… bunch of crack smoking crazy heads
Stop talking about some of Trucknets finest like that - it’s not on you know . 
My friend looked at this site and he says you all need a holiday in the island of fernados.
.
I thought the comment about the crack smoking was funny.
one member said or suggested that when the policy makers were making the laws they were smoking crack.
your bang on the dollar on that one,
.oh well its friday better check my euro millions numbers. 
youtube.com/watch?v=bvpMXDyCE6c
Deadly Distractions - Motorway Cops (full)
by IMMORTALTRUTHZ0-6 months ago- 31,573 views
The motorway cops attempt to crack down on truckers who fail to pay attention to the road ahead. Many truckers are literall.
The guy really should go and buy a euro ticket.
Remedies for road transport workers in relation to working time not unlawful
13 July 2012
R (United Road Transport Union) v Secretary of State for Transport
In a judgment, handed down today (13 July 2012), Mr Justice Hickinbottom rejected a challenge by a Trade Union against the Secretary of State’s refusal to extend the right of appeal to the Employment Tribunal to road transport workers. By its application, the Union sought to rely on the EU law principles of equivalence and/or effectiveness to establish that, as a matter of EU law, road transport workers, like most other workers, are entitled to apply to an Employment Tribunal for a declaration and/or compensation if they are required to work in contravention of EU regulations that regulate breaks and rest periods during working hours. As a result, so the Trade Union, the current position under domestic law which provides for a regulatory enforcement mechanism (including the imposition of penalties), overseen in the UK by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), was unlawful.
The judge confirmed that the rationale of the principle of equivalence is to protect a right derived from EU law to be treated - in procedural terms - less favourably than a comparable “domestic law right”. Distinguishing the judgment of the Supreme Court in FA(Iraq), the judge considered that, whereas FA(Iraq) was concerned with a comparator which was arguably of “mixed source”, the Union impermissibly sought to rely on a comparator right which was (also) derived solely from EU law. Further and in any event, the judge noted that the regime under the general Working Time Directive was concerned solely with the health and safety of the worker and expressly required workers to be provided with rights or “entitlements” whereas the separate regime provided for road transport workers was concerned primarily with the harmonisation of conditions of competition between different modes of transport and road safety (as well as the health and safety of workers) and provided for obligations on those involved in road transport including the drivers themselves. The latter regime, unlike the former, also makes express provision for a (regulatory) enforcement mechanism.
In considering the principle of effectiveness, the judge concluded that there was no evidence that the existing remedies, including the mandatory system of penalties were such as to render “practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred” by EU law.
Time for the Union to apply for permission to appeal has been extended until 27 July 2012.
Tim Eicke QC, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, acted for the Secretary of State in this case and was also leading counsel for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Supreme Court case of FA (Iraq)
google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& … 8874,d.d2k
Working Time Regulations / transport workers (road transport)
www.emplaw.co.uk/lawguide/content/data/ … 101.htmThe Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/639 apply to … Breach of the regulations is a criminal offence (see Road Transport (Working Time) … and drivers, for light vehicles as well as HGV and PSV drivers and operators, …
bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm … /1909.html
there is no evidence before me that a single mobile road transport worker has worked in breach of the requirements of the Road Transport Working Time Regulations at the behest or even with the knowledge of his employer; and certainly no evidence of a worker doing so who would not have so worked if he had had a right to claim against his employer.
So you lost your case but you keep on posting links to Court Judgements. Are you hoping that it will make your case into a win suddenly?
I have some of what you’re smoking as I am utterly confused to the point you are trying to make
The point was not really to bleat about a lost case, Losing the case did not mean I was wrong.
The comments made on this site were reference to the E A T judgement and what findings the court found.
I attempted to gauge the thoughts of drivers about the subject of working time and how this is recorded.
It is true that I lost the employment tribunal case but the points made by the E A T stick like the snow in Newcastle.
There is an issue with The working Time Regulations and the use of periods of availability.It was my argument that the industry and workers are abusing the regulations by incorrectly interpreting the use of periods of availability.
I have been driving for many years and I have a good understanding of the regulations and in my view there are many in the industry drivers, and employers who do not have much respect for the working time regulations.
there will be drivers and employers who work legally and there will be some who find it difficult to operate as the law expects.
The regulator does not seem to bothered about enforcing the working time regulations.
The E A T judgement gives legal clarification to what are periods of availability.
V O S A have commented that if operators were to fully comply with the regulations based on the E A T judgement then basically the driver would have to record work from putting his card in until taking it out (minus breaks).
From reading the comments on this site it is plain that drivers are not interested in understanding the crux of the issue on P O A .
It all comes down to the individuals view on the regulation and that will only be tested in a court of law.
The point of the past threads was to gain an opinion of drivers.
I would say 50 percent work till they drop,30 percent work legally, and the other 20 percent do not like the hours but think “that’s the job”
Look I don’t want to keep going on about this and it sounds like your looking for an argument,( I don’t)
If you want give me some examples of what you think is a P O A and what you think isn’t.
