sooner the better. Some services do not need , Compulsory CCTV across the board .NO AUDIO RECORD IS ALLOW . Want they going to do lip read Really Already we have Dvla , Criminal Check, medical . We can pass the job over to another out of area licence taxis with out the local polices are force onto us Stuartpot
  • Score: -4

6:17pm Fri 4 Apr 14

independant and proud says...

the gmb have been a disaster for the brighton taxi service.
gmb should stand for Good Money Burnt.
dont ask them why they moved the elected directors out of the union branch.
ex member
the gmb have been a disaster for the brighton taxi service. gmb should stand for Good Money Burnt. dont ask them why they moved the elected directors out of the union branch. ex member independant and proud
  • Score: 4

7:54pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Pebbles says...

Funny how a simple news article can be hijacked LOL! :)
Funny how a simple news article can be hijacked LOL! :) Pebbles
  • Score: -2

8:00pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Pebbles says...

independant and proud wrote:
the gmb have been a disaster for the brighton taxi service.
gmb should stand for Good Money Burnt.
dont ask them why they moved the elected directors out of the union branch.
ex member
"...the gmb have been a disaster for the brighton taxi service..."

Is it regarded as being a disaster for the trade that the GMB proposed that advertising should be allowed on the B&H fleet to allow for extra income?

Is it regarded as being a disaster for the trade that the GMB proposed extended age limits for hackney carriages, matching that of the PH fleet?
[quote][p][bold]independant and proud[/bold] wrote: the gmb have been a disaster for the brighton taxi service. gmb should stand for Good Money Burnt. dont ask them why they moved the elected directors out of the union branch. ex member[/p][/quote]"...the gmb have been a disaster for the brighton taxi service..." Is it regarded as being a disaster for the trade that the GMB proposed that advertising should be allowed on the B&H fleet to allow for extra income? Is it regarded as being a disaster for the trade that the GMB proposed extended age limits for hackney carriages, matching that of the PH fleet? Pebbles
  • Score: -1

8:03pm Fri 4 Apr 14

upsidedowntuctuc says...

Which anti GMB author is the one making £'s from unreliable CCTV systems? All of them or just the two ****'s?
Which anti GMB author is the one making £'s from unreliable CCTV systems? All of them or just the two ****'s? upsidedowntuctuc
  • Score: -1

10:15pm Fri 4 Apr 14

independant and proud says...

The gmb have banned directors of the biggest cab firm from attending meetings.
This is wrong. The agm said it was wrong.
Waste of money joining gmb.
Unite is the union for transport.
The gmb have banned directors of the biggest cab firm from attending meetings. This is wrong. The agm said it was wrong. Waste of money joining gmb. Unite is the union for transport. independant and proud
  • Score: -1

11:13pm Fri 4 Apr 14

upsidedowntuctuc says...

No Company directors in a workers Union? How shocking!
No Company directors in a workers Union? How shocking! upsidedowntuctuc
  • Score: -1

10:01am Sat 5 Apr 14

Sheeples says...

upsidedowntuctuc wrote:
No Company directors in a workers Union? How shocking!
Workers union? That's hilarious, so all the committee drive cabs do they? None of the committee have vested interests in plates and numerous rental vehicles?
Workers Union? How Shocking!
[quote][p][bold]upsidedowntuctuc[/bold] wrote: No Company directors in a workers Union? How shocking![/p][/quote]Workers union? That's hilarious, so all the committee drive cabs do they? None of the committee have vested interests in plates and numerous rental vehicles? Workers Union? How Shocking! Sheeples
  • Score: 1

12:02pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Sheeples says...

upsidedowntuctuc wrote:
Which anti GMB author is the one making £'s from unreliable CCTV systems? All of them or just the two ****'s?
Anti GMB....no no dear boy, mearly highlighting (as many are) the level of hypocrisy.
I'm lead to believe, even GMB 'backed' councillors have seen through it.

Reminds me of Cpt Edward "John Smith"
[quote][p][bold]upsidedowntuctuc[/bold] wrote: Which anti GMB author is the one making £'s from unreliable CCTV systems? All of them or just the two ****'s?[/p][/quote]Anti GMB....no no dear boy, mearly highlighting (as many are) the level of hypocrisy. I'm lead to believe, even GMB 'backed' councillors have seen through it. Reminds me of Cpt Edward "John Smith" Sheeples
  • Score: 1

12:32pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Sheeples says...

On a serious note.
.
This is a real threat to the taxi trade, it's a shame a union that once had influence and respect locally, has burned so many bridges on an issue that the public, trade and council overwhelming support.

All that damage for the machinations of a few sycophants!
On a serious note. . This is a real threat to the taxi trade, it's a shame a union that once had influence and respect locally, has burned so many bridges on an issue that the public, trade and council overwhelming support. All that damage for the machinations of a few sycophants! Sheeples
  • Score: 1

1:04pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Cgull says...

I'm led to believe the GMB are concerned about unlicensed drivers driving licensed ph vehicles for leisure and other non working reasons.

I wonder if this is the same GMB that told the Law Commission they agreed unlicensed drivers should be allowed to drive licensed ph vehicles for leisure and other non working reasons.

Bum and elbow strikes again.
I'm led to believe the GMB are concerned about unlicensed drivers driving licensed ph vehicles for leisure and other non working reasons. I wonder if this is the same GMB that told the Law Commission they agreed unlicensed drivers should be allowed to drive licensed ph vehicles for leisure and other non working reasons. Bum and elbow strikes again. Cgull
  • Score: 2

2:24pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Sheeples says...

Cgull wrote:
I'm led to believe the GMB are concerned about unlicensed drivers driving licensed ph vehicles for leisure and other non working reasons.

I wonder if this is the same GMB that told the Law Commission they agreed unlicensed drivers should be allowed to drive licensed ph vehicles for leisure and other non working reasons.

Bum and elbow strikes again.
Sounds like another spelling mistake to me 😀
[quote][p][bold]Cgull[/bold] wrote: I'm led to believe the GMB are concerned about unlicensed drivers driving licensed ph vehicles for leisure and other non working reasons. I wonder if this is the same GMB that told the Law Commission they agreed unlicensed drivers should be allowed to drive licensed ph vehicles for leisure and other non working reasons. Bum and elbow strikes again.[/p][/quote]Sounds like another spelling mistake to me 😀 Sheeples
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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