There Will Always Be An England.

Submitted by Henry.

I give you a toast Ladies and gentlemen,
I give you a toast Ladies and gentlemen
May this fair land we love so well,
In Dignity and freedom dwell.
The worlds may change and go awry,
Whilst there is still one voice to cry!—
There’ll always be an England,
While there’s a country lane.
Wherever there’s a cottage small
Beside a field of grain
There’ll always be an England
While there’s a busy street.
Wherever there’s a turning wheel
A million marching feet.
Red, white and blue
What does it mean to you?
Surely you’re proud
Shout it loud
Britons awake!
The Empire too
We can depend on you.
Freedom remains
These are the chains
Nothing can break.
There’ll always be an England
And England shall be free
If England means as much to you
As England means to me.

Red, white and blue
What does it mean to you?
Surely you’re proud
Shout it loud
Britons awake!
The Empire too
We can depend on you.
Freedom remains
These are the chains
Nothing can break.
There’ll always be an England
And England shall be free
If England means as much to you
As England means to me.

Cabbie tells of plum jobs and ’scraps’.

A cabbie claiming $100,000 damages for the way he says lucrative jobs are fed to a small number of favoured drivers says other drivers were left “fighting for the scraps”.

 

Three drivers from Hutt and City Taxis are suing the company, of which they are shareholders, in the High Court at Wellington, asking for damages and fair allocation of jobs.

Chandra Naidu said yesterday that company chairman Gerry Ryan was being “fed” well-paid jobs, along with a small pool of other drivers. “Everyone else is left fighting for the scraps.” Mr Naidu, who has degrees in computing and accountancy, became a company director in 2006 but said he resigned because of the way the company was run and that three of the five directors would not recognise the problem.

Two days after he became a director, he was rung and offered a job after he had logged off for the day. He questioned the practice and was not contacted again.

Mr Naidu said he worked 60 hours a week and became stressed because jobs were not shared equally and he was not earning what he should have been. Drivers should have had equal opportunity for good jobs under an automatic assignment system, but it was being over- ridden manually. The company’s lawyer has indicated the manual assignment of jobs can be explained.

Another driver taking the case said he did not know what lay behind the favouritism. “I could not say an agreement, but you are looking at a pattern of work going to certain cars,” Nelson Manak said.

The third driver claiming damages is Kamleshwar Singh.

Arthur Attrils correspondence to NZTA, Ombudsmen and the Auditor General.

 

 

Cc. The Office of the Ombudsmen, attention Mr. Tony Ilott.
Cc. The Office of the Auditor General, attention Mr. Rowan Betts.
 
28th October 2008
 
NZ Transport Agency (NZTA)
 
Dear Sir,
On the 20th of October I was one of about 20 or so taxi company managers that attended a meeting convened by NZTA at their Wellington branch office.
 
The purpose of that meeting was to brief us on matters concerning Authorised Taxi Organisations (ATOs’) on various compliance issues.
 
During that meeting we were addressed by a Mr. Jeff Scorringe (NZTA) who I understand is a team leaded responsible for monitoring taxis / taxi organisations compliance.
 
He re-stated to us the method that his department was going to continue to use when monitoring the compliance (or otherwise) of taxi companies to provide a 24 x 7 service to the public.
 
This method involves his officers phoning taxi organisations and pretending to be a prospective customer.
 
When and if a cab actually arrives at the address the driver is then subjected to a kerbside inspection.
 
The first problem that occurs to me here is this process had started from the standpoint of a lie / deception on the part of NZTA.
 
By this process being employed the victims (both the taxi driver and his ATO) have been forced to incur expense and inconvenience.
 
NZTA have also suggested (in writing) that they believe that the means is justified by the end.
 
This method has absolutely no relevance whatsoever in proving that a taxi company actually provides the level of service demanded.
 
It is an outrageously absurd notion with no basis at all.
 
The victim taxi driver has no direct responsibility for the taxi company to provide that level of service.
 
That responsibility is the strict responsibility of the company being phoned.
 
In other words; the driver is being used and forced to incur expense and inconvenience to prove (or disprove) matters that he / she has no responsibility for whatsoever.
 
The same NZTA officer has told me that there was only one way that his department could effectively monitor the 24 x 7 requirement and he has described to me in minute detail how that aspect would be carried out in the case of this company.
 
That method was for a taxi companies records to be compared to the records taken from taxi drivers log books and any “discrepancies” / gaps in service, would prompt prosecutions.
 
I have had many discussions with officers of NZTA, including their Director, and officers of the Ministry of Transport about all of this.
 
I have also written to the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Transport Safety concerning this, and other related matters.
 
I have also brought these matters to the attention of the Auditor General and the Ombudsmen and that is still under investigation by the Ombudsmen.
 
Through all of my dealings with NZTA there has been one often repeated statement put up by them, and this was again stated at this most recent meeting.
 
