York taxi drivers call for cameras as protection against violent passengers (From York Press)

City of York Council is to bid for funding from Safer York Partnership to buy a “bank” of the tiny devices, which cost about £400 each

Why should the council tax payer have to fund this? Taxi drivers/plate owners should buy their own cameras, not us.

Why should the citizens of York pay for cameras in York taxis? Why aren't the drivers paying for cameras themselves if they are so worried about their safety? Lots of jobs have an element of risk not just taxi driving.

Great minds ....................
!

Unbelievable!!!!!

Whilst the council are making massive cuts that are having a serious impact on societies most vulnerable people it would seem that they are also considering throwing tax payers money at others!

Whilst I acknowledge that taxi drivers, bus drivers, people who walk/cycle to work alone etc etc are at risk from muggers/attackers/lo
w-life scum attacking them, arent we all?

If taxi-drivers feel the need for cameras then they should pay for them!

The banks pay for their security systems, as do the the little corner shops and those of us who carry personal attack alarms purchase ours out of our own funds!

Is there a remote chance that one day each and every person will realise that we are all responsible for our own safety?

Council Care Worker wrote:
Unbelievable!!!!! Whilst the council are making massive cuts that are having a serious impact on societies most vulnerable people it would seem that they are also considering throwing tax payers money at others! Whilst I acknowledge that taxi drivers, bus drivers, people who walk/cycle to work alone etc etc are at risk from muggers/attackers/lo w-life scum attacking them, arent we all? If taxi-drivers feel the need for cameras then they should pay for them! The banks pay for their security systems, as do the the little corner shops and those of us who carry personal attack alarms purchase ours out of our own funds! Is there a remote chance that one day each and every person will realise that we are all responsible for our own safety?

Could not agree more, they should get together so they have some purchasing clout and buy them themselves, not expect money to be taken from more desrving causes

The council should buy all of us cameras as protection against the dangerous aggressive driving of some taxi drivers who are currently untouchable and do what the h ell they like.

I don't recall York's taxi drivers having much regard for our safety (or the safety of our kids) when road changes are suggested to improve safety.

So... you orchestrate opposition to road safety measures at the Blossom Street junction (and won that one- well done!) and then want our council taxes to pay for your safety?

Hmm...something wrong there!

Why shouldn't the Council fund this scheme? The charges alone for an annual taxi license would more than cover this rather than the Council profitting for each and every individual taxi driver in the area. Therefore, it is a FACT that the money would NOT come out of the tax payers pocket.

Taxi drivers provide a service to the general public - it is the general public who are committing such aforementioned crimes more often than not, after getting THEMSELVES overly drunk.

Any taxi driver would feel tentative taking on a long journey such as Hull - my husband has had several non payers and "runners" on long journeys and even the shortest of journeys. Why should he be threatened with a knife? Why should his children not have a father should someone actually kill him? Why should justice not be done in catching such low lives?

It is not every individual person of the public who are committing these crimes - and it is certainly not every taxi driver who drives as dangerously as the previous comment stated - seems like a typical case of stereotyping to me. Maybe also FACTS could be gained before comments that are completely untrue are made.

Taxi Drivers wife wrote:
Why shouldn't the Council fund this scheme? The charges alone for an annual taxi license would more than cover this rather than the Council profitting for each and every individual taxi driver in the area. Therefore, it is a FACT that the money would NOT come out of the tax payers pocket. Taxi drivers provide a service to the general public - it is the general public who are committing such aforementioned crimes more often than not, after getting THEMSELVES overly drunk. Any taxi driver would feel tentative taking on a long journey such as Hull - my husband has had several non payers and "runners" on long journeys and even the shortest of journeys. Why should he be threatened with a knife? Why should his children not have a father should someone actually kill him? Why should justice not be done in catching such low lives? It is not every individual person of the public who are committing these crimes - and it is certainly not every taxi driver who drives as dangerously as the previous comment stated - seems like a typical case of stereotyping to me. Maybe also FACTS could be gained before comments that are completely untrue are made.

