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

Westminster Traffic Wardens
After reading the April Call Sign, I feel I have to write to you about the article regarding Kevin Went and his parking ticket from Westminster Council. I too received a parking ticket (Berkeley Square 18 Feb) whilst helping a passenger in and out of the cab. However, unlike Kevin, I didn’t pay the charge before appealing. I too waited a month for a reply and was sent the exact same letter that Kevin received word for word - but my parking ticket was cancelled. My letter to the council was nowhere near as detailed as Kevin’s, but I think the fact that they didn’t have my money could have been the reason that the ticket was cancelled. Another point I would like to make is that traffic wardens are using ‘below the belt’ tactics to keep you parked there long enough for the ticket to be written.
   I received another parking ticket and this time I had no excuse. I was parked in St Martins Lane getting a coffee and saw the warden by my cab punching my cab details into his machine, so I ran out to move the cab before he could place the ticket under my windscreen wiper. I was just about to move off when the warden put what I thought was the ticket under my windscreen wiper. So I thought to myself, sod it, I might as well get my coffee as I’ve already got the ticket, but all that was under my windscreen wiper was the envelope and not the ticket! The warden then spent another minute by my cab punching details into his machine and then put the parking ticket into the envelope that was under my windscreen wiper. If I had moved off when only the envelope was under the wiper, the ticket could not have been legally issued, but he had put the envelope there first to mislead me into believing that the ticket had already been written out.
   Another point I’d like to make is that the new breed of traffic wardens are so rude. Oh for the old days when you knew the traffic wardens and they treated you with respect. This new lot have obviously never had any training in how to treat the public…
Gary Heard (Y07)
Thanks for the letter Gary. My belief is that you cannot officially appeal if you have paid the £50 PCN fee, you can only do so if you don’t pay. If you use the unofficial appeal system – ie a letter such as Kevin or Gary wrote - but then fail to convince the other person, they could enforce the section where the fine is doubled (ie the month delay).  It’s like betting on a horse, you have to take a chance on reaching the right person at the right time or you end up losing. However, the good news is that DaC are negotiating with Westminster on the problem. See article for more updates …Ed

Leaving Them Wanting More?
The April issue of Call Sign was just fantastic. The information and general content was nothing less than totally professional and the stories must leave all DaC drivers wanting more! Well done…
Tony Arnold (F03)
Profound words from someone with a soft spot for Charlton Athletic FC! But thanks Tony, your sentiments are appreciated greatly …Ed

Mobile Phone Warnings
The mobile phone warning on page 4 of the April Call Sign, in my opinion contradict articles about mobile phones in past issues of the mag, especially with regard to page 23, November 2003 and page 31, January 2004. The contradiction is mainly regarding earpieces? Advice please…
David Marks (R22)
Thanks for the letter David, I never realised that you collected items on mobile phones! Yes, you are right in that the actual words written seem to contradict each other, but you’ve missed some salient parts and if you take those into account then there is no contradiction - only with those from whom the articles originated.
   The November issue article: Hands Free Mobile Phones – At Last an Answer, told of the PCO passing three types of hands-free phones, all of which involved passengers being able to hear both the driver voice and the person to whom he was talking via loudspeaker. In the same article, we published the actual Government act, which made no mention of wired earpieces – the inference being that the PCO say no but that it’s ok for everyone else. The January story headline – Mobile Phones in Taxis – Different Rules Than Cars – should have given a further clue to any contradiction. This article gave the view of the PCO only and they say no wires! The April issue in Mobile Warning to DaC Drivers gave the legal view via a solicitor that it is ok to use a wired earpiece with a button connected to your phone, however she was going purely by the law of the land and not regulatory law as laid down to licensed Taxi drivers. So the contradiction, David, is not in Call Sign but with the PCO who have made licensed Taxi drivers an exception to everyone else. The law says we can use wired earpieces but the PCO say no. Hope that explains the situation …Ed

