Dial-a-Cab v Radio Taxis (London)
So finally the result of the court case in which Radio Taxis (London) decided to sue Dial-a-Cab over the ownership of the Internet domain name radiotaxis.com has been given. Although the law is famous for moving slowly, I don't remember Elton John or any of the other big-name celebrities who have been involved in cases at the Law Courts having to wait two months after the case to get the decision!
   Be that as it may, the result finally arrived with the only result that anyone with common sense could have foreseen and you can read about that in more detail in the Chairman's report on the next page. However, I would also like to have my say...
   I find it nothing short of an absolute disgrace that the Board of Management of RTL should have had so little common sense as to see that what they were claiming in court was a total non-starter. They have wasted an approximate total of around a quarter of a million pounds of their subscriber's money. I'll write that again: A quarter of a million pounds of their subscriber's money. The RTL Board virtually threw away that amount, because they never had a hope in hell of getting the verdict. They also cost DaC 10K by claiming that we used unnecessary witnesses. That may well be a drop in the ocean for a company that has declared such huge surpluses over the past few years, but I for one still feel aggrieved that RTL's stupidity cost us even one penny - let alone 10K.
   Do they not have anyone at Mountview House who understands the logistics of the Internet? Surely the principle of just buying something on the open market means that it's yours whether it is a bar of soap or an Internet domain name. If a bar of soap says Camay and you buy it in the store, can the manufacturers ask for it back because it has their name on it? Of course not and the same principle applies to a domain name. DaC bought and paid for radiotaxis.com because we are a radio taxi organisation and wanted the world to know it. Mountview weren't even on the 'net when we bought it and besides, their official name is Radio Taxis (London) and not Radio Taxis...
   Suddenly, someone at Mountview decided that they wanted the name and were prepared to go to court to get it. Brian Rice will describe overleaf exactly how hard we tried to resolve the dispute - even though we were pretty certain that

Mountview had no case at all and my computer expert, Vince Chin, agreed that it would be a miracle if a judge ruled in RTL's favour. After all, as I said, the name was ours, we bought and paid for it and we are a radio taxi organisation.
   Yet with all that, Radio Taxis (London) decided to go to court and wasted 250K of their subscriber's money. What they now do is none of my concern, I'm just pleased that they don't represent me, because in my view they are a disgrace to the cab trade and any good they have done in the past has been totally wiped out by the way they have charged into this. Defending yourself with company funds when the matter involves company business is one thing, but to use that money on a hopeless chase is quite another. And during the case, they even had the nerve to question the integrity of Brian Rice!
   So I will end by saying this once more. Radio Taxis (London): The way you wasted your subscriber's money was an absolute disgrace and I await eagerly to read in your paper, London Taxi Times, how you can justify it. I won't hold my breath though...

Fare Increase
Unless Ken Livingstone has wilted under the sudden deluge of those within the cab trade who are now suddenly against the night-time increase, then we are about to test the water by jumping in fully clothed. Regular readers of this column will know that I was a supporter of the Taxiboard and their view that the only way to improve the evening service to the paying public was to make the Knowledge of London quicker, so that 18 months became the norm again just as it used to be.
   I know that at this moment, the thought of more drivers sounds a bit daft because we are hardly inundated with work, but self-strangulation is not the way to protect our trade for the future - it won't always be quiet. If this increase comes in, it is surely going to cost us money and take us back to the days when taxis were used only by the rich or for emergencies. How long before the Mayor's office then decides that a cheaper opposition must be allowed to ply for hire or takes radios out of cabs just as Rudy 

Giuliani did in New York?
Organisations that ridiculously campaigned against the so-called 'quickie Knowledge' when they knew that 3 - 4 years was a ludicrous time for it to take, are now responsible for the situation we have found ourselves in. I felt much safer when the Taxiboard were speaking for me than I do now. All that rubbish about "a lack of democracy" started by organisations that could see themselves losing members to the Taxiboard... I don't quite see how well we have done since the Taxiboard packed their bags and left the arena leaving those on the UK Internet list rubbing their hands with glee and allowing them to get their sweaty hands into someone else. The last I heard, it was the LCDC who had come up against their childish wrath. Using logic, that must mean the LCDC are doing something right and are perhaps worth a look at.
   At the time of writing, I don't know what the outcome will be or whether the LCDC threat of industrial action against the increase will come about or indeed be needed. Neither do I know whether the LTDA have backtracked on their stance, but I would urge both organisations to change their policy and to encourage the passing out of more licensed taxi drivers within a reasonable time. Otherwise we are going to be swamped by minicabs in addition to pricing ourselves out of the market.

And Speaking of Being Wrong!
I recently sat down and read the last issue of Call Sign. After constant proofing and then re-proofing, I sometimes feel that I have read each issue 20 times! I still like to see the finished product though.
   I reached Mailshot and arrived at a letter that criticised Com Cab and Geof Kaley. I read it twice and just couldn't believe that I had allowed this letter to appear as sent. Call Sign is proud of the fact the censorship is a word rarely used round these parts, but part of my job is also to make sure that I act in a fair way to everyone. With DaC matters, that usually amounts to allowing a response, but in the letter regarding sharing accounts, I allowed the thoughts of the writer about ComCab to go into print - thoughts which included some unfounded allegations.
   The fault was not that of the driver, but mine. I admit that it slipped past me and I regret it. So far as I know, ComCab have not complained about the piece, but I offer my apologies anyway. When you're wrong, then you're wrong...

Alan Fisher