I provide a service to the general public, as do the people at Nestle who make the choccie bars that I eat to keep me going, as does the little man who owns a corner store that I buy my milk from, as does .................. need I go on?

The FACT of the matter is that your hubby has to pay a fee to the council in order to ply his trade. Market traders pay a fee to the council too! Shall we pay for their security too?

Im sorry, I can not recall any story of Nestle workers being attacked by the people who buy their chocolate bars? Security is already provided by the council in the way of street cameras for market traders?? need I go on?.........

Taxi Drivers wife wrote:
Im sorry, I can not recall any story of Nestle workers being attacked by the people who buy their chocolate bars? Security is already provided by the council in the way of street cameras for market traders?? need I go on?.........

You stated that your husband provided a service to the general public. I am merely pointing out that the vast majority of us provide a service to the general public in some way, shape or form. If we need extra security it is up to ourselves or our employers to provide that! If your hubby is self-employed it unfortunately his problem to resolve and pay for! It certainly isnt down to the tax-payer! As far as I can see your hubby isnt employed by the state.

I agree with Council Care Worker. Why should York's council tax payers be covering the operating expenses of a private business (i.e. a taxi cab firm or self-employed driver)? They don't pay for the burglar alarm in my house, nor do they provide me with a bodyguard when I walk home late at night, so why should they foot the bill for taxi drivers' security measures?

Women drivers will get priority.

And this is completely wrong. Equal opportunities means equal responsibilities. No-one forces women to become cab drivers, and I see no reason why they should take priority for any benefit of the job. No taxi driver, male or female, should have to put up with abuse or worse from their customers, and if the police gave greater priority to this kind of crime (which really does have a victim), and less to nicking drivers doing 31mph on a deserted city street or putting their wheelie bin out on the wrong day, there would be less of it. But I'm sorry; I don't see why women should take priority. They don't pay higher taxes than men and no-one forces them to take a job in which they might find themselves having to deal with the dregs of society on a Friday or Saturday night. Furthermore, crime statistics show clearly that men are an order of magnitude more likely to be the victim of violent crime than women.

What a moaning bunch of people u all are get a life

Tkmax wrote:
What a moaning bunch of people u all are get a life

Thanks for that Tkmax! I am making a huge assumption but as you care so little, have the tax payers paid for a bottle of cider for you?

Tkmax wrote:
What a moaning bunch of people u all are get a life

Thanks for that Tkmax! I am making a huge assumption but as you care so little, have the tax payers paid for a bottle of cider for you?

Tkmax wrote:
What a moaning bunch of people u all are get a life

Thanks for that Tkmax! I am making a huge assumption but as you care so little, have the tax payers paid for a bottle of cider for you?

Guy Fawkes wrote:
I agree with Council Care Worker. Why should York's council tax payers be covering the operating expenses of a private business (i.e. a taxi cab firm or self-employed driver)? They don't pay for the burglar alarm in my house, nor do they provide me with a bodyguard when I walk home late at night, so why should they foot the bill for taxi drivers' security measures?

Women drivers will get priority.

And this is completely wrong. Equal opportunities means equal responsibilities. No-one forces women to become cab drivers, and I see no reason why they should take priority for any benefit of the job. No taxi driver, male or female, should have to put up with abuse or worse from their customers, and if the police gave greater priority to this kind of crime (which really does have a victim), and less to nicking drivers doing 31mph on a deserted city street or putting their wheelie bin out on the wrong day, there would be less of it. But I'm sorry; I don't see why women should take priority. They don't pay higher taxes than men and no-one forces them to take a job in which they might find themselves having to deal with the dregs of society on a Friday or Saturday night. Furthermore, crime statistics show clearly that men are an order of magnitude more likely to be the victim of violent crime than women.