Votes for Cash?
Cash rides! I won’t give you bits and pieces to be torn apart and detract from the real issue! Straight to the point – I never voted for a £2 cash booking fee because I was not given that right, which I do believe is what a democracy is all about. Before we lose all our cash and credit card bookings, uphold the member’s rights and give us a vote! I pay my subscriptions to receive account, cash and credit card work, but because of this ludicrous business move, we are being forced to sit back and watch licensed minicabs, unlicensed minicabs and Zingo etc take the work without even trying! I await with baited breath to hear when - not if - the vote will be and sooner rather than later before we lose so much to an extent that we can’t recover it. This is a very important issue for working DaC drivers so please give us the vote now…
Dave Humphryes (A69)
Brian Rice replies: Obviously you feel very strongly about this issue Dave, but it is not a ludicrous business move, in fact it is an extremely astute business move that has been welcomed by most members and the public alike. For the first time to my knowledge, we are giving the public a very good cash and Credit Card service, something that we have not done in the past. This issue was discussed at the AGM and it was quite clear that the majority of members saw the merit in imposing a booking fee, which incidentally is incorporated in the fare chart inside your Taxi. Regarding our work going to Zingo etc, I would like to refer you to last month’s

Chairman's Report and although I know that you won’t agree with me, there will not
be a vote to members as the BoM - including myself - are here to make those decisions on behalf of our members. I believe that is the correct way to take this company forward.

A Prize Question From Mr Angry!
It's April Fools Day as I write, but I've waited until after midday to drop a line to you! Cast your mind back a few issues to when there was a competition to win some Armor All Valet Kits containing an assortment of wipes for the cab/car with the first ten correct entries winning the prizes.  I am usually very unlucky and never win anything (aaahhh!), so can you imagine the surprise and excitement when my name was mentioned as a lucky winner of this great prize which would enable me to keep my cab clean even though I will always remain a schlock! You named me Mr Angry and your naming is now proving correct. So where is my prize!
Mr (VERY) Angry (aka Paul Shaw B19)
The company concerned have apologised. The delay was because the Valet Kits were short of two items that hadn’t come in yet. By the time you read this, yours and the other drivers prize valet kits will hopefully have arrived. And please Paul, don’t hit me again! … Ed

Simon Hughes
Having read the ‘Views of Hughes’ on the cab trade (April Call Sign), I must state that voting for him and his poor grasp of OUR needs, would be like proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas! Ken Livingstone, despite his shortcomings, is still the only one who seems to vaguely understand the cab trade. I wouldn't waste space on ever speaking to Simon Hughes again! Thank goodness we found out in time…
David Kupler (Y74)

And the Other Simon Hughes?
Simon Hughes in your interview (April Call Sign), seems to be pressing all the right buttons. I have always liked Simon Hughes and he again came across as honest, sincere and in tune with ordinary people.
   As for Ken’s ‘bendy bus’ epidemic, that is now heading out of control with a virus they cannot cure, so Simon Hughes comments regarding subsidies and the ludicrous situation of double-deckers running nose to tail also made interesting reading. As a consequence, I now feel that we have another impressive performer along with Steve Norris.
   Mayor Ken will need to pull out all his bus stops to win this race and it will not be as easy as Tony Blair seemed to think when he decided to back him as a probable winner. Besides, what does Mr Blair know about buses – his family use minicabs…
David Heath (W27)
You know what they say about cab drivers, 1000 drivers have 1001 views! The idea of Call Sign publishing interviews with the main contenders ie Steve Norris, Simon Hughes and yes, our own Gordon Poluck, is to give you the chance to make up your mind – something you have now all hopefully done. So don’t forget your vote on June 10 …Ed

