Boycott Addison Lee

Hear hear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addison_Lee
the forum made it onto the addison lee wikipedia page...

Now I always read Godwin's law as being that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a Godwin's law being brought up approaches 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addison_Lee
the forum made it onto the addison lee wikipedia page...

Seeing that there's no link to a LFGSS's wiki pages, why isn't there's such page exist?

It was clear from Giffens appearance last night...

What did he actually say? Did anyone hear it?

Seeing that there's no link to a LFGSS's wiki pages, why isn't there's such page exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/London_Fixed_Gear_and_Single_Speed_(LFGSS)_Forum

An AL cab has just almost taken me out by changing lanes across me at Old Street roundabout. He then slowed down and told me "Fuck you, you fucking cunt".

A fine advertisement for the company. Will have to see when I get home this evening if I managed to capture it all on my Hedcam.

video?

we only seem to order the london black cabs at work as far as i've observed. but i think if we all do what we can to stop our companies using AL, that is the primary tool we have.

lobbying MPs and councillors could conceivably get somewhere if they have a conscience or smell a bandwagon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/apr/24/addison-lee-protest-boycott-chairman?newsfeed=true

Taken from there^:

Addison Lee and Occupy London?
It seems to me that this Addison Lee fracas is a classic example of what Occupy London was trying to highlight.
1/ A very rich member of the 1% (he and his son directors take about £12.5 million out of the company annually),
2/ uses his wealth to privately lobby the government for commercial advantage for his company ie access to bus lanes,
3/ pays large amounts of money in political donations to help get his way (£50,000 to Boris and £250,000 to Tories - as he hates the pro cycling policies of the Green Party) ,
4/ exploits the 99% to make his money - his workers are "self-employed" but have to pay Griffin large amounts of money whether they get any passengers or not - thus moving the risk from the very rich Griffin to his low waged workers.
5/ he avoids paying holiday or other normal benefits to his low waged "self-employed"workers,
6/ he avoids paying employers NI for these "self-employed"- thus avoiding tax,
7/he destroys the planet to make his millions as instead of creaming the £12.5 million for his family from the business, he refuses to use ultra-low carbon vehicles, thus emitting thousands of tonnes of carbon every year,
8/damages the health of the 99% by being a source of air-pollution on London's streets due to mini-particulates - reported cause of up to 4,000 deaths each year
9/ they try and create a near-monopoly in their field of operation and close down small companies and individual genuinely self-employed cabbies, which Addison Lee is doing with nearly 4,000 vehicles and the attempt to barge in on bus lanes, is to try and mop up what is left of the market that the black-cab drivers hold
What is missing from classic Occupy London case study, is that normally such a case study includes massive offshore tax avoidance - ie by Addison Lee ownership possibly being buried in labyrinth of parent companies buried in offshore UK tax-stealing havens, as per David Cameron's father or in the Griffin family squirelling their profits through such off-shore accounts.
they try and create a monopoly in their field of operation and close down small companies and individual genuinely self-employed which Addison Lee is doing with nearly 4,000 vehicles and the attempt to barge in on bus lanes, is to try and mop up what is left of the market that the black-cab drivers hold"
So I wonder is anybody here able to find out anything about the tax side of Addison Lee and Griffin Family to complete the Occupy thesis?
Many thanks
Donnachadh

Just caught up on this thread, great to see! Love how the iOS app has gone from 4.5 stars to one in just a few days

got work to switch from AL yesterday. Going to trial that green tomato place instead.

Have you switched it off and on again?

That was the primeval bit.

I like lolzed.

got work to switch from AL yesterday. Going to trial that green tomato place instead.

daaarts!

4/ exploits the 99% to make his money - his workers are "self-employed" but have to pay Griffin large amounts of money whether they get any passengers or not - thus moving the risk from the very rich Griffin to his low waged workers.
5/ he avoids paying holiday or other normal benefits to his low waged "self-employed"workers,
6/ he avoids paying employers NI for these "self-employed"- thus avoiding tax,

Just FYI - all of these are completely standard practice for pretty much ALL minicab firms as well as many other businesses.

I am pretty sure there is a thread on it but there isn't anything wrong with tax avoidance; it's tax evasion that's evil.
Otherwise any of us saving in an ISA/pension are somehow evil for avoiding tax on our interest income/capital appreciation.

Obviously I feel bad for anyone who is forced to take an AL job without what you might consider "normal" benefits but that is the problem with a weak economy. You have far more demand for jobs than supply so an employer can offer a worse deal to his employees (or not even employ them as in this case!).

got work to switch from AL yesterday. Going to trial that green tomato place instead.

