Cyclone Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 Advice appreciated Cyclone, but as to how offensive my comments were to the taxi trade, I refer you to ash's reply who I understand is a taxi driver himself But I am surprised you think my questioning of the motive behind an objection is somehow wrong in itself. These lads get a raw deal at the hands of some passengers and then the law lets them down as well, and so do need this redress by providing evidence that no one can refute. The point you are still ignoring is that there is nothing remotely racist about complaining about how the council spends it's money. What made you call someone racist because they complained that their windows hadn't been changed when they should have been? Frankly I think you owe them an apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tab1 Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 Errrrr.............. don't hold your breath my friend I did not call anyone racist but suggested that it was selfish and that there were racist overtones to the objection? In context, not the mountain that you are making of a molehill. I did mention a driver being attacked and who happen to be White, perhapse you think that was racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 Personally I don't think it's unreasonable to pay for the trial (although why the other cities trials couldn't just be looked at I don't know). This may be because of the geographical make-up of Sheffield in that it consists of a lot of valleys. When they tried to implement on-line services on the mobile libraries I seem to remember that they couldn't use the same system as other cities due to signals being lost. Perhaps the same applies to in-car CCTV systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 In car cctv... Linked to a video recorder in the car, pictures can later be used for evidence. I think that worrying about hills affecting the picture quality could be a trifle... well ... unwarranted. Unless I've got it all wrong and it's a live monitored cctv system. tab1 - I don't care, I think you owe an apology. That's my opinion, if you don't appologise then thats that. At the moment though I hope you don't expect me to take you too seriously in any other threads you happen to join, you've been a bit irrational in this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindos Posted December 27, 2006 Share Posted December 27, 2006 Yes I did sir and my saying so is in context perhapse beyond your understanding. Take it to any taxi driver and see if he is offended by my comments or those infering their inferiority by winging on about their windows having more importance over these guys safety. I'll tell you what is not beond my understanding. You have tried to debase my comments by implying there was a racist overtone to my post, which is plainly absent if anyone cares to re read it. You however are clearly suggesting that people who live in council properties do not deserve a decent standard of living, even though the afore mentioned windows are paid for from our rent and council tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecoat Posted December 27, 2006 Share Posted December 27, 2006 I agree with the posts by cyclone about tab 1 bringing race into this discussion, but also feel its time continue with comments on post #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Roy Posted December 27, 2006 Share Posted December 27, 2006 I'll tell you what is not beond my understanding. You have tried to debase my comments by implying there was a racist overtone to my post, which is plainly absent if anyone cares to re read it. You however are clearly suggesting that people who live in council properties do not deserve a decent standard of living, even though the afore mentioned windows are paid for from our rent and council tax. Actually any maintenance or improvements to Council houses are paid for from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The HRA is paid for solely from the proceeds of rents gathered in by the Council. It is against the law to use Council Tax to fund expenditure on council housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted December 27, 2006 Author Share Posted December 27, 2006 Actually any maintenance or improvements to Council houses are paid for from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). Not true. Improvement grants are available from central government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Roy Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 I should have worded my posting better. The point I was trying to make was that Council Tax does not pay for the upkeep of council housing. So, no matter what nonsensical scheme the Council decides to spend it's money on (not that I'm saying the camera scheme is), it should not affect the works carried out on council housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted December 28, 2006 Author Share Posted December 28, 2006 I should have worded my posting better. The point I was trying to make was that Council Tax does not pay for the upkeep of council housing. So, no matter what nonsensical scheme the Council decides to spend it's money on (not that I'm saying the camera scheme is), it should not affect the works carried out on council housing. Fair enough, Rob_Roy, I was just being a bit pedantic. The taxi camera trial is most unlikely to have any effect on the housing budget, but it does appear to be of political benefit when the drivers association could have sought out funding for a similar trial by the manufacturers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.