Their statements always use the exact same terminology to justify their actions and that is that they (NZTA) has sought a “legal opinion” about whatever subject is being discussed.
 
I am sure that such statements have been calculated to shut down any further debate / argument, and I regret to say that, that has proven to be very successful to date.
 
The consequence of NZTA continuing with this type of thing has had extremely debilitating for this company and it has allowed our competitors to reap profits by their non-compliance.
 
Non compliant taxi organisations would have been comforted by the fact that if this was all there was to the NZTA checking then there would be no impediment to their continuing as they have been.
 
We understand that NZTA engages Crown Law for all such advice / legal opinion.
 
I have spoken to your offices on a couple of occasions about all of this and described to your officers the situation as outlined above.
 
I fully appreciate that your office is bound by client confidentiality and privilege, and I totally understand that any request for copies of your advice to your clients would not fall within the scope of any request (by me) for official information.
 
However; I must say that I do not believe that your office would ever countenance or approve of the deception that NZTA has attempted to justify by saying that your office has approved of it.
 
It is my contention that by the NZTA has done actually constitutes a theft / obtained credit by false pretences and perhaps even caused a false imprisonment (of the victim taxi driver).
 
I believe that what NZTA has done by invoking the name of your office is that they have dragged your office in to this, and the good name of your office has been seriously compromised by it?
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
 
 
Arthur Attrill

Cabbies sue their own firm.

Three taxi drivers have taken their own company to the High Court, claiming they are victims of unfair favouritism and are missing out on lucrative fares.

 

The three drivers say that a small group from more than 120 drivers at Hutt & City Taxis is given lucrative jobs, especially of taking passengers to Wellington airport, which is a fare usually worth about $75.

The company is defending the claim in a hearing that is expected to last several days.

The three say they have each lost about $100,000 gross in the past six years as a result of the normal computer system to assign jobs being manipulated or bypassed.

“Is it justice when someone gets the work when they are still in bed when another guy is out there looking for it?” plaintiff Nelson Manak said in evidence yesterday.

He, Chandra Naidu and Kamleshwar Singh also want $25,000 for the anxiety they say they have suffered.

“I have been abused and discriminated against and made to feel like a bad guy for simply trying to ensure the system operated fairly,” Mr Manak said. He paid $20,000 to become a shareholder in the company but it was being run like a “little empire”. There were those in control and their supporters, and then there were the other drivers.

The lawyer for the company said records showed that, despite Mr Manak’s complaints, he was doing many more trips to the airport than one of the drivers he said was favoured with work.

Mr Manak said that, even if the figures were correct, he worked for the jobs he did, starting early in the morning and positioning himself to get the airport jobs, while dispatchers were giving jobs to others.

As well as damages, the three drivers want a manager appointed to maintain a fair allocation of jobs.

New survey shows most Kiwis rate taxis highly.

A new survey gauging New Zealanders’ perceptions of taxi services has revealed a high level of public confidence in the taxi industry. 

The survey carried out for the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) canvassed 800 recent taxi users in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. 

Key results include: 

• 94% of respondents rated the physical condition of taxis as “very clean” or “acceptably clean” and of “reasonable” or “very good” physical condition
• 82% felt “very safe and secure” or “reasonably safe and secure” using taxis
• 78% felt drivers were “professional” or “very professional”. 

While most respondents rated their most recent experience of using a taxi highly, 27% also reported having had a negative taxi experience sometime in the past. However, only a quarter of these respondents said they had lodged a complaint about the negative experience. 

NZTA Commercial Road Transport Manager John Doesburg says while this may indicate that the majority of negative experiences are of a relatively minor nature, the NZTA encourages taxi users to let companies know any time they’ve received poor service.    

“Public feedback has a major role to play in driving improvements in the taxi industry. All taxi organisations are required by law to maintain a register of complaints, and make it available to NZTA. We’re committed to improving standards in the industry, and the more information we have from the public the better. If the service you receive isn’t up to scratch, make a complaint – you’ll be giving the company a reason to lift its game.” 

Mr Doesburg also stressed that taxi users should contact their nearest NZTA office if a complaint isn’t resolved, and any serious incidents should be immediately reported to Police. He urged taxi users to note the taxis company’s name, the taxi’s fleet number and the driver’s unique ID number. The easiest way to do this is to request a receipt, which by law must carry all these identifiers. 

Other highlights from the survey include: 

• Consumption or planned consumption of alcohol is the most common reason for taxi use
• Patrons are twice as likely to choose a taxi firm based on reputation as they are on price
• More than half consider it important that their chosen taxi company make an effort to be environmentally friendly.  

Mr Doesburg said the survey sets a benchmark against which NZTA will be measuring public confidence in the taxi industry over the coming years. 

For full results of the survey, visit http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/commercial/docs/taxi-survey-report.pdf (PDF, 1.05 MB, 28 pages)

A new section added to NZTAXIBLOG.