Atta boy weazle !!

or atta girl.

I am pretty sure there is a thread on it but there isn't anything wrong with tax avoidance; it's tax evasion that's evil.

More that its not illegal, rightness and wrongness are more subjective. Many would consider an ISA (with limits on how much you can deposit) to be different to many of the methods being used by others to avoid paying tax.

If you can pay the minimum possible amount of tax on your earnings without breaking the law then when why not? Fill your boots I say.

Indeed - see cycle to work scheme for details of tax avoidance.

4758 signatures so far, how many until something actually happens?

Just FYI - all of these are completely standard practice for pretty much ALL minicab firms as well as many other businesses.

Obviously I feel bad for anyone who is forced to take an AL job without what you might consider "normal" benefits but that is the problem with a weak economy. You have far more demand for jobs than supply so an employer can offer a worse deal to his employees (or not even employ them as in this case!).

This has been the standard business model for courier / PHC since year zero, it has nothing to do with a strong or weak economy.

Having worked within the sector for my whole adult life, more or less, my own opinion is that the arrangement is wholly iniquitous. Griffin didn't invent the model, his company is merely the leading practitioner in London. AL lease the car to the driver, and in leasing it, are able not only to avoid some, if not most, of the cost of the vehicle, and also avoid contracting the 'self-employed subcontractor' as a full-time employee, despite effectively being able to dictate when, where, how & even what the driver wears to work.

If you can pay the minimum possible amount of tax on your earnings without breaking the law then when why not? Fill your boots I say.

I think you're actually legally obliged to do so.

They've got to return shareholder value, that is: to maximise the return for shareholders.

In fact, if a legal option exists that allows them to not pay tax, then they are failing their shareholders by not exercising that option.

Whether it's ethical or not is by the by as it's legal.

If we as a society have a problem with this, then we as a society should change the laws. Our representatives should change the laws to reflect our wishes. That it doesn't happen is in part because not everyone agrees it's unethical (i.e. the people doing it or hoping to do it... and it's more than you imagine, most contractors and self-employed enjoy a small fraction of what others would call tax evasion), and it's in part because the businesses that benefit the most can afford to lobby, petition and donate to parties that continue with the existing system.

Put it simply: If you have legally saved £100m by tax evasive policies within your company, then you could afford to spend £1m to continue those policies.

Worse, as a saving of any kind increases shareholder value, so long as you did it legally you could afford to spend £99,999,999.99 to save £100m... or one solitary pence.

Lawyers will get rich, and the company is a penny better off.

We can't bemoan a company doing what they're entitled to legally do.

But, we can come down like a tonne of bricks on a company that actively breaks the law and encourages breaking the law to achieve more profit.

That is the beef with Addison Lee. The bus lane stance is breaking the law, and ultimately this risk to life and limb of cyclists and other road users is a play to increase their bottom line profits. They hope to weaken their competition to give them an advantage in winning corporate accounts, and they hope to achieve an improved average journey time which means more fixed price journeys in the same time.

At some point, you have to stand back and say... just how much money is enough? At what point is encouraging the breaking of the law and jeopardising of life worth the extra profit?

Don't hate companies that obey the laws that you have a chance to influence through political process. Hate the company that breaks the law and puts profit over the lives of cyclists.

More of my thoughts on the "self-employed sub" thing, as it relates to couriers:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/could-it-happen-here-would-it-be-a-good-thing

4758 signatures so far, how many until something actually happens?

100 000 before it gets considered. (Epetitions explained).

However, AL's PCO license is controlled by the Public Carriage Office, which is independent of Parliament, and is actually a part of TfL.

The PCO is the body that licenses hackney cabs (black taxis) & their drivers, Private Hire Vehicles (aka PHC or minicabs) & their drivers, and I think also London buses, coaches & their drivers.

More that its not illegal, rightness and wrongness are more subjective. Many would consider an ISA (with limits on how much you can deposit) to be different to many of the methods being used by others to avoid paying tax.

Indeed. The tax benefits of ISAs, pensions and ride-to-work are deliberate incentives, intended to encourage socially desirable behaviour. Not quite the same as the legal loopholes that most would describe as avoidance.

100 000 before it gets considered. (Epetitions explained).

However, AL's PCO license is controlled by the Public Carriage Office, which is independent of Parliament, and is actually a part of TfL.

The PCO is the body that licenses hackney cabs (black taxis) & their drivers, Private Hire Vehicles (aka PHC or minicabs) & their drivers, and I think also London buses, coaches & their drivers.

Ta, 100,000 seems alot but am sure it's doable.