Badge sharing is another concern. A London cabbie goes through a huge amount to get a license. There's hardly going to be much corruption as there's too much at stake.
Uber does everything on the cheap.
Uber just lost a landmark minimum wage case
Fine if you are a bloke after a taxi as you come home with your kebab, beyond that it's dodgy. We have a long thread on here about vulnerable kids and often migrant taxi drivers.
Uber just wants to be an app, connecting people with a car, with people who want to go home. I'd like to see a decent business, with decent vetting, and decent wages. If it costs a bit more then fine.
That would be a stupid thing to do, but again why is there is a difference. There is only one DBS....That is the point I'm trying to make; TfL is rather vague about which rules they've contravened.
Of-course badge sharing isn't right, but that is a different response than the one I challenged you on...
I think the "dodgy" aspect of Uber is overblown. As far as I am aware, Uber cars are fully insured, and their drivers subjected to some level of vetting. They are also fully identifiable if there is an issue.
Much more serious, and where the black cabbies had a point, was that a few years ago (Maybe still current, I don't know), there used to be a massive problem with mini cabs touting for business at night in London. This was totally illegal as they are not allowed to tout, and rendered anyone taking such a cab uninsured.
The drivers were also of very dubious origin, I doubt many were even legal immigrants, let alone having a UK licence.
it is a powerful lobby concerned about their profits. Instead of actually competing they choose to drag everyone down to their level.
But I have no issue with Uber being slapped if they actually broken some clearly defined rules. As I understand it the private hire license is issued by TfL and not the mini-cab provider. There is no special Uber checks or anything like that...
Apply for a private hire driver licence
Apologies for funnying your posts in GC but I found them genuinely comical  please leave that one as a general discussion on the ramifications of the "ban" and stop trying to politicise it with a blatant anti-mayoral agenda, thanks.
And I gave you a link...
Here's another, and not behind a paywall:
Uber drivers must apply for new criminal record checks| Daily Mail Online
TfL accepted these certificates until this year. However, it said this weekend that 'following a recent review of policy' it would no longer accept them from Onfido or any other 'third-party provider' but only its own contractor. TfL declined to describe its concerns about Onfido and other providers.
Perhaps there are concerns these "third party providers" are just generating some fraudulent paperwork?
Hmm.
Last week it was revealed the man arrested and charged with a terror related incident at Buckingham Palace worked for Uber.
Mohiussunnath Chowdhury allegedly attacked three police officers with a samurai sword while shouting 'Allahu akbar'.
And in December 2015 a former Uber driver, Muhiddin Mire, tried to behead a stranger in a London Tube station, yelling: 'This is for my Syrian brothers.'
Currently local taxi businesses are licensed by local authorities but the new technology firm operates across borders. Police figures show sex attack claims involving Uber drivers are up 50 per cent in a year in the capital.
Between February 2015 and February 2016, there were 32 claims made against the firm's drivers in London.
But in the past 12 months to February 2017, that figure shot up to 48 alleged attacks.
There's another thing regarding taxi drivers. A few years ago the licensing system for taxi drivers was de-regulated. Some local councils were stringent over who would get a license. Some weren't so concerned.
So imagine if you were a dodgy character who maybe had a conviction for assault or drink driving, the local council wouldn't give you a license. Not a problem, you look around at those in the area, find the one with the lowest standards and try again with them. It might mean you end up still working in the same area.
'We need to change the law' - Over 700 Sheffield taxi drivers licensed by councils hundreds of miles away
More than 700 Sheffield taxi drivers have licences issued to them by councils hundreds of miles away sparking concerns over safety and welfare. The Star can reveal 414 Sheffield drivers have licences issued to them by Rossendale Borough Council in Lancashire - nearly two hours drive away.
Others have been issued by authorities as far away as London and Anglesey in Wales. Sheffield operates stringent tests for drivers to obtain a private hire licence and it's feared those with criminal records or poor standards of English and general knowledge are operating in the city because of a loophole in the law.
Worried MPs, the council and taxi representatives today demanded a change in the law after it was revealed more than 700 drivers with city addresses have had licences issued by councils other than Sheffield. Sheffield taxi driver Ibrar Hussain, a GMB union rep, said he was ‘shocked’ 53 drivers living in Sheffield have taxi licences issued to them by Transport for London and seven from the Isle of Anglesey in Wales – more than three hours drive away.
Ok this link is a bit clearer, the key point is that following a review TfL changed THEIR policy and review which caused driver to have to go through it again.
Naturally a DBS check for anyone is purely a check regarding their past. It is never a guarantee for the future. Again that is not unique to Uber.
Damn, I was just about to report you for sarcastic funnys ....:image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7
They tend to be carried out on a regular basis. So for the present and future you still need to be a good boy.
Uber has tried to say the drivers are "self-employed" to distance themselves from anything regarding the drivers. Uber was a success as it undercut the competitions prices by using low quality staff who often didn't know where they were going without a satnav, had poor or non existent English and for a time, weren't even getting a decent wage while the app creators made their money. With this all being done on the cheap, you might be in a mechanically dodgy car, with a dodgy driver.
And aside from anything else Uber doesn't like paying taxes either.
Exclusive - Loophole allows Uber to avoid UK tax, undercut rivals
Wrong, it means you haven't been caught/convicted, it doesn't exclude you from committing any crime in the future...
update is every 5 years...cost a low with the update service
Existing licensee
DBS update service - GOV.UK
Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal....