Ian Jackson writes ("Re: English-speaking taxi number?"):
> Read paragraph 67 of the ET judgement if you want to see what the
> Tribunal thought of some of Uber's claims. I particularly like;
Oh, and para 87:
87 In the first place, we have been struck by the remarkable lengths
to which Uber has gone in order to compel agreement with its
(perhaps we should say its laywers') description of itself and its
analysis of the legal relationships between the two companies, the
drivers, and the passengers.
Any organisation (a) running an enterprise at the heart of which is
the function of carring people in motor cars from where they are to
where they want to be and (b) operating in part through a company
discharging the regulated responsibilities of a PHV [Private Hire
Vehicle] operator, but (c) requiring drivers and passengers to
agree, _as a matter of contract, that it does not provide
transportation services (through UBV or ULL [two Uber companies]),
and (d) resorting in its documentation to fictions^36, twisted
language^37, and even brand new terminology,^38 merits, we think, a
degree of scepticism.
Reflecting on the Respondents' [Uber's] general case, and on the
grimly loyal evidence of Ms Bertram [Uber's Regional General
Manager] in particular, we cannot help being reminded of Queen
Gertrude's most celebrated line:
The lady doth protest too much, methings.^39
Copy typed; extra paragraph breaks and [] notes mine; _emphasis_ in
the original, ^footnotes can be found in the original.
If you like reading a good rant, paras 87 to 97, starting successively
"in the first place", "second", "third", and so on to "eleventh"
are good reading.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
