You can also email your letters to: callsignmag@aol.com

Subscription / Service Charge Ratio…
Can I please ask the BoM for the totals of members subscription and the service charges for the account year ending 2003, so that members can work out the current service charge to members subscription ratio and see whether ODRTS offers value for money?
   At the time ODRTS changed from voice to data technology, then-Chairman Ken Burns presided over a ratio of 4.9 to 1 (£4.90 of customers charges to every £1 from DaC drivers subscription). Is the DaC driver’s membership subscription still the biggest account?
   Also, are there any thoughts to follow ComCab’s lead and scrap the compulsory Roller-Bond?
   Looking in that old cardboard box of mine for any info for Brian, I came across a couple of articles, which may (or may not) be of interest to you.
   On one page of Minutes from the 1990 AGM, ex-Chairman Aubrey Siteman asked a question about advertising (para 4). The response was that "…we (Dial-a-Cab) employed a marketing company and to date (1 year on) their costs have been £35,000." The answer to whether we had seen any results from this action was; "Well, we’ve stuck £4 million on the top line."
   In view of the conversation I had with Chairman Brian Rice on the phone today regarding the increase in subs and the fall in turnover, can I now ask that we spend any additional funding that may arise from any improving set of figures on a marketing initiative? We could then challenge Ken Livingstone, the PCO and TfL to match this sum as they promised in their "Dear Colleague" letter? I’m not very good at calculations so I may be wrong, but I believe that works out at aprox £1 per week per DaC driver.
   If the other circuits were then to follow suit, it would go some way towards the £5 a week per licensed Taxi driver that the Mayor suggested. In this way, we could also retain control of the funds. If it is left to TfL they’ll just put the adverts on bus shelters, the back of buses and underground stations!
   I’ve also included an article from Cab Driver dated 21 October 1994 (The Year of The Taxi). It promotes a product which to date has only benefited Private Hire / Buses in London (rear window advertising that can only be seen from outside). Why is this not safe to put this on Taxis when it can be found of London’s Buses and Private Hire? What is it that our customers get up to in the back of a cab that cannot be done on buses or MPV’s? Or vice versa…?
   There is also a copy of the front page of The Badge, featuring your mate "Nobber" Norris (as he was known). This is the man who many feel might be the saviour of the Cab Trade, yet in April ’93 he was featured burying it in a "Henry" cartoon. I bet you wish I hadn’t opened that box, now…!
Mark White (B86)
Brian Rice replies: Well I must say Mark, when you ask a question you really make me spend a lot of time researching the answer! Anyway, I’ve done the research and my findings are indeed very interesting and I think prove that DaC is in fact, excellent value for money and getting better. What surprises me, Mark, is that you do not have this information available to you in that ‘box', however, in your defence I do take the point that in your words: "I'm not very good at calculations." So here goes…
   In 1989 service charges were £2.8m and subs were £.75m - a ratio of approximately 4:1. However, that was a 'boom' year. In 1993, that fell to £2.6m service charges and £1.3m in subscriptions - a ratio of 2:1. So I think you’ll agree Mark, that if figures are 'cherry picked' they do not prove the case. In our boom year of 2001, service charges were £5.4m and subs were £1.8m - a ratio of 3:1. In our current worst year, which was the financial year ending last August, service charges were £4.3m against subs of £2.2m; again back down to 2:1. For your argument Mark regarding value for money, the above figures are irrelevant as you are using the wrong calculation. The one you should be using is: HOW MUCH IS RETURNED TO A MEMBER FOR EVERY £1 OF SUBSCRIPTION THAT IS RECEIVED BY DaC (that is value for money). The answer is very interesting and proves that we are in fact doing substantially better now than we were then. In the 'boom' of 89 we returned £17.52 per £1 of subs, against £20.23 in 2001. In the downturn year of 93, £11.74 was returned for every £1 as against £14.40 in 2003. Another fact that is extremely important was that in our current downturn, as a company we still made money unlike ten years ago when substantial losses were recorded. On a more pertinent note, after the first four months of the current trading year, our turnover is up by 13.6% on last year - keep everything crossed that it continues.
   Regarding the Roller Bond, we do not have any plans at the moment to scrap it because at any given time we are holding about £1m, which helps us to finance the advance payment of credit work charges to members. Again Mark, you are not comparing 'apples with apples' by comparing us with ComCab. They are a PLC trading for profit, we are a Mutual that can make a surplus and not a profit, consequently any monies we make are ploughed back into the business. However, if our status were to ever change, then I believe that the Roller Bond should not be compulsory.
   Regarding our Marketing, I am not prepared to make any promises on that because we, the BoM, will spend our Marketing budget in the way that we see fit. I think you will agree that the way this company has been marketed and had its profile raised in recent times, has been very pleasing. We will continue to do even more in the future. Marketing is a very precarious business in trying to reach the right clientele, for instance I know that recently one of our competitors advertised on the London Underground amongst other things and spent in excess of £1m for hardly any return.
   Regarding advertising on the back window of taxis, I’m afraid I cannot comment on
that (although I will!) Mark, because that is a decision that has to be made by the PCO. However, any exterior advertising on a DaC vehicle would contravene our Rule Book (5b). My personal thoughts on the subject are that our fleet is one of the best marketing tools we possess. It puts us in the eye of the public 24x7 and I would be against anything that would detract from our smart logo'd fleet. Neither would I like to see DaC associated with anything 'tacky' and on that subject I know you feel the same as I do.

Sovereign Pull-Out
I'd just like to say how pleased I am that Sovereign Capital have pulled out of their attempt at taking control of Dial-a-Cab. Their offer was laughable and I truly believe they were taking the pee.
Stephen Brown (D67)

And Again…
I was pleased to learn that Brian Rice and the Board have decided not to comply with the wishes of Sovereign by assisting them in the purchase of Dial-a-Cab. I feel that this could have been a backward step in DaC’s future. Sovereign's MD Peter Brooks, at one of the Forums last year, openly declared that if one minute after Sovereign purchased DaC, an offer came in to sell, Mr Brooks would 'listen' to the offer. I admire Mr Brooks' honesty, but I feel that DaC could well have been 'sold on' to be in the hands of one of our competitors (Licensed or PH) in a matter of months. Anyway, why should we have assisted them in buying us out? Well done Brian and the Board on reaching this decision. Hopefully this episode is now behind us and DaC can move on from under this cloud of uncertainty.
Russell Hall (G44)

And More…
I am relieved that Sovereign has withdrawn their interest in the acquisition of Dial-a-Cab, but I do not rest easy. I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman’s’ apparent eagerness to sell our company. I fear that it will not be too long, if the wheels have not already been set in motion, before the search for another potential buyer is given the go ahead. If these efforts fail, there is always the possibility that the chairman will put to the membership the virtues of us becoming a Plc…again!
    I believe that the cab trade should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio circuits is that they group together thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi trade - ie the best cab drivers in the world - are the cab drivers themselves, preferably through organisations like DaC. As soon as all the major circuits are taken out of the hands of the cab drivers, our lobby will be lost and the lone voice (no voice) will return. It is imperative that all people entering the cab trade and joining DaC get involved and attend AGMs.   Dial-a-Cab’s prime objective is to maximise the drivers’ profit. If we are taken over, priorities would shift from the driver to the company – the prime objective being to maximise company profits. This opens up many grim scenarios: Could DaC end up like an ‘Addison Lee’ type organisation? I think there is a strong possibility of this happening.
   It is therefore important for DaC to continue to operate as it is doing. As a Friendly Society we are and always have been the best radio circuit in London, there is no reason to change.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: I always enjoy reading letters from members, Paul, however your letter this time really made me laugh. You have made accusations against me that cannot be substantiated by you. How do I know? Because they are totally untrue and actually bordering on being libellous! I am extremely proud of the fact that our magazine is totally uncensored, however, that does not give you the right to 'fabricate' your remarks and then endeavour to water them down by adding the word 'reservations' to your statement, ie "I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman's apparent eagerness to sell our company." That is totally untrue because it was the BoM of DaC that turned Sovereign down when they wanted us to meet part of the costs. If I were eager to sell, then I would not have adopted that stance. Sovereign were interested in DaC because they believe that we are the best in our field, and I am very proud of that. After all, how many other offers have been made to DaC during the past fifty years? The answer is none - because no one was interested. I am confident that if we continue to be as successful as we are at the moment, then other offers will come in - you seem to think that this is something disgraceful, I disagree I think it is something that our members should be proud of as it proves that we are doing something right. At the end of the day, it is the members choice and no-one else’s, but it appears to me that you would be happier if this organisation were not run correctly and then, of course, no one would be interested… and that would suit you fine!
   Finally Paul, I challenge you to qualify the accusations you have made against me, after all, what next? You could accuse me of all different types of fabricated scenarios, the mind just boggles!

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation?

 I believe that the cab trade should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio circuits is that they group together thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi trade - ie the best cab drivers in the world - are the cab drivers themselves, preferably through organisations like DaC. As soon as all the major circuits are taken out of the hands of the cab drivers, our lobby will be lost and the lone voice (no voice) will return. It is imperative that all people entering the cab trade and joining DaC get involved and attend AGMs.   Dial-a-Cab’s prime objective is to maximise the drivers’ profit. If we are taken over, priorities would shift from the driver to the company – the prime objective being to maximise company profits. This opens up many grim scenarios: Could DaC end up like an ‘Addison Lee’ type organisation? I think there is a strong possibility of this happening.
   It is therefore important for DaC to continue to operate as it is doing. As a Friendly Society we are and always have been the best radio circuit in London, there is no reason to change.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: I always enjoy reading letters from members, Paul, however your letter this time really made me laugh. You have made accusations against me that cannot be substantiated by you. How do I know? Because they are totally untrue and actually bordering on being libellous! I am extremely proud of the fact that our magazine is totally uncensored, however, that does not give you the right to 'fabricate' your remarks and then endeavour to water them down by adding the word 'reservations' to your statement, ie "I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman's apparent eagerness to sell our company." That is totally untrue because it was the BoM of DaC that turned Sovereign down when they wanted us to meet part of the costs. If I were eager to sell, then I would not have adopted that stance. Sovereign were interested in DaC because they believe that we are the best in our field, and I am very proud of that. After all, how many other offers have been made to DaC during the past fifty years? The answer is none - because no one was interested. I am confident that if we continue to be as successful as we are at the moment, then other offers will come in - you seem to think that this is something disgraceful, I disagree I think it is something that our members should be proud of as it proves that we are doing something right. At the end of the day, it is the members choice and no-one else’s, but it appears to me that you would be happier if this organisation were not run correctly and then, of course, no one would be interested… and that would suit you fine!
   Finally Paul, I challenge you to qualify the accusations you have made against me, after all, what next? You could accuse me of all different types of fabricated scenarios, the mind just boggles!

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation?