Thanks
Have a nice evening
Ross v stobart:
If you want give me some examples of what you think is a P O A and what you think isn’t.
POA my examples and i have and do follow them.
one employers point on POA don’t use it its the same as break so take a break I pay you for breaks anyway, so thats that we never used, please note, I like driving and I like to work if I choose to work longer and the boss pays me them I win and he wins.
one firm POA must be use in know of the delay in advanced, and if told of the delay, and that delay is an hour then that is 1 hour if you come to the hour and there going to be long you put in on other work unless there come to you before the hour is up and tell you there will be 1 hour more and then this can be POA as well
POA is waiting time know of in advanced, some thing that in your case was true you were told to come to work and put on POA for three day and therefore perfectly within the Regulations.
Ross v stobart:
The point was not really to bleat about a lost case, Losing the case did not mean I was wrong.
The comments made on this site were reference to the E A T judgement and what findings the court found.I attempted to gauge the thoughts of drivers about the subject of working time and how this is recorded.
It is true that I lost the employment tribunal case but the points made by the E A T stick like the snow in Newcastle.
Been there and done that in 2008
I lost the ET case because the company followed the correct procedures but the fact that I actually did nothing wrong was observed and noted in the summing up
The problem with ET cases is that now they cannot do what they used to which was to evaluate the evidence of the matter due to the high court ruling in the BHS case
its complicated.
well as I am a driver I had best be off for some rest.
I look forward to getting back to you on this one,
I see some politician has been blown away by his estranged wife for lying on his court declaration about a speeding offence and who was driving.
Its pretty petty to make all the fuss.
Now look this guys a politician, you shouldn’t brand him a criminal.
Its a petty offence.
Just like arresting the urtu guys.
Its like the lunatics are running the asylum.
Seems like when they want you out ,your out.
Whose that other guy on his bike talking about plebeians like me who pay the tax.
Like tebbit said ,get on your bike lad.
Just watch out on those roads.
Cycling statistics is another,story
I heard done guy on the radio say that with reference to the dodgy politician,
WTF is the above post about■■?
Muckaway:
WTF is the above post about■■?
crack cocaine I think
this is why i love working on building sites — i start at 7am, take a 1/2hour break at 10am, stop for lunch at 1pm (1hour) and go home at 5pm when finished setting up for next day and all for more money than i get sat behind the wheel of a truck.
think that someone needs to get a grip cos if it’s not safe by law for me to operate a telehandler for more than a few hours continuously and
I HAVE TO HAVE A TOTAL STOP AFTER 10HOURS (i rarely if ever work more than this on site) COS HEALTH AND SAFETY DEEMS IT TO BE UNSAFE FOR ME TO CONTINUE — you might call it health and safety gone nuts but it works - the job still gets done and i’m not totally $%^&*( at the end of my day…
then where’s the logic that says i can drive a 44T for as long as required (upto 15hours) and still be safe to carry out my duties without posing any real threat to the general public ■■? and that my concentration levels will not be impaired at any time ■■?
surely the health and safety people need to get a grip of this - i know that we operate in a 24/7 working environment but does that really mean that we have to work 24/7 ■■?
get shut of the ski’s — less people means less pressure on toscos to have to provide food for all the ski’s that would reduce the pressure on drivers and warehouse staff…it would also encourage more of them to go back to where they came from…
Ross v stobart:
its complicated.
well as I am a driver I had best be off for some rest.
I look forward to getting back to you on this one,
Try handballing 5 tonnes of flour per day-that’s what the blokes where I’ve been working are expected to do before they get a drivers’ mate. It sounds like you tire just watching someone work, but still I bet the Eastern EU members are more than grateful.
Ross v stobart:
The,URTU recently lost a appeal to the Queens court,
They were requesting a judicial review.
Its a interesting case.
Search for it in google
And using abusive and threatening languauge was really going to help them see your point of view.
By the way, did the canteen open in time you were dossing around for?
employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/ … x?i=ed8354
I see Mr Ross’ trolling activities are not exclusive to TNUK;
petrolprices.com/blog/pressu … aster.html
and here;
legalcheek.com/2012/05/eddie … r-service/
I believe here too;
fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-manage … ion/35785/
I’m not trying to deliberately Pisa people off.
I was merely trying to gauge the opinion of truckers and the general public as to there understanding of truckers working hours,and is it legal.
I pointed you to the judgement that is a public document.
The EAT judgement gives the latest guidance On periods of availability.
Read it and interpret it if you want to understand what are the requirements of POA.
Believe it or not but the judgement will cause the DFT to amend there guidance.
Its just a matter if time.
Basically the judgement contradicts the DFT guidance.
obviously some will read the judgement and make a totally different opinion to mine and others.
I respect that.
Thanks.
Ross v stobart:
I’m not trying to deliberately Pisa people off.
No, it comes naturally.
Jeez, you’d be really good at it if you ever took it in your mind to deliberately ■■■■ people off.