I totally support this post.
Taxi drivers must pay their way, not cheat us tax payers.
If they want cctv in their vehicles, they must pay.
Personally,as the taxi driver wife's comment wrote, ALL taxi drivers exist to rip us off. They are very dangerous people and we the people should be protected by taxi drivers in York.

And this is completely wrong. Equal opportunities means equal responsibilities. No-one forces women to become cab drivers, and I see no reason why they should take priority for any benefit of the job. No taxi driver, male or female, should have to put up with abuse or worse from their customers, and if the police gave greater priority to this kind of crime (which really does have a victim), and less to nicking drivers doing 31mph on a deserted city street or putting their wheelie bin out on the wrong day, there would be less of it. But I'm sorry; I don't see why women should take priority. They don't pay higher taxes than men and no-one forces them to take a job in which they might find themselves having to deal with the dregs of society on a Friday or Saturday night. Furthermore, crime statistics show clearly that men are an order of magnitude more likely to be the victim of violent crime than women.



totally agree, completely sexist and as a male taxi driver i shall be telling mr lacy how discriminating this is

Council Care Worker wrote:

Tkmax wrote:
What a moaning bunch of people u all are get a life

Thanks for that Tkmax! I am making a huge assumption but as you care so little, have the tax payers paid for a bottle of cider for you?

No actually they have not mate I pay my taxes like any other hard working person but u all make assumptions all taxi drivers are idiots if it wasn't for all u idiots that can't handle ur drink and cause trouble for the taxi drivers then they would not need them would they the taxi drivers pay there tax just like any other person so all they are doing is asking for a little bit of that back to improve there place of work and make them safe

I pay them for a service and neither drink to excess, nor do I do a runner to avoid paying. Will Taxi drivers pay for me to park my lorry in a secure park to stop me getting robbed or indeed hijackedif I help them pay for a camera?.............

I didn't think so. All of us provide some sort of service and some of those can be dangerous, but most of us pay out of our own pockets.

Jesus !!! You all want to get a life and stop moaning so much !!! I didnt realise taxi drivers were hated so much ?? maybe they should just drive round with swastika's on to improve there popularity !!!!

Taxi Drivers wife wrote:
Why shouldn't the Council fund this scheme? The charges alone for an annual taxi license would more than cover this rather than the Council profitting for each and every individual taxi driver in the area. Therefore, it is a FACT that the money would NOT come out of the tax payers pocket. Taxi drivers provide a service to the general public - it is the general public who are committing such aforementioned crimes more often than not, after getting THEMSELVES overly drunk. Any taxi driver would feel tentative taking on a long journey such as Hull - my husband has had several non payers and "runners" on long journeys and even the shortest of journeys. Why should he be threatened with a knife? Why should his children not have a father should someone actually kill him? Why should justice not be done in catching such low lives? It is not every individual person of the public who are committing these crimes - and it is certainly not every taxi driver who drives as dangerously as the previous comment stated - seems like a typical case of stereotyping to me. Maybe also FACTS could be gained before comments that are completely untrue are made.

Taxes do not pay for cctv on trains or buses providing a public service so WHY are taxis any different, neither do the council provide cctv for the small independant corner shops which have to pay business rates and whose owners have to work all hours to make ends meet they have just as much chance of being attacked and robbed.

PKH wrote:

Taxi Drivers wife wrote:
Why shouldn't the Council fund this scheme? The charges alone for an annual taxi license would more than cover this rather than the Council profitting for each and every individual taxi driver in the area. Therefore, it is a FACT that the money would NOT come out of the tax payers pocket. Taxi drivers provide a service to the general public - it is the general public who are committing such aforementioned crimes more often than not, after getting THEMSELVES overly drunk. Any taxi driver would feel tentative taking on a long journey such as Hull - my husband has had several non payers and "runners" on long journeys and even the shortest of journeys. Why should he be threatened with a knife? Why should his children not have a father should someone actually kill him? Why should justice not be done in catching such low lives? It is not every individual person of the public who are committing these crimes - and it is certainly not every taxi driver who drives as dangerously as the previous comment stated - seems like a typical case of stereotyping to me. Maybe also FACTS could be gained before comments that are completely untrue are made.