 I believe that the cab trade should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio circuits is that they group together thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi trade - ie the best cab drivers in the world - are the cab drivers themselves, preferably through organisations like DaC. As soon as all the major circuits are taken out of the hands of the cab drivers, our lobby will be lost and the lone voice (no voice) will return. It is imperative that all people entering the cab trade and joining DaC get involved and attend AGMs.   Dial-a-Cab’s prime objective is to maximise the drivers’ profit. If we are taken over, priorities would shift from the driver to the company – the prime objective being to maximise company profits. This opens up many grim scenarios: Could DaC end up like an ‘Addison Lee’ type organisation? I think there is a strong possibility of this happening.
   It is therefore important for DaC to continue to operate as it is doing. As a Friendly Society we are and always have been the best radio circuit in London, there is no reason to change.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: I always enjoy reading letters from members, Paul, however your letter this time really made me laugh. You have made accusations against me that cannot be substantiated by you. How do I know? Because they are totally untrue and actually bordering on being libellous! I am extremely proud of the fact that our magazine is totally uncensored, however, that does not give you the right to 'fabricate' your remarks and then endeavour to water them down by adding the word 'reservations' to your statement, ie "I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman's apparent eagerness to sell our company." That is totally untrue because it was the BoM of DaC that turned Sovereign down when they wanted us to meet part of the costs. If I were eager to sell, then I would not have adopted that stance. Sovereign were interested in DaC because they believe that we are the best in our field, and I am very proud of that. After all, how many other offers have been made to DaC during the past fifty years? The answer is none - because no one was interested. I am confident that if we continue to be as successful as we are at the moment, then other offers will come in - you seem to think that this is something disgraceful, I disagree I think it is something that our members should be proud of as it proves that we are doing something right. At the end of the day, it is the members choice and no-one else’s, but it appears to me that you would be happier if this organisation were not run correctly and then, of course, no one would be interested… and that would suit you fine!
   Finally Paul, I challenge you to qualify the accusations you have made against me, after all, what next? You could accuse me of all different types of fabricated scenarios, the mind just boggles!

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation?

 I believe that the cab trade should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio circuits is that they group together thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi trade - ie the best cab drivers in the world - are the cab drivers themselves, preferably through organisations like DaC. As soon as all the major circuits are taken out of the hands of the cab drivers, our lobby will be lost and the lone voice (no voice) will return. It is imperative that all people entering the cab trade and joining DaC get involved and attend AGMs.   Dial-a-Cab’s prime objective is to maximise the drivers’ profit. If we are taken over, priorities would shift from the driver to the company – the prime objective being to maximise company profits. This opens up many grim scenarios: Could DaC end up like an ‘Addison Lee’ type organisation? I think there is a strong possibility of this happening.
   It is therefore important for DaC to continue to operate as it is doing. As a Friendly Society we are and always have been the best radio circuit in London, there is no reason to change.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: I always enjoy reading letters from members, Paul, however your letter this time really made me laugh. You have made accusations against me that cannot be substantiated by you. How do I know? Because they are totally untrue and actually bordering on being libellous! I am extremely proud of the fact that our magazine is totally uncensored, however, that does not give you the right to 'fabricate' your remarks and then endeavour to water them down by adding the word 'reservations' to your statement, ie "I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman's apparent eagerness to sell our company." That is totally untrue because it was the BoM of DaC that turned Sovereign down when they wanted us to meet part of the costs. If I were eager to sell, then I would not have adopted that stance. Sovereign were interested in DaC because they believe that we are the best in our field, and I am very proud of that. After all, how many other offers have been made to DaC during the past fifty years? The answer is none - because no one was interested. I am confident that if we continue to be as successful as we are at the moment, then other offers will come in - you seem to think that this is something disgraceful, I disagree I think it is something that our members should be proud of as it proves that we are doing something right. At the end of the day, it is the members choice and no-one else’s, but it appears to me that you would be happier if this organisation were not run correctly and then, of course, no one would be interested… and that would suit you fine!
   Finally Paul, I challenge you to qualify the accusations you have made against me, after all, what next? You could accuse me of all different types of fabricated scenarios, the mind just boggles!

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation? 
    I believe that the cab trade 
should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio 
circuits is that they group together

 thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi trade - ie the best cab drivers in the world - are the cab drivers themselves, preferably through organisations like DaC. As soon as all the major circuits are taken out of the hands of the cab drivers, our lobby will be lost and the lone voice (no voice) will return. It is imperative that all people entering the cab trade and joining DaC get involved and attend AGMs.   
Dial-a-Cab’s prime objective is to maximise the drivers’ profit. If we are taken over, priorities would shift from the driver to the company – the prime objective being to maximise company profits. This opens up many grim scenarios: Could DaC end up like an ‘Addison Lee’ type organisation? I think there is a strong possibility of this happening.
   It is therefore important for DaC to continue to operate as it is doing. As a Friendly Society we are and always have been the best radio circuit in London, there is no reason to change.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: I always enjoy reading letters from members, Paul, however your letter this time really made me laugh. You have made accusations against me that cannot be substantiated by you. How do I know? Because they are totally untrue and actually bordering on being libellous! I am extremely proud of the fact that our magazine is totally uncensored, however, that does not give you the right to 'fabricate' your remarks and then endeavour to water them down by adding the word 'reservations' to your statement, ie "I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman's apparent eagerness to sell our company." That is totally untrue because it was the BoM of DaC that turned Sovereign down when they wanted us to meet part of the costs. If I were eager to sell, then I would not have adopted that stance. Sovereign were interested in DaC because they believe that we are the best in our field, and I am very proud of that. After all, how many other offers have been made to DaC during the past fifty years? The answer is none - because no one was interested. I am confident that if we continue to be as successful as we are at the moment, then other offers will come in - you seem to think that this is something disgraceful, I disagree I think it is something that our 
members should be proud of as it proves that we are doing something right. At the end of the day, it is the members choice and no-one else’s, but it appears to me that you would be happier if this organisation were not run correctly and then, of course, no one would be interested… and that would suit you fine!
   Finally Paul, I challenge you to qualify the accusations you have made against me, after all, what next? You could accuse me of all different types of fabricated scenarios, the mind just boggles!

