The Badge - September 2026 by theLCDC

More trade stories than all the others put together

new cab or just chinese whispers?

Issue 316 September 2026

inside

EU URGES UK TO RAISE CHINESE CAR TARIFFS

TAXI CHARITY WITH WWII VETERANS IN HOLLAND 24

See our full analysis inside

KATIE TAYLOR'S FAREWELL WAS A NIGHT OF MAGIC 28

september 2026

we urgently need a choice of vehicles

The announcement of a new TX6 has understandably brought some relief to London’s taxi trade.

After months of uncertainty, drivers have finally been given something that sounds like a plan.But I am not convinced. I remember attending the launch of the TXe in Wapping around 2016. We saw it. We sat in it. We could inspect it for ourselves. It was a real vehicle, not a concept or a press release. Even then, it did not arrive on the streets until 2018. Now we are being told that a brand-new TX6 is being developed from scratch and will be available next year. That is where I start to have doubts. Building, testing, approving and bringing an entirely new taxi to market in that timeframe would be a remarkable achievement. Perhaps LEVC can do it. But given the history of previous launches, I think the trade is entitled to ask some fairly basic

Published by The London Cab Drivers’ Club Ltd. China Walks, Suite 111, Black Prince Road, London, SE1 7SJ Telephone: 020 7394 5553 E-mail for membership enquiries: thelcdc@gmail.com Web: www.lcdc.cab Editor: Grant Davis The Badge is distributed free to the Licensed London Cab Trade. For advertising enquiries please contact the office on 020 7394 5553 or E-mail: thelcdc@gmail.com All advertising in The Badge is accepted under our terms and conditions. These are available at the LCDC office. Before entering into any commitment, financial or otherwise, always remember to seek professional advice. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Editor or of the Management Committee of the London Cab Driver’s Club. Contributions for publication are welcomed and should be sent to the Editor at the above address. Printed by Iliffe Print. T: 01223 656500

questions.

Where is the vehicle? Who has seen it? How far along is development? My suspicion is that the timing of the announcement may have had something to do with the growing momentum behind the Ford Maxicab.The Maxicab appeared to be making progress with TfL. Then, suddenly, we were told that the TX6 was on its way. Was that enough to make TfL pause and wait for LEVC? It is a reasonable question. On the day of the announcement, I exchanged messages with Steve Mc, who told me that TfL had seen what he had and that “they love it”. This week, however, I attended a meeting with Danny Price at TfL, who has taken over from Helen Chapman. Vehicles inevitably came up, so I asked him directly what he thought of the new TX6. He told me he had not seen it. More importantly, he said nobody at TfL had seen it. That should concern every working cab driver.

I have taken plenty of criticism for arguing that the trade needs a choice of vehicles. I make no apology for that. This is not about being against LEVC. It is about ensuring that drivers have realistic options.

Around 130 taxis have come off the road in the last three months. More than a thousand could disappear in the months ahead. Those are not abstract figures. They are working drivers who may soon need replacement vehicles. So what happens if there is no new TX6 next year? What happens if the real date is 2028? What are those drivers supposed to buy or rent? That is the issue the trade should be concentrating on. We need choice. We need competition. And, above all, we need vehicles that drivers can actually get hold of. Because announcements do not keep cabbies working. Taxis do.

“I’m alright, Jack” crowd on X and pretend there is no problem.

Or perhaps we can all just join the

Grant Davis

september 2026

DEPUTY MAYOR NO TO TURNING CIRCLE REVIEW

MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS september 2026

By Roy McMaster

expensive) or a bit of both?

Like the rest of the trade, we at the LCDC welcome the news that LEVC is planning to launch a replacement to the TX5. It gives hope that there is a future for our trade.

In last year’s financial report it was clear that China was favoured. The directors stated: “Management currently expect TX6 vehicles to be manufactured in China and imported for sale within the UK market” (Financial Report 2024 Page 25). Yet, in the press release on 16th September it’s a bit vague: “...which enables the brand and LEVC’s Ansty production facility to fully prepare for the introduction of its new purpose-built taxi.”

However, the more we talked to drivers and people ‘in the know’ and the more we analysed the recent LEVC financial and press statements the more questions arose. Here are some of the main issues we have addressed. Q. Launch date or date for sale? LEVC said in their recent press statement that the TX6 version would be launched in the second half of 2027. In reality there can be quite a delay between launch date and date of sale. The current TX5 was physically unveiled in October 2015, over 2 years before date of sale in January 2018 (see pic below). Amazing, to show us the new taxi and the Euro 6 version of the TX4 had only just gone on sale then! The claim for a second half 2027 launch also seems optimistic because we should now be seeing vehicles for crash testing, being road tested and