Bad Taste?
I am writing this to Brian Rice to express my concerns regarding a reply in the April Call Sign to Mr Daryl Cox (T33).
   As someone who has received a "bloody nose" from you in the past, I found the content of your reply to be in very bad taste. The points raised by Mr Cox were:
• A substantial loss of work to the drivers
• A rise in the cost of subscriptions to the circuit
• An increase in the remuneration paid to the Board of Management
   These issues have been of concern over the past two years from information gleaned from the Society's accounts and as you have not denied the veracity of the claims made by Mr Cox, I can only assume that his statements are correct. Therefore, may I respectfully suggest that instead of telling the Society's member, Mr Cox, that he is becoming angry and jealous, you should indeed be open and transparent with the whole of the Society's members about issues that are relevant to their interests.  This must include full transparency on Board of Management's emoluments. I’m sure that Mr Cox does not need a psychiatric assessment from you Brian and it impugns you that you should suggest such a thing.
Grant Davis (L39)
Brian Rice replies:
Well Grant you just can't resist can you. Anything you can seize on to have a go at me or the Board and you’re there! You were at the AGM, albeit you turned up an hour and a half late so you might not have heard me explain the situation to Darryl and those members present when I answered his questions. Then when I received a letter for inclusion in Call Sign asking the self-same questions! It does become irritating because constantly having to repeat yourself just wastes everyone’s time. However, here we go again…
   There has been a general downturn in the world economy since May 2001 and during that period DaC has traded profitably - which is more than can be said for many businesses. During the previous downturn in the early nineties, DaC lost £500,000, but not this time. So Grant, are you going to give anyone a 'pat on the back' this time round for guiding this company through these tough times while still make money? Anyone can be a good Captain in a calm sea. Regarding subs; yes I know that you know we are the cheapest in the trade, but things do increase in price over time whether it be for a commodity or a service. You are here for one reason only and that is because you believe that you are getting good value for money - if you did not believe that, you would leave!
   Consequently, we are giving you value for money – your just being here proves that. During the past eight years, your subs have increased by 17% - far less than the rate of inflation over the same period. Over the same period, the meter fare - even using the simple interest calculation – has increased by almost 30%, a figure that blows your argument out of the water.
   Regarding remunerations paid to the Board; that increased by 0.8% last year - about one third the rate of inflation. And you know something Grant - it is all in our end of year report.
   Finally, I take exception to you accusing me of not being open or transparent. There is no one in the trade who is more open or transparent with their members than I am. To accuse me of anything less is a lie, a strong word perhaps, but that is exactly what it is. But Grant, I know you won’t let the facts stand in your way if there is the slightest chance of discrediting me, even if it means latching onto someone else’s letter!

And Speaking of Darryl!
I was dismayed that as Chairman of Dial-a-Cab, Brian, you felt it necessary to make personal and inaccurate remarks in reply to my last letter. However, I am pleased

that the figures quoted were not challenged. I am bemused by
your explanation that NI contributions are not included in the payments to the Board "…because it is a payment levied by the Government." If this was the case, income tax could also be deducted from the amounts shown as emoluments to
the Board, thus distorting even more the true cost of the Board to the membership. It cannot be a coincidence that the non-inclusion of NI payments has only occurred in the past two years, a period when there was a 25% decrease in payments to drivers as well as a 25% increase in subscriptions paid by drivers.
Darryl Cox (T33)
Brian Rice replies: Darryl, my answer to you is exactly the same as it was in the hall at Whitbread’s Brewery (see reply to Grant Davis’ letter), as it was in the April issue of Call Sign and exactly the same as it will be in the future given that question. You can ask the same question every month but you’ll keep getting the same response - because the answer I gave you is the correct one. You may also end up boring everyone else silly…

Why?
Can you please tell me why it takes so long to get the next issue of Call Sign on line? Is there a reason for it?
John Hillier (Y77)
I do get asked this quite often, so here is the answer. Call Sign is primarily aimed at DaC subscribers and while I feel flattered to receive so much post from around the world telling me how they enjoy reading it and usually asking to go on the mailing list (sorry, but it can’t be done), DaC readers must see the mag first. The main reason for it going on line isn’t so that you can read the mag twice, but because each issue forms part of the Call Sign library and is used by many drivers and staff when they want to look back at something particular. It is normally put up around two weeks after publication…Ed

Getting It Off Your Chest?
Having read the Chairman’s response to Darryl Cox’ letter published in the April Call Sign, I feel that I must write this letter. It is not my way to be personal, in fact it is wrong to be so. Points, comments and responses should be sensible, to the point and objective; there is a certain etiquette that should always be adhered to. Yet if anyone dares to put pertinent and searching questions to the Chairman, he puts up a smoke screen and hides behind it. The smoke screen takes the form of personal abuse directed at the questioner - which effectively sidesteps the question.
   This is what happened at the AGM in February when I asked the Chairman a question and was called a fascist. This was insulting, defamatory and slanderous and of course the question was not answered. The question, which was quite a simple one was: ‘Does the chairman want compulsory attendance at the AGM brought back?’ You may rest easy Mr Chairman, there is no hidden threat of a slander action against you unlike your pseudo threat of - and I quote - "bordering on being libellous" response to my last letter. Incidentally Mr Chairman, you might like to inform me and the rest of the membership, exactly what it is that I accused you of?  Maybe it’s time for the Chairman to receive some of the rudeness he so readily dishes out.
   I would first like to apologise to the membership for going down this pathetic road, but I do think that it is necessary. I believe that the current Chairman has taken Dial-a-Cab through one of its’ worst ever periods and thankfully we have come out of it relatively unscathed.
   Had DaC been sold or become a PLC as he had planned, I believe it would eventually have had far-reaching, detrimental effects on both DaC in particular and the cab trade in general; I think we should be in control of our own trade and not sell it to strangers so they can capitalise on it at our expense.
   Prior to the downturn in the economy, which was several months before the September 11 atrocity, DaC together with every other service industry was riding the crest of a wave, then all of a sudden the downturn came and the wave stopped rolling and after September 11 the tide went out. I mention this because the Chairman always gave the impression that the buoyant state of DaC was solely his doing and had nothing to do with the general state of the economy; indeed in answer to my last letter his ego got the better of him when he implied that he was the best chairman DaC had ever had and all others before him were really not up to his standard - at least that was my interpretation of – and I quote "…they believe 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 50 years? The answer is none – because no one was interested."
   The fact of the matter is that it has taken DaC 50 years to get where it is today with a membership that is the envy of every other radio taxi circuit. It took the chairman one AGM to put DaC back 50 years when he effectively did away with compulsory attendance at the AGM. It is not good enough for him to say that it was - or is - the membership’s choice. Sometimes people need to be made to do things for their own benefit. Attending the AGM is one of those things.
   Incidentally Mr Chairman, the Friendly Societies Act 1992 section70 paragraph 7d states:
‘require the accounts to give particulars of the emoluments, pensions…’ The important word
is ‘particulars’ which means: ‘detailed information about someone or something’ (The New Oxford Dictionary of English). Is the grand total of the emoluments of the Board detailed information? I don’t think so. Maybe it is time for you to show Mr Cox and others a little more respect, a lot more objectivity and a lot less personal chagrin when answering their letters.
Paul Tully (Y40)
Brian Rice replies: Paul, you certainly have some venom inside you. You have even got to the point where you change my answers around and then try and wriggle out of it by saying that ‘at least that was your interpretation’. Well Paul, I don't want you to 'interpret' my answers. They should be digested as they are written.
   You also seem to resent the success that DaC (yes, and I) have had during the past eight years, but if that is your makeup Paul, then nothing I say will change that. My feeling is that you will resent whatever I say and whatever I do - but I can live with that. It is difficult to know what part of your letter is meant to be of assistance and what part is just insults, so let me just answer the part that seems to have raised your ire – the question of ‘fascism’. I did not refer to you as a fascist; I suggested that the idea of compulsory attendance at the AGM by imposing the will of the minority over the majority could be conceived as a form of fascism. Why should you take that personally? Incidentally Paul, the comment you made in your letter:  "…Sometimes people need to be made to do things for their own benefit..." How would you describe that view?

May 2004 Call Sign Home Page

Powered by NetXPosure