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation?

 I believe that the cab trade should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio circuits is that they group together thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi trade - ie the best cab drivers in the world - are the cab drivers themselves, preferably through organisations like DaC. As soon as all the major circuits are taken out of the hands of the cab drivers, our lobby will be lost and the lone voice (no voice) will return. It is imperative that all people entering the cab trade and joining DaC get involved and attend AGMs.   Dial-a-Cab’s prime objective is to maximise the drivers’ profit. If we are taken over, priorities would shift from the driver to the company – the prime objective being to maximise company profits. This opens up many grim scenarios: Could DaC end up like an ‘Addison Lee’ type organisation? I think there is a strong possibility of this happening.
   It is therefore important for DaC to continue to operate as it is doing. As a Friendly Society we are and always have been the best radio circuit in London, there is no reason to change.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: I always enjoy reading letters from members, Paul, however your letter this time really made me laugh. You have made accusations against me that cannot be substantiated by you. How do I know? Because they are totally untrue and actually bordering on being libellous! I am extremely proud of the fact that our magazine is totally uncensored, however, that does not give you the right to 'fabricate' your remarks and then endeavour to water them down by adding the word 'reservations' to your statement, ie "I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman's apparent eagerness to sell our company." That is totally untrue because it was the BoM of DaC that turned Sovereign down when they wanted us to meet part of the costs. If I were eager to sell, then I would not have adopted that stance. Sovereign were interested in DaC because they believe that we are the best in our field, and I am very proud of that. After all, how many other offers have been made to DaC during the past fifty years? The answer is none - because no one was interested. I am confident that if we continue to be as successful as we are at the moment, then other offers will come in - you seem to think that this is something disgraceful, I disagree I think it is something that our members should be proud of as it proves that we are doing something right. At the end of the day, it is the members choice and no-one else’s, but it appears to me that you would be happier if this organisation were not run correctly and then, of course, no one would be interested… and that would suit you fine!
   Finally Paul, I challenge you to qualify the accusations you have made against me, after all, what next? You could accuse me of all different types of fabricated scenarios, the mind just boggles!

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation?

 I believe that the cab trade should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio circuits is that they group together thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi trade - ie the best cab drivers in the world - are the cab drivers themselves, preferably through organisations like DaC. As soon as all the major circuits are taken out of the hands of the cab drivers, our lobby will be lost and the lone voice (no voice) will return. It is imperative that all people entering the cab trade and joining DaC get involved and attend AGMs.   Dial-a-Cab’s prime objective is to maximise the drivers’ profit. If we are taken over, priorities would shift from the driver to the company – the prime objective being to maximise company profits. This opens up many grim scenarios: Could DaC end up like an ‘Addison Lee’ type organisation? I think there is a strong possibility of this happening.
   It is therefore important for DaC to continue to operate as it is doing. As a Friendly Society we are and always have been the best radio circuit in London, there is no reason to change.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: I always enjoy reading letters from members, Paul, however your letter this time really made me laugh. You have made accusations against me that cannot be substantiated by you. How do I know? Because they are totally untrue and actually bordering on being libellous! I am extremely proud of the fact that our magazine is totally uncensored, however, that does not give you the right to 'fabricate' your remarks and then endeavour to water them down by adding the word 'reservations' to your statement, ie "I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman's apparent eagerness to sell our company." That is totally untrue because it was the BoM of DaC that turned Sovereign down when they wanted us to meet part of the costs. If I were eager to sell, then I would not have adopted that stance. Sovereign were interested in DaC because they believe that we are the best in our field, and I am very proud of that. After all, how many other offers have been made to DaC during the past fifty years? The answer is none - because no one was interested. I am confident that if we continue to be as successful as we are at the moment, then other offers will come in - you seem to think that this is something disgraceful, I disagree I think it is something that our members should be proud of as it proves that we are doing something right. At the end of the day, it is the members choice and no-one else’s, but it appears to me that you would be happier if this organisation were not run correctly and then, of course, no one would be interested… and that would suit you fine!
   Finally Paul, I challenge you to qualify the accusations you have made against me, after all, what next? You could accuse me of all different types of fabricated scenarios, the mind just boggles!

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation?

 I believe that the cab trade should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio circuits is that they group together thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi trade - ie the best cab drivers in the world - are the cab drivers themselves, preferably through organisations like DaC. As soon as all the major circuits are taken out of the hands of the cab drivers, our lobby will be lost and the lone voice (no voice) will return. It is imperative that all people entering the cab trade and joining DaC get involved and attend AGMs.   Dial-a-Cab’s prime objective is to maximise the drivers’ profit. If we are taken over, priorities would shift from the driver to the company – the prime objective being to maximise company profits. This opens up many grim scenarios: Could DaC end up like an ‘Addison Lee’ type organisation? I think there is a strong possibility of this happening.
   It is therefore important for DaC to continue to operate as it is doing. As a Friendly Society we are and always have been the best radio circuit in London, there is no reason to change.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: I always enjoy reading letters from members, Paul, however your letter this time really made me laugh. You have made accusations against me that cannot be substantiated by you. How do I know? Because they are totally untrue and actually bordering on being libellous! I am extremely proud of the fact that our magazine is totally uncensored, however, that does not give you the right to 'fabricate' your remarks and then endeavour to water them down by adding the word 'reservations' to your statement, ie "I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman's apparent eagerness to sell our company." That is totally untrue because it was the BoM of DaC that turned Sovereign down when they wanted us to meet part of the costs. If I were eager to sell, then I would not have adopted that stance. Sovereign were interested in DaC because they believe that we are the best in our field, and I am very proud of that. After all, how many other offers have been made to DaC during the past fifty years? The answer is none - because no one was interested. I am confident that if we continue to be as successful as we are at the moment, then other offers will come in - you seem to think that this is something disgraceful, I disagree I think it is something that our members should be proud of as it proves that we are doing something right. At the end of the day, it is the members choice and no-one else’s, but it appears to me that you would be happier if this organisation were not run correctly and then, of course, no one would be interested… and that would suit you fine!
   Finally Paul, I challenge you to qualify the accusations you have made against me, after all, what next? You could accuse me of all different types of fabricated scenarios, the mind just boggles!