Q. What’s the likely price?

(TX5 shown in London in October 2025) then there’s the time needed for homologation and approval by the VCA to obtain final type approval. If it’s only a year away why can we not see the full body now? We saw the TXe on trial 18 months before it went on sale. Q. Will it actually happen? From the press release

on 16th September: “London EV Company (LEVC) has today confirmed that the next generation black cab will launch into the UK market in the second half of 2027”. But, in the week before, LEVC’s financial report creates uncertainty about a new model: “Group direction on the investment and development required for the next generation TX

and ongoing assembly operations at Ansty is required against a backdrop of geopolitical uncertainty.” (see page 4 Strategic Report). We know that directors have a legal obligation to report accurately in their financial report, but a press announcement can be changed. Q. Is the new model going to be built in China (less expensive) or in Ansty (more

We’ve heard from sources that the target price on the road for the TX6 is £60,000. Yes, it’s a significant drop from the current TX5, if still a bit pricey. But is it achievable? Our analysis indicates, no. LEVC’s financial statements 2018-2025 show that the company made a loss of over £60,000 on every sale it made. We’ve then analysed the company’s cost of sales (direct labour and parts), overheads and interest costs per sold unit, and projected forward to the TX6.

losing money on a £70,000 price tag. As for a £60,000 price, how can that be possible? Are they planning a lot of parts from China? Or will it actually be built in China, as stated in the 2024 Financial Statement? And what about tariffs in the future? That could make september 2026 the TX6 even more expensive. TX5/TX6 prices & costs per sold unit

TX5 current £ per unit

New TX6 est. £ per unit

Retail Price

£76,000

£70,000

VAT content

(£13,000)

(£12,000)

Cost of sales

(£93,000)

(£47,000)

Overheads

(£20,000)

(£12,000)

Interest

(£11,000)

£0

Net profit/(loss)

(£61,000)

(£1,000)

Source for current costs: LEVC accounts 2018-2025 Cost of sales = labour & parts Overheads = distribution & administration) Includes VN5 sales and costs

battery section with flat floor, a front section for battery components and rear section for extra passengers/luggage. The lengths of each ‘box’ can be modified which is why LEVC might be able to get the length within the CoF. The vehicle bodyshell (the taxi) would sit on top. The first vehicle that this modular platform was used for was the L380 MPV which was launched in China in 2025. L380 sales have failed in China, but we understand the plan is to have a go at launching a right-hand version in the UK later this year. It would make sense to use SOA for the TX6, keeping initial investment costs down. It could also be the last throw of the dice to demonstrate this platform concept can work.

the mayor, with his commitment to net zero, would agree to rescind the decision. What about the drivers who have already got rid of their Euro 5’s – you can’t re-license those? What about HJS? No, we don’t think there will be a change. Assuming the emission rule sticks what new cab can they buy? And used prices are going through the roof. There are 1,044 Euro 5’s to be de-licensed by the end of September 2027. Even assuming circa 600 drivers leave the trade, there will be new drivers wanting cabs, write-offs, cabs waiting parts etc. I can see at least 500 drivers being forced off the road, being made unemployed.

That’s why the LCDC has always supported The LEVC development choice and that’s why people probably have we still believe that TfL a lot at stake here. And should approve the Ford maybe this is why Geely Maxicab. It’s a great Even if the direct ‘cost Statement? And what No point in spending is prepared to accept side access, wheelchair ofQ. sales’ can be cut about tariffs in the future? £300 million developing Is it an all-new taxi or an evolution of the TX5? We don’t believe that the new taxi lower volumes that the accessible cab, the by 50% and the other That could make the TX6 a new platform in a London taxi market drivers who have tested it overheads cut by 40%, even more expensive. market that the company will be awould completely new body in the same way that was. No point in loved spending offers. it. the company still acknowledges is in the TX5 be losing money on a Q. Is it an all-new taxi continual decline. Our With no newacknowledges taxi And it is available £300price million a newofplatform in atell market that theQ.company is £70,000 tag. Asdeveloping for or an evolution the sources us the TX6 available until at least immediately, thus a £60,000 price, how can TX5? will be based on the the end of 2027, what preventing 500 taxi that be possible? 3-box modular platform in continual decline. Our sources tell us the TX6 will be based on the 3-box modular happens to drivers drivers being made We don’t believe that that LEVC launched in who lose their Euro 5 unemployed. Are they planning a LEVC the new taxi will be aMay 2023 May 2023 called Space Space platform that launched in called Oriented Architecture (SOA). taxis within the next 12 lot of parts from China? completely new body in Oriented Architecture months? Or will it actually be the same way that the (SOA). There’s battery (pictures of SOA built in China,aascentral stated TX5 was. section with flat floor, a front section for battery components It’s very unlikely platform) in the 2024 Financial There’s a central

and rear section for extra passengers/luggage. The lengths of each ‘box’ can be modified which is why LEVC might be able to get the length within the CoF. The vehicle bodyshell (the taxi) would sit on top. The first vehicle that this modular platform was used for was the L380 MPV which was launched in China in 2025. L380 sales have failed in China, but we understand the plan is to have a go at launching a right-hand version in the UK later

september 2026

EU URGES UK TO RAISE TARIFFS ON CHINESE CARS TO AVOID 'MADE IN EUROPE' BARRIERS Brussels has warned UK prime minister Andy Burnham that Britain would need to raise tariffs on Chinese cars and more closely align with EU trade policy if it wants to avoid “made in Europe” barriers that would hit key exports. In response to weeks of intense lobbying to secure equal treatment for UK products, the EU told London that its best solution would be to join the bloc’s customs union, according to two people familiar with the matter. “A customs union would solve most of the problems of ‘made in Europe’,” said an EU official. “And also the question of tariff differences, which leads to fears the Chinese could avoid our tariffs by routing through the UK.” The “made in Europe” policy is intended to favour EU manufacturers on subsidies and public procurement in an effort to defend the bloc against competition from China. Britain’s prime minister has said he will stick to the red lines that Labour set out at the last election, ruling out membership of a customs union or the single market. But even aligning with protectionist EU trade measures in crucial sectors – such as matching antisubsidy tariffs of up to 45 per cent on Chinese EVs – would shrink the UK’s postBrexit freedoms and raise prices for consumers. “There is a cruel irony in how European concerns about Britain have evolved: from fears of a ‘Singaporeon-Thames’ to fears of a ‘Turkey-across-theChannel’,” said a second EU official. “The concern today is no

the UK,” said Marie-Sophie Dibling, a partner at law firm Cassidy Levy Kent, which has represented the EU chemicals industry. In apparent anticipation of difficult choices to come, UK business secretary Jonathan Reynolds wrote to the country’s chemical industry this month asking for information on unfair imports and noting that further EU tariffs were likely.

longer a hyper-competitive, globalised Britain on Europe’s doorstep, but a Britain that could become a backdoor into the European market for Chinese goods,” the official added.

bloc introduced them in 2024, allowing China’s manufacturers to take a combined 16 per cent share of Britain’s new car market this year.

The UK has already reluctantly followed an EU move earlier this year to double steel tariffs to 50 per cent and halve quotas in an effort to tackle a global glut of steel capacity, mostly driven by China.

Nissan’s European boss Massimiliano Messina warned this month that the UK risked becoming a “corridor” into the EU for Chinese EVs. “The whole UK has to adjust some of [the country’s] tariff policy,” he said.

At the same time, the UK is pressing Brussels to include its car, chemical and energy supply chains in the bloc’s “made in Europe” agenda, which it fears could exclude British industry from valuable EU subsidy programmes.

The prospect of having to impose tariffs on Chinese EVs presents a dilemma for the UK government, which is seeking to attract investment from China into British car plants, including a deal for automaker Chery to produce cars at Nissan’s plant in Sunderland.

Auto industry leaders have questioned how long the UK can maintain divergent tariff policies from the EU if it wants British supply chains to be treated as “European”. The UK did not follow the EU in imposing tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle imports when the

The UK is facing a similar conundrum on the chemicals industry, which is being hammered by cheap Chinese imports that have triggered a wave of anti-dumping duties from Brussels, with further measures expected in the

coming months. A senior British official acknowledged the political challenge facing the UK government, saying: “It’s hard to argue we want to be on the inside of ‘fortress Europe’ when the other side can point at tariff policies that are arguably undermining the rising walls of the fortress.” In a sign of rising tensions between London and Brussels over differing approaches to trade with China, the EU this month announced it would monitor exports of titanium dioxide into Europe from the UK. The EU move came after the UK’s competition authorities cleared China’s largest producer of the industrial whitening agent to purchase a plant in Teesside, northeast England, that went into receivership last October. “The message is that if the UK doesn’t align in trade, it will lose a lot of access. The EU will protect more against

In the letter, seen by the FT, Reynolds said the information would help the UK “in deciding where further trade defence action may be required”. If the UK were to increase its trade defence measures against China, it would risk a confrontation with Beijing, a key investor and trade partner. China’s account of Burnham’s first call with President Xi Jinping noted that Beijing expected the UK to “fully protect the lawful rights and interests of Chinese investors”. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade said it was looking to explore deeper co-operation with the EU while avoiding “collateral damage” arising from a shared ambition to protect against unfair trading practices. “We always put trade measures in place independently and based only on the UK’s economic interests and those of industry. However, Europe and the UK face many of the same challenges, which is why it is vital we protect trade flows between us,” it added. The European Commission declined to comment. Courtesy of The Irish Times

WITHERING ON THE VINE

Dr Michael S. Galvin, badge 28264, is a former London taxi driver and author of the doctoral thesis Culture, Change and the Management of London’s Taxi Drivers, awarded by the University of Hertfordshire in 2016. His career in the industry spanned around 30 years and included working as a taxi driver, trade journalist, industry committee member and manager