Blasts From The Past - archived news & events now displayed in right hand side bar.

Enjoy.

NZTAXIBLOG.

Drinkers mean big business for taxis.

MONEY IN THE BANK: John McDonald with passengers Michelle Encinas (left) and Ani de Graaf. Most passengers are well behaved, McDonald says, even if they’ve been drinking.

 

 

 

They might have to deal with vomit stains and drunken louts, but taxi drivers get their best business out of boozing, a survey shows.

Drinking is cited more than twice as often as any other reason for using a cab in a New Zealand Transport Agency survey of recent taxi users.

More than 40 per cent of the survey’s 800 respondents said drinking was their main reason for taking a taxi, a steady increase from an initial survey in 1995.

The trend is especially notable for younger generations, with 65 per cent of those aged 24 to 34 and 53 per cent of those aged 15 to 24 saying they use cabs mainly when they have been drinking.

John McDonald, Wellington Combined Taxis chairman and a night cab driver for 26 years, said growing publicity about drink-driving had meant an increase in taxi use in the past 15 years.

The rise was mainly a boon for taxi drivers, with “98 per cent of people” well-behaved, even when they had been drinking. The biggest problems with drunken passengers came from boys in their late teens after the drinking age was lowered to 18, he said.

“It’s the combination of alcohol and testosterone. They want to have the party in your car. They want to turn on the radio up to warp seven.”

Female passengers who fell asleep halfway through a journey were a challenge, as were people who vomited, which had happened about 50 times in his career.

“We charge people $100 [to clean up], but it’s the worst $100 you can ever earn.”

Mr McDonald’s nightmare passenger was a man, drunk, and high on P, who brought his partner into the car in a headlock and told her how he planned to beat her up when they got home.

He sped off after the man got out, with the woman still in the car, though she later demanded to be taken back to the man’s flat.

Taxi drivers could help defuse tense situations by being friendly and adjusting their tone, he said.

The survey also found that most people found taxis safe, clean and secure.

Taxi Federation executive director Tim Reddish said the industry had worked hard to tighten standards.

Puke Poll.

Political Poll.

Arthur makes comment on ATO meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The meeting today was the usual pile of crap that we have come to expect from LTNZ or whatever they call themselves at the moment.

When I went into the meeting I was determined to keep my gob shut and just listen.

However; I just lost it when Jeff Scorringe spoke.

Here’s why.

He told us that LTNZ was going to continue to make bogus calls to taxi companies on the pretense of ordering a cab and then when and if a cab turned up then the cabbie would be “inspected”.

The first thing about this is that the victim (the cabbie) has absolutely no control of what other cabs may or may not be on the road performing their part in maintaining the 24 x 7 service that the taxi company is responsible for.

Obviously; the victim is randomly selected and might well have been done over minutes before being again inconvenienced and caused to lose time/money to again be done over.

So what LTNZ have done is lied in the first place (placing a bogus order) which has caused an expense to be incurred by the driver.

If anyone else had done this type of thing they could be charged with obtaining credit by false pretences and maybe even false imprisonment.

I have already written to The Director of LTNZ and Harry Duynhoven about all of this and they have both defended their people saying that (in effect) “the means justifies the cause”.

What complete bullshit!

Only an idiot would suggest that if a cab actually turns up then it is any proof that the company is (or is not) providing a 24 x 7 service.

The same officer sat in my office prior to the 1st of October 2007 and described exactly how they were going to check on the 24 x 7 thing and that was by comparing the company log on log off schedule with drivers log books. He went on to say that we could expect that to occur within the first week or two after 1/10/07.

If we were found wanting then we could expect to be issued with an infringement notice for each breach.

And Ha Ha they had already strategised that they would press hard for the full weight of the law to be applied in the District Court.

The first conviction would incur a (I think) a $2,000.00 fine, the second conviction a $5,000.00 fine, the third conviction a $10,000.00 fine and three strikes and your out, Ha Ha.

Jeff Scorringe told us at the meeting that LTNZ had gained a legal opinion on all of this (presumably from Crown Law) and it had been made clear to them that this was all perfectly OK.

Bear in mind here that Jeff boasts that he was with the NZ Police for about 13 years.

I have previously written to Crown Law about this and they (quite understandably) would not write back to me and in any case they would (again quite understandably) claim “privilege” and therefore any request for official information would be denied.

I did put the case to one of their officers by phone and she was astounded that an LTNZ officer would claim that they have been “authorised” by Crown Law to ever tell any lies or be involved in any kind of deception.

She was obviously bloody well annoyed that the good name of Crown Law was being used in this way and suggested that I write to the Ombudsmen about this.

I intend to get around to that in due course.

But for now please put this up on your blog site.

People need to know that our law enforcers have a pretty warped sense of the law, decency, probity or indeed this industry.

Arthur Attrill