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation?

 I believe that the cab trade should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio circuits is that they group together thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi trade - ie the best cab drivers in the world - are the cab drivers themselves, preferably through organisations like DaC. As soon as all the major circuits are taken out of the hands of the cab drivers, our lobby will be lost and the lone voice (no voice) will return. It is imperative that all people entering the cab trade and joining DaC get involved and attend AGMs.   Dial-a-Cab’s prime objective is to maximise the drivers’ profit. If we are taken over, priorities would shift from the driver to the company – the prime objective being to maximise company profits. This opens up many grim scenarios: Could DaC end up like an ‘Addison Lee’ type organisation? I think there is a strong possibility of this happening.
   It is therefore important for DaC to continue to operate as it is doing. As a Friendly Society we are and always have been the best radio circuit in London, there is no reason to change.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: I always enjoy reading letters from members, Paul, however your letter this time really made me laugh. You have made accusations against me that cannot be substantiated by you. How do I know? Because they are totally untrue and actually bordering on being libellous! I am extremely proud of the fact that our magazine is totally uncensored, however, that does not give you the right to 'fabricate' your remarks and then endeavour to water them down by adding the word 'reservations' to your statement, ie "I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman's apparent eagerness to sell our company." That is totally untrue because it was the BoM of DaC that turned Sovereign down when they wanted us to meet part of the costs. If I were eager to sell, then I would not have adopted that stance. Sovereign were interested in DaC because they believe that we are the best in our field, and I am very proud of that. After all, how many other offers have been made to DaC during the past fifty years? The answer is none - because no one was interested. I am confident that if we continue to be as successful as we are at the moment, then other offers will come in - you seem to think that this is something disgraceful, I disagree I think it is something that our members should be proud of as it proves that we are doing something right. At the end of the day, it is the members choice and no-one else’s, but it appears to me that you would be happier if this organisation were not run correctly and then, of course, no one would be interested… and that would suit you fine!
   Finally Paul, I challenge you to qualify the accusations you have made against me, after all, what next? You could accuse me of all different types of fabricated scenarios, the mind just boggles!

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation?

 I believe that the cab trade should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio circuits is that they group together thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi trade - ie the best cab drivers in the world - are the cab drivers themselves, preferably through organisations like DaC. As soon as all the major circuits are taken out of the hands of the cab drivers, our lobby will be lost and the lone voice (no voice) will return. It is imperative that all people entering the cab trade and joining DaC get involved and attend AGMs.   Dial-a-Cab’s prime objective is to maximise the drivers’ profit. If we are taken over, priorities would shift from the driver to the company – the prime objective being to maximise company profits. This opens up many grim scenarios: Could DaC end up like an ‘Addison Lee’ type organisation? I think there is a strong possibility of this happening.
   It is therefore important for DaC to continue to operate as it is doing. As a Friendly Society we are and always have been the best radio circuit in London, there is no reason to change.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: I always enjoy reading letters from members, Paul, however your letter this time really made me laugh. You have made accusations against me that cannot be substantiated by you. How do I know? Because they are totally untrue and actually bordering on being libellous! I am extremely proud of the fact that our magazine is totally uncensored, however, that does not give you the right to 'fabricate' your remarks and then endeavour to water them down by adding the word 'reservations' to your statement, ie "I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman's apparent eagerness to sell our company." That is totally untrue because it was the BoM of DaC that turned Sovereign down when they wanted us to meet part of the costs. If I were eager to sell, then I would not have adopted that stance. Sovereign were interested in DaC because they believe that we are the best in our field, and I am very proud of that. After all, how many other offers have been made to DaC during the past fifty years? The answer is none - because no one was interested. I am confident that if we continue to be as successful as we are at the moment, then other offers will come in - you seem to think that this is something disgraceful, I disagree I think it is something that our members should be proud of as it proves that we are doing something right. At the end of the day, it is the members choice and no-one else’s, but it appears to me that you would be happier if this organisation were not run correctly and then, of course, no one would be interested… and that would suit you fine!
   Finally Paul, I challenge you to qualify the accusations you have made against me, after all, what next? You could accuse me of all different types of fabricated scenarios, the mind just boggles!

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation?