Taxes do not pay for cctv on trains or buses providing a public service so WHY are taxis any different, neither do the council provide cctv for the small independant corner shops which have to pay business rates and whose owners have to work all hours to make ends meet they have just as much chance of being attacked and robbed.

Calm down mate, youll give yourself a heart attack(with any luck). Whats wrong, did a taxi driver run off with your wife, taking your house and car with him, takingyou to the cleaners, leaving you penniless and with a bitter, bitter taste in your mouth with anything to do with Taxis ?? Warm bath and a razor blade is what you want pal !!

matroom wrote:

PKH wrote:

Taxi Drivers wife wrote:
Why shouldn't the Council fund this scheme? The charges alone for an annual taxi license would more than cover this rather than the Council profitting for each and every individual taxi driver in the area. Therefore, it is a FACT that the money would NOT come out of the tax payers pocket. Taxi drivers provide a service to the general public - it is the general public who are committing such aforementioned crimes more often than not, after getting THEMSELVES overly drunk. Any taxi driver would feel tentative taking on a long journey such as Hull - my husband has had several non payers and "runners" on long journeys and even the shortest of journeys. Why should he be threatened with a knife? Why should his children not have a father should someone actually kill him? Why should justice not be done in catching such low lives? It is not every individual person of the public who are committing these crimes - and it is certainly not every taxi driver who drives as dangerously as the previous comment stated - seems like a typical case of stereotyping to me. Maybe also FACTS could be gained before comments that are completely untrue are made.

Taxes do not pay for cctv on trains or buses providing a public service so WHY are taxis any different, neither do the council provide cctv for the small independant corner shops which have to pay business rates and whose owners have to work all hours to make ends meet they have just as much chance of being attacked and robbed.

Calm down mate, youll give yourself a heart attack(with any luck). Whats wrong, did a taxi driver run off with your wife, taking your house and car with him, takingyou to the cleaners, leaving you penniless and with a bitter, bitter taste in your mouth with anything to do with Taxis ?? Warm bath and a razor blade is what you want pal !!

MAtroom Clifton caravan site person thank u for speaking some sense into these idiots

matroom wrote:

PKH wrote:

Taxi Drivers wife wrote: Why shouldn't the Council fund this scheme? The charges alone for an annual taxi license would more than cover this rather than the Council profitting for each and every individual taxi driver in the area. Therefore, it is a FACT that the money would NOT come out of the tax payers pocket. Taxi drivers provide a service to the general public - it is the general public who are committing such aforementioned crimes more often than not, after getting THEMSELVES overly drunk. Any taxi driver would feel tentative taking on a long journey such as Hull - my husband has had several non payers and "runners" on long journeys and even the shortest of journeys. Why should he be threatened with a knife? Why should his children not have a father should someone actually kill him? Why should justice not be done in catching such low lives? It is not every individual person of the public who are committing these crimes - and it is certainly not every taxi driver who drives as dangerously as the previous comment stated - seems like a typical case of stereotyping to me. Maybe also FACTS could be gained before comments that are completely untrue are made.

Taxes do not pay for cctv on trains or buses providing a public service so WHY are taxis any different, neither do the council provide cctv for the small independant corner shops which have to pay business rates and whose owners have to work all hours to make ends meet they have just as much chance of being attacked and robbed.

Calm down mate, youll give yourself a heart attack(with any luck). Whats wrong, did a taxi driver run off with your wife, taking your house and car with him, takingyou to the cleaners, leaving you penniless and with a bitter, bitter taste in your mouth with anything to do with Taxis ?? Warm bath and a razor blade is what you want pal !!

