Why Sajid Javid is tragically wrong about Uber

CityAM is backing Sajid Javid over Uber. Unusually for them, they are minimising the complexities of the issue. Below is a comment I made on their article on Mr. Javid, which for some reason, they wouldn’t print.


Am shocked that CityAm, a publication I revere, is so ignorant about Uber. Uber is under global attack for lawlessness. They are being sued globally.  https://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/uber-under-global-attack-for-lawlessness-as-boris-gets-tough/ This has serious repercussions for safety.

Uber cheap fares are based on criminality. https://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/dodgy-dealers-uber-cheap-fares-are-based-on-criminality/ They also practise tax avoidance. Uber drivers are treated so badly they are sleeping in their cars, peeing in private gardens and falling asleep at the wheel.

Boris Johnson is desperate to limit PHVs, but Osbo says No. Pollution is killing 9,500 people a year, Congestion is badly affecting the London economy. Gridlocks! https://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/boris-furious-that-gov-refuses-to-allow-primary-legislation-to-limit-phvs/

https://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/when-will-enough-be-enough-re-phvs-george-osborne/ Osbo is Mr. Gridlock because he has continually blocked legislation to limit PHVs.   He loves it that Boris, his main rival for the Tory leadership,  is getting in the neck for the dire state of London traffic.

Boris believes that since black cab fares are fixed by TfL and black cabs have devotedly obeyed TfL regs. since 1643, the government owes it to the BC industry to protect them from the blatant rule breaking of Uber. https://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/boris-blows-his-top-and-rips-lid-off-government-interference-re-uber/

https://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/uber-needs-to-accept-a-tfl-licence-means-tfl-regs/ Uber’s Jo Bertram needs to accept that a TfL licence means compliance with TfL regs. But Osbo insists that Boris and TfL “lay off Uber” and allow them to break regs.as much as they like.

The way Sajid Javid has assessed the situation re. Uber is superficial in the extreme.  He is not benefitting the consumer.  Granted,  Uber provide employment, but it is employment based on blatant exploitation of their drivers. There is no complaints procedure. Any driver who complains is sacked. After the first few months, the drivers are taken off the VIP service and earn hardly any money, Uber takes 20%. Uber PR glosses over all this.


The Uber masterplan is to destroy the black cab trade, and as soon as they are gone,  to whack up fares to huge levels. They want to introduce UBerPool to London,  a ride sharing service where the drivers are not even licenced, banned in most parts of the word over safety issues.  How can that be in the interests of the consumer?

How can the way Uber treat their drivers be in the interests of the consumer, if they are falling asleep at the wheel? How are the avoidance of criminal and safety checks in the interests of the consumer?

The CityAM flip,superficial analysis of the entire subject is callous in the extreme, and is actually quite sickening.

I love CityAM, I read it every day, but in this instance, they have not done their homework. Mr. Javid is tragically wrong, and if his way is allowed to prevail, the black cab trade, voted time after time, the best cab service in the world, will be gone and a very nasty, sleazy, irresponsible, grasping company, with no integrity, will be London’s main option.

10 responses to “Why Sajid Javid is tragically wrong about Uber

  1. Pingback: Like tax credit cuts, Osbo’s destruction of the black cab trade is against Tory principles | CYBERBORISjohnson

  2. @Steve Doerr wrote “If congestion in London is increasing, increase the congestion charge would be my (probably not very popular) suggestion.”

    Uber drivers are already on less than minimum wage.The general public already subsidise Uber drivers who claim tax credits. So now the general public has to pay for an increased congestion charge on top of that as well – because of Uber heavily contributing towards the congestion – which would have the Uber drivers making even less money than they already are?
    No, that wouldn’t be a popular suggestion.

  3. Maybe there are some regulations or laws being broken by individual drivers. The point is, you don’t need new laws and regulations to prevent existing laws and regulations being broken: you just need to enforce the existing laws and regulations! (Duh!)

    I’m frankly flabbergasted that any post-Thatcher Tory activist would want to support a Soviet-style system of limiting the number of people who can try their hand at a particular industry. If congestion in London is increasing, increase the congestion charge would be my (probably not very popular) suggestion.

  4. Uber like to promote themselves as job creators, while at the same time, they wish to kill off all competition, therefore killing jobs.

    • thanks so much very useful article, will add it to my blog! I feel so sorry for Uber drivers, some of them are desperate. One man committed suicide.

  5. That’s good. Will thank them. Uberpool is dangerous. Unlicenced drivers teaming up with passengers, rapists’ charter.

    Uber ignore safety regs. how can that be acceptable? They also continually park illegally, and often don’t have any insurance, They treat their drivers like dirt, there is no complaints procedure, and the drivers are so overworked, they are falling asleep at the wheel.

    The plan is to destroy the black cab trade, then whack up fares sky high. So we will be swapping the best cab service in the work for a less efficient, but more expensive service.

    How does that benefit the consumer?

  6. Your comment shows up on the CityAM article when I look at it, and the links look complete to me (if you hover over them and look at the underlying link in the bottom left hand corner of the browser).

    Needless to say, I agree with Sajid Javid and CityAM.

  7. I’ve posted comments on pro-Uber CityAM articles, to find that they’ve not been allowed. I’m thinking CityAM may well be benefiting somewhat from Ubers £250,000 per month lobbying budget.

    • That’s dreadful. So CityAM don’t allow free speech. My comment is long. I posted it and at first it showed up. then I saw they had disabled all the links, half of each of them had been wiped out, so they couldn’t be used.

      Then suddenly the entire comment was whipped away. Luckily I had saved a copy elsewhere, but it makes me think a lot less of CityAM that they don’t print any comment that doesn’t agree with them.

      CityAM are so pro Uber and Sajid Javid, and I know that Uber bribes sections of the media to talk them up and damp down criticism. Makes you think doesn’t it.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.