 I believe that the cab trade should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio circuits is that they group together thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi  

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation?
    I believe that the cab trade should be in control of its own destiny. A good thing about radio circuits is that they group together thousands of taxi drivers, which creates a viable lobby. The voice of the solitary cab driver is seldom heard. The best people to protect our trade against outside influences and fight to maintain the standards that are synonymous with the London taxi trade - ie the best cab drivers in the world - are the cab drivers themselves, preferably through organisations like DaC. As soon as all the major circuits are taken out of the hands of the cab drivers, our lobby will be lost and the lone voice (no voice) will return. It is imperative that all people entering the cab trade and joining DaC get involved and attend AGMs.   Dial-a-Cab’s prime objective is to maximise the drivers’ profit. If we are taken over, priorities would shift from the driver to the company – the prime objective being to maximise company profits. This opens up many grim scenarios: Could DaC end up like an ‘Addison Lee’ type organisation? I think there is a strong possibility of this happening.
   It is therefore important for DaC to continue to operate as it is doing. As a Friendly Society we are and always have been the best radio circuit in London, there is no reason to change.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: I always enjoy reading letters from members, Paul, however your letter this time really made me laugh. You have made accusations against me that cannot be substantiated by you. How do I know? Because they are totally untrue and actually bordering on being libellous! I am extremely proud of the fact that our magazine is totally uncensored, however, that does not give you the right to 'fabricate' your remarks and then endeavour to water them down by adding the word 'reservations' to your statement, ie "I have my reservations regarding the reasons that lie behind the current Chairman's apparent eagerness to sell our company." That is totally untrue because it was the BoM of DaC that turned Sovereign down when they wanted us to meet part of the costs. If I were eager to sell, then I would not have adopted that stance. Sovereign were interested in DaC because they believe that we are the best in our field, and I am very proud of that. After all, how many other offers have been made to DaC during the past fifty years? The answer is none - because no one was interested. I am confident that if we continue to be as successful as we are at the moment, then other offers will come in - you seem to think that this is something disgraceful, I disagree I think it is something that our members should be proud of as it proves that we are doing something right. At the end of the day, it is the members choice and no-one else’s, but it appears to me that you would be happier if this organisation were not run correctly and then, of course, no one would be interested… and that would suit you fine!
   Finally Paul, I challenge you to qualify the accusations you have made against me, after all, what next? You could accuse me of all different types of fabricated scenarios, the mind just boggles!

Working With Minicabs
I'm having a bit of a problem with Brian's response to critics re our policy of supporting
minicab accounts. Brian says that covering this work is good for the bank and good for the driver’s pockets. Here here, I say, but - yes you guessed it, here comes the ‘but’ - for as many years as I can remember we have been told and told by the Board - let clients down once at Xmas and you might as well not have bothered for the rest of the year. Give clients a bad service at Yuletide and watch your portfolio collapse in January. So can somebody please explain to this simple cabby why we were propping up these minicabs during the Christmas period, not only covering their work but giving them a marvellous sales pitch to our client – "we'll always get you home even if we have to pay Dial-a-Cab extra to do it!" Brian said they were meeting our charges, I can't say I'm surprised. They are keeping their accounts happy, aren't they! It seems to me that this plan of action may not have been given the consideration it deserved, or was it too clever for me and I need some more explanation?
Dave Creber (C46)
Brian Rice replies: I could not agree with you more, Dave. Yes it does stick in the throat, but what is the alternative? Refuse to do the work and let one of our competitors supply the taxis instead of us? Whatever decision we arrive at is wrong, because there is always the alternative view. However, Dave, I can assure you that this issue did command a tremendous amount of consideration from the BoM. The easy decision would have been to decline their advances, but we took the bold decision and decided to go with it in the full knowledge that we would obviously attract some flak. I believe that the decision to supply this void is in the best interests of our members and the company, however, only time will tell. Regarding it being too clever for you Dave and that you need more of an explanation - well, you can take your tongue out of your cheek now!

What the Well Dressed Man is Wearing?
I have read with interest over the years articles from Board members regarding an
appropriate dress code for our members to present themselves to the public without ever  knowing what was regarded as appropriate. Therefore, it was with much pleasure I saw the enclosed December 2003 photograph of a Board member dressed for a prestigious occasion and finally realised that myself and the majority of drivers had nothing to learn about presenting a smart appearance.
Jon Tremlett (Y32)
The photo Jon enclosed came from December’s Call Sign and showed Mike Son in his role as Chairman of the London Taxidrivers Fund for Underprivileged Children. He was standing outside at the Lord Mayor’s Show on a chilly November morning wearing his LTFUC jockey hat and a coat. I personally thought that he looked very presentable and I speak as one of the few people - other than David Attenborough - to have seen the lesser-spotted Allen Togwell in his tracksuit and trainers! …Ed

Battersea Park Success
We would all like to say how great it has been to work with Dial-a-Cab drivers again for a second year in Battersea Park for The Christmas Events. Got to say you guys are great and as for the Marshals (Allan, Dougie, Chas, Russ, Jerry, Mike, Steve, John and Jim), well what can I say except I didn’t know being mad was part of being a London Licensed Cab driver. Mind you, we all know Terry and Jim (James) hee hee hee!
   But seriously, it has been great working with you all again. Not only do you provide a great service, but a safe form of travel. As I like to tell the guests, 176 people were attacked in minicabs last year in London alone. That is scary! In addition, by Dial-a-Cab having the contract in the  Battersea Park, you have helped us girls to get rid of the unwanted minicab touts by kicking them out so much easier. Thank you guys…
   So to all of you from Dial-a-Cab and all the other cabbies whom we have come to call friends, thank you all very much…
Rowena, Toni and Lili
Battersea Park Events Centre
   I remember saying this last year when my comments were picked up by the trade press; like many others, I knew that if we were given the opportunity to provide a service at Battersea Park where single events draw thousands of guests, that the minicabs who used to get priority there would be brushed aside. Do you remember when Battersea Park’s security team used to prevent licensed taxis going in to pick up passengers because a "minicab company had the sole contract?" That must have been the most embarrassing moment this trade has ever faced. Now, thanks to our drivers with assistance from the rest of the trade, plus our excellent DaC Marshals, we have turned the situation on its head and showed just what this trade is capable of. Congratulations to everyone involved and thanks to the Battersea Park girls for taking the time to write …Ed