I am calm, however taxi drivers are always moaning about their lot and think they are a special case and deserve special treatment. If their lot is so bad why do they do the job?? All I was doing was pointing out that they are not a special case, what's wrong with that?? And no I don't hate taxi drivers I am friendly with one but he doesn't half moan and nothings ever right for taxi driver's besides that he's fine.

Tkmax wrote:

matroom wrote:

PKH wrote:

Taxi Drivers wife wrote: Why shouldn't the Council fund this scheme? The charges alone for an annual taxi license would more than cover this rather than the Council profitting for each and every individual taxi driver in the area. Therefore, it is a FACT that the money would NOT come out of the tax payers pocket. Taxi drivers provide a service to the general public - it is the general public who are committing such aforementioned crimes more often than not, after getting THEMSELVES overly drunk. Any taxi driver would feel tentative taking on a long journey such as Hull - my husband has had several non payers and "runners" on long journeys and even the shortest of journeys. Why should he be threatened with a knife? Why should his children not have a father should someone actually kill him? Why should justice not be done in catching such low lives? It is not every individual person of the public who are committing these crimes - and it is certainly not every taxi driver who drives as dangerously as the previous comment stated - seems like a typical case of stereotyping to me. Maybe also FACTS could be gained before comments that are completely untrue are made.

Taxes do not pay for cctv on trains or buses providing a public service so WHY are taxis any different, neither do the council provide cctv for the small independant corner shops which have to pay business rates and whose owners have to work all hours to make ends meet they have just as much chance of being attacked and robbed.

Calm down mate, youll give yourself a heart attack(with any luck). Whats wrong, did a taxi driver run off with your wife, taking your house and car with him, takingyou to the cleaners, leaving you penniless and with a bitter, bitter taste in your mouth with anything to do with Taxis ?? Warm bath and a razor blade is what you want pal !!

MAtroom Clifton caravan site person thank u for speaking some sense into these idiots

If talking common sense makes me an idiot then so be it. At least I don't resort to insults!!!!!!!!!!!!

No-one (not me, at any rate) hates taxi drivers. They do a vital and valued job. Many's the time I've arrived in an unfamiliar city and regarded the money I spent on the taxi from the airport as money well spent for a quick, efficient and safe transfer. If they're prepared to work antisocial hours to offer this service, then of course they should be paid at a rate that reflects that fairly. All I'm objecting to is part of the running costs of their business being passed on to the taxpayer. If, as Taxi Driver's Wife claims, the cost of a cab licence is a ripoff (and given that it's CoYC doing the charging, I can certainly believe that!), then that's fundamentally a separate issue: that of to what extent should taxis in York be regulated and how should the regulation be paid for. As for the problem of 'runners', surely there's a very simple answer to that - for the driver and passenger to agree a fare (based on the mileage) which is paid in full before departure? Modern satnav technology enables the distance to destination to be calculated very accurately at the start of a journey, so why don't taxis just start to do the same thing as all other public transport and collect the fare from the passenger at the start of the journey?

Can anyone demonstrate that the cost of the cameras will be wholly met from the license fees which Taxi drivers pay? If so, then there is no argument.
I'm an occasional taxi user, and have a great regard for most cabbies. But don't expect a tip if you drive unneccessarily into the cyclist's "green box" advance stop areas.

That's the most sense GF has ever made and in his fewest words.

Guy Fawkes wrote:
No-one (not me, at any rate) hates taxi drivers. They do a vital and valued job. Many's the time I've arrived in an unfamiliar city and regarded the money I spent on the taxi from the airport as money well spent for a quick, efficient and safe transfer. If they're prepared to work antisocial hours to offer this service, then of course they should be paid at a rate that reflects that fairly. All I'm objecting to is part of the running costs of their business being passed on to the taxpayer. If, as Taxi Driver's Wife claims, the cost of a cab licence is a ripoff (and given that it's CoYC doing the charging, I can certainly believe that!), then that's fundamentally a separate issue: that of to what extent should taxis in York be regulated and how should the regulation be paid for. As for the problem of 'runners', surely there's a very simple answer to that - for the driver and passenger to agree a fare (based on the mileage) which is paid in full before departure? Modern satnav technology enables the distance to destination to be calculated very accurately at the start of a journey, so why don't taxis just start to do the same thing as all other public transport and collect the fare from the passenger at the start of the journey?