A Question of Numbers?
Last night I was asked to contact the office as I seemed to be in a dead spot. So I phoned the Driver’s Line and the dispatcher asked me who had sent the message. Seeing as there was no name on the screen, I had to give some form of serial number, you know the type that prisoners are given (DS0208). Yet, when a Board member wishes to send a fleet message, low and behold, their name appears as clear as day! So it seems that Messrs Ivers, Gates, Brazil and Gomez etc are not worthy of having their names on the screen. Why the double standards? Maybe the numbers could be given to Nash’s Numbers so that he could decipher them and put a name to the numbers? Whoever implemented this one-sided idea, could they please get off their egotistical high horses and give the other hard-working people at DaC a chance to have their name in lights. Please treat them as human beings and not serial numbers.
Tony Lawyer (C51 007 RU12
0K)
   I like the new call sign Tony! Three points: Firstly, I think you have to bear in mind that names were previously put on the screen purely for identification and not as a ‘thank you’ for services rendered! Secondly, on some occasions when a member of the Call Centre staff felt the need to put a driver on complaint, some drivers involved became rather nasty to the person putting the complaint as they then knew who it was and probably what time their shift finished. Just because you wouldn’t do it, Tony, doesn’t mean that no one would - because they have! Using a code – just as only your call sign comes up in the Call Centre and not your name – saves the person putting the complaint the embarrassment of an argument with that driver. So thirdly and for the sake of uniformity, staff and drivers are now all known so far as our terminals are concerned, by an ID number as in our call signs. Incidentally Tony, you missed out on one of the names of those on their ‘egotistical high horses’. Call Sign still comes up as Call Sign! See you on the road …Ed

Subs Increase
Re my letter in the December issue of Call Sign and Brian’s answer to it, as a shareholder in
ODRTS I feel that I have every right to ask such a question without a personal attack being
made on me by your good self, thus trying to make me look a bit of a devious character to the rest of the membership who don’t know me. So an explanation and reason behind the subs increase would be appreciated, not just for me, but also for all other drivers.
A Happy New Year to all…
Grant Davis (L39)
Brian Rice replies: I answered your letter in exactly the same tone as you asked the question, Grant. If you don't like it because you can only dish it out but not take it, then I suggest you moderate your attitude and perhaps people will then respond in the same manner. If you ask a question of me in a reasonable manner, as you are now, then I will respond as the Chairman of DaC. However, if you choose to give me verbal abuse and I take you up on your little bit of 'toe-to-toe' in the gutter and you come off worse by getting a bloody nose, please don't then scream 'foul' - after all you started it!
 Why have the subs gone up? I’m sure the majority of members will know the answer to that. The cost of goods and services do invariably with time increase in price, exactly the same as our fares increase to members of the public every year and for the very same reason, that is why we need to increase subscriptions from time to time. In April 1996, DaC subscriptions were £110 per month, in April 2004 they will be £129.50 inc VAT per month, an increase of £16.50 per month to the Society. Incidentally, £16.50 is what we receive, the rest is VAT. Not bad in eight years, Grant. I know this is not a very long answer, but subs increase to pay our increased costs and although we are a non-profit organisation, we do still need to make a surplus in order that we may trade effectively. The recently announced subs increase was put into play just in case the economic climate continued to be depressed, however, things in the first quarter of our trading year have improved quite significantly and if they can continue to do so, then there will not be a subs increase in the short term. After all, you must remember that subs were not increased for five years and in fact, were actually decreased. So rest assured Grant, subs will be increased if I believe there is a need for it to protect the Society - anything else would be negligent.

Thank You…
I’d like to send my gratitude to the London Taxi driver who did an immense favour to a colleague and myself on Remembrance Sunday (9tb Nov). We are both members of the Rhodesian Army Association and had in our possession the Regimental Colours due to be displayed on the parade at the Field of Remembrance. The train we were on was 20 minutes late arriving at Waterloo. My colleague, because of his age, is not the fleetest of foot and I knew we would never make it on time either by tube or on foot. I went to the taxi rank and explained the position to a driver who I believe had your company’s logo and asked if he could get us to Westminster within the short time we had left. Without any hesitation, he got us into his cab, fought his way through the traffic and despite the fact that Westminster Bridge was coned off, leapt out and obtained permission from a Police Officer on duty to take his cab onto the bridge and as far as the final barrier. He was a lifesaver for us, enabling us to make the parade in the nick of time. Prior to leaving him by his taxi, I offered him payment with a little on the top to show our gratitude. He flatly refused to take any money from me, despite my protests that he had done us an immense service and favour. His only reply was that it was his pleasure to help us out. In our hurry, I made the mistake of not making a note of his badge number. I can only describe him as being a youngish man, slim build, dark hair and (I think), a small moustache.
   The time was approximately 10.50 and our helpful driver was the lead cab on the rank as you leave Waterloo by the exit directly opposite the platforms. I appreciate that trying to trace the driver may prove difficult, but I would be grateful if this message could be posted in your magazine where he might just be able to read it and at least know how appreciative we were and still are. My complete and total thanks to a real and proper black cab London Taxi Driver.
Ian Robertson
Kent
Your time in taking the trouble to thank the driver is appreciated, Mr Robertson…Ed