Great comment GF I'd be happy to pay up front in fact I'd rather know the cost first

Guy Fawkes wrote:
No-one (not me, at any rate) hates taxi drivers. They do a vital and valued job. Many's the time I've arrived in an unfamiliar city and regarded the money I spent on the taxi from the airport as money well spent for a quick, efficient and safe transfer. If they're prepared to work antisocial hours to offer this service, then of course they should be paid at a rate that reflects that fairly. All I'm objecting to is part of the running costs of their business being passed on to the taxpayer. If, as Taxi Driver's Wife claims, the cost of a cab licence is a ripoff (and given that it's CoYC doing the charging, I can certainly believe that!), then that's fundamentally a separate issue: that of to what extent should taxis in York be regulated and how should the regulation be paid for. As for the problem of 'runners', surely there's a very simple answer to that - for the driver and passenger to agree a fare (based on the mileage) which is paid in full before departure? Modern satnav technology enables the distance to destination to be calculated very accurately at the start of a journey, so why don't taxis just start to do the same thing as all other public transport and collect the fare from the passenger at the start of the journey?

GF I agree whole heartly with your comment, one thing that has not been mentioned is that drivers should be able to claim for the cost against their tax therefore they should not bear the full cost.

When they declare all their earnings and pay tax, the taxpayer might consider funding their career choice! It's like a mugger receiving a paid for balaclava from the taxpayer.

No, No, No.

CCTV would seriously breach and compromise our Civil Liberties if installed to film us all in Taxi's. Or so Nick Clegg would lead us to believe.

Why not just have the independents form a cooperative that they pay a small fee too each and this covers the cost for all the cameras. After all if they (All independant taxi drivers) Paid like £10 a month each they get a camera for one of them but the deal is all members of this cooperative have to have a camera installed and then they stop paying?
After all how much is a taxi drivers plate alone worth? Wasn't there a story about something the taxi drivers had to have and some cost more then a car. Not quite sure on the details. So a cooperative is minor part of their profits for extra security? As they are answerable only to themselves and generate their own income it would perhaps mean an extra half hour of work a week for a set period of time?
Not denying as a group they don't need this security but it's an effective tax payer free measure with a guaranteed result. They'd all pay the money but not lose out on anything big from loss of earnings.

Silver wrote:
Why not just have the independents form a cooperative that they pay a small fee too each and this covers the cost for all the cameras. After all if they (All independant taxi drivers) Paid like £10 a month each they get a camera for one of them but the deal is all members of this cooperative have to have a camera installed and then they stop paying?
After all how much is a taxi drivers plate alone worth? Wasn't there a story about something the taxi drivers had to have and some cost more then a car. Not quite sure on the details. So a cooperative is minor part of their profits for extra security? As they are answerable only to themselves and generate their own income it would perhaps mean an extra half hour of work a week for a set period of time?
Not denying as a group they don't need this security but it's an effective tax payer free measure with a guaranteed result. They'd all pay the money but not lose out on anything big from loss of earnings.

After all after this recession if any of us was told you'd have to spend £5 a month to maintain your current standing of living? I'd happily pay per month so I could offer my girlfriend a house and mortgage as a permanent future. I sympathise with the taxi drivers but we all know the government is so skint. In the taxi driver viewpoint if I could guarantee my absolute safety that someone who acted out of line would be recorded should it be needed. I'd pay a tiny fee per month for that and call it an investment.

CCTV would seriously breach and compromise our Civil Liberties if installed to film us all in Taxi's.