The Mystery of Allen Togwell
and the Missing Lunch Hour!
Although Allen Togwell answered criticism of him from Russell Hall (G44) in the January Call Sign very successfully, I feel that I must comment on the foolishness of Russell’s letter.
   He has referred to a lunch Allen had several years ago; what on earth is the point in bringing up something that is almost ancient history? He goes on at length about what might have happened if Mr Togwell had left Dial-a-Cab? Who knows, but if at some future time Russell left for another circuit, would he not use whatever knowledge he had gained to pass on to his new masters? Of course he would, and he would have every right to do so. No hard feelings, Russ, but your letter only serves to highlight your ignorance of the many aspects of business life. Rather than criticise Allen, may I suggest you go to him for advice; he could be of great help to you.
Michael Harris (F79) Call Sign prides itself on the openness of its Mailshot pages; the freedom drivers and staff have to give their views on any topic and also the expectation of getting an answer to any question. However, I really don’t think that further discussion of what Allen Togwell did or didn’t do during a lunchtime meeting many years ago that obviously never went anywhere other than to provide an entertaining article many years later, can serve much purpose other than to cause antagonism. If Allen Togwell were ashamed of that meeting, then he certainly wouldn’t have written about it! It was purely to show how powerful the opposition is. Russell told me that he was only seeking the truth and knowing Russ, I’m sure that was the case. The problem was whether a story that old, demanded anything worth seeking. Hopefully, that ends the discussion? …Ed

Cecil Selwyn
For one reason or another, I'll be glad to see the back of 2003. On the morning of New Year's Eve, I was on my way to have my driver's side window replaced after the cab had been broken into during the night, when I saw a message on my terminal saying that Cecil Selwyn had passed away. I have a photo of Cecil taken on the steps of Westminster Town Hall, Marylebone Road following a meeting where Westminster Council had considered licensing minicabs. It shows cab drivers listening to Cecil speaking. That picture painted a thousand words and to me, was Cecil…
   I don't think that I ever heard him raise his voice. He was only half the size of most of us, yet he always managed to be at the heart of it, with the customary cigarette in his hand, shaking ash as he spoke, badge round his neck and standing up for the 'underdog'. At one time, Cecil was the face of the London Taxi driver to the outside world, appearing on World in Action on ITV and many other TV programmes while campaigning for the licensed Taxi trade against minicabs. Every time there was a program about Taxis and minicabs, there was Cecil!
   One night, Cecil drove London mayoral candidate, Steve Norris around so that he could see how the touts were stealing our work. I followed Cecil with a photographer and a couple of cab drivers in a back-up cab. Cecil drove at his usual pace through the West End, left hand gesturing and pointing to the Minister, right hand shaking fag ash out the window. The traffic had built up behind us in Trafalgar Square and as we got to the Strand, an impatient van driver, headlights blazing, squeezed past me and bore down on Cecil's Taxi. Just then, Cecil decided that Mr Norris had seen enough on that side of the road and executed a U-turn. I'll never forget the look of fright on Steve Norris’s face as the van driver stood on his brakes with both feet and skidded to a halt, just inches from the cab! Cecil, completely unaware, carried on down the Strand in the opposite direction, still gesturing, pointing and shaking fag ash out of the window and making his points to the Minister. It was typical Cecil!
   Cecil may not have been everyone's cup of tea and getting him to buy one was nigh on impossible, however, if there were any problems in the Cab trade, Cecil would be 'ferreting' around helping drivers and generously giving up his time by the hour load.
   The fact that the London Cab Drivers Club is in existence is a tribute to Cecil Selwyn. The Club owes him a tremendous debt for his hard work. The biggest problem at Committee meetings was stopping him from volunteering to take on every job - all unpaid! From Secretary to Treasurer, I don't think there was a job he didn't do except tea-boy… well I had to have a job! It was that dedication that generated the support of his fellow drivers and saw him elected onto the Board of Management of our Society.
   Cecil shared a few private moments with me over the odd one or two thousand cups of tea, showing pictures of his childhood with his parents in Berlin before the war. He was also Able-seaman Selwyn, but a far more important Taxi driver.
   I'm glad to have known Cecil as a friend. He certainly added colour to my life and was, without doubt, a great character. I’m sad not to have known about his funeral until it was
too late. Please pass on my condolences to his family.
Bye Cec, may you rest in peace…
Mark White (B86)
Vince Maguire
   I was saddened to learn in January’s Call Sign of the shocking news that Vince Maguire (N30J) had passed away. I knew Vince from meeting him on various ranks that I have marshaled, and he would always say hi and have a chat. He had an infectious smile, as the picture in Call Sign showed, and I know many drivers will miss his happy-go-lucky attitude
towards life. My thoughts are with his family and friends at this difficult time.
Russell Hall (G44)

Westminster Account
Your service is very good to me all the time and now that I have found your number, I will use it all the time. Thank you all very much…
Mr Graham
Enfield, Middx

So Much Better Than the Others!
I use both TaxiCard and Special Needs (Social Services section) and I’d like to thank DaC for being so brilliant on both! I remember that originally Radio Taxis ran the Social Services section of the Special Needs account (although many drivers mistakenly believe that it was ComCab) and they were hopeless. A 45-minute wait was nothing unusual, whereas in the 7 or so years that I have been using DaC, I can count on one hand how many bad experiences I’ve had. I can’t really think of any criticism that I can throw your way. I know from experience of your company that when your telephonists tell me 15 minutes, that it’s usually going to be under 10 and I certainly won’t complain about that! Again, my sincere thanks to you all…
Ms Jacqueline Templeman
Churchill Gdns, SW1

February 2004 Call Sign Home Page

Powered by NetXPosure