It certainly has the potential to do so, and one thing that's often concerned me is that there seems to be little or no regulation of the operation of CCTV cameras. If these things are installed in all taxis, how long is it going to be before some idiot (I stress that the vast majority of taxi drivers would never do this, but the chances are that the exception who proves the rule will) decides to take his/her CCTV footage of a snogging couple, someone a bit the worse for alcohol-induced wear or a badly behaved child and stick it on YouTube for the world to giggle at? This video - http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8
ro - is clearly compiled from local council CCTV footage, meaning that either the council sanctioned it or a rogue employee decided to have some fun with the camera footage. In any case, I think we can be sure that none of the motorists who 'starred' in the video consented to it being published in this way. You could argue that they deserved it, but that is a dangerous precedent to set.

Silver wrote:
Why not just have the independents form a cooperative that they pay a small fee too each and this covers the cost for all the cameras. After all if they (All independant taxi drivers) Paid like £10 a month each they get a camera for one of them but the deal is all members of this cooperative have to have a camera installed and then they stop paying? After all how much is a taxi drivers plate alone worth? Wasn't there a story about something the taxi drivers had to have and some cost more then a car. Not quite sure on the details. So a cooperative is minor part of their profits for extra security? As they are answerable only to themselves and generate their own income it would perhaps mean an extra half hour of work a week for a set period of time? Not denying as a group they don't need this security but it's an effective tax payer free measure with a guaranteed result. They'd all pay the money but not lose out on anything big from loss of earnings.

Silver, i believe a taxi plate issued by the council is free, it is when the owner of the plate "rents" it out that problems arise!

Or Craig Charles...

DropsOfJupiter wrote:
No, No, No.

CCTV would seriously breach and compromise our Civil Liberties if installed to film us all in Taxi's. Or so Nick Clegg would lead us to believe.

Where did the quote go?
Ahem, Or Craig Charles.

Taxi Drivers wife wrote:
Im sorry, I can not recall any story of Nestle workers being attacked by the people who buy their chocolate bars? Security is already provided by the council in the way of street cameras for market traders?? need I go on?.........

Taxi Drivers Wife - Its your husbands career choice. Nobody forced him to drive taxis for a living. I am self employed and have a work vehicle. Should the taxpayer pay for me to have a £400 camera? No they should not. Taxi drivers make a decent living, especially hackney drivers so they should pay for their own tools with which to do their jobs.

Time for deregulation, better for the customer through competition, and hopefully better service.

On reading the story it seems that YCC is doing the research and this is not something actively sought by drivers. taxi/pre-booked drivers are self employed, therefore this would be a legitimate business expense and obviously the best way forward if there are those who feel they are vulnerable. I do not know this for a fact but it is my belief that the records on the CCTV can only be accessed by the council and the police in the event of a complaint made by a driver who has been threatened/robbed etc. Therefore no ones rights would be infringed, other than identifying who has behaved illegally.

moneyforwhat wrote:
On reading the story it seems that YCC is doing the research and this is not something actively sought by drivers. taxi/pre-booked drivers are self employed, therefore this would be a legitimate business expense and obviously the best way forward if there are those who feel they are vulnerable. I do not know this for a fact but it is my belief that the records on the CCTV can only be accessed by the council and the police in the event of a complaint made by a driver who has been threatened/robbed etc. Therefore no ones rights would be infringed, other than identifying who has behaved illegally.

I think your on to it.
This has nothing to do with protecting taxi drivers and everything to do with keeping tabs on citizens.
The Government, the Police and the Council want to know the movements of everyone. Every train has cctv, every bus has cctv; only taxis don't. The council has to pay for this in order to "own" the footage. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a government grant for this intrusion.

Why £400 each? Won't one of these do the trick for under £55?

http://www.thehut.co
m/electronics/camcor
ders/swann-action-ca
mera-mini-video-came
ra-and-recorder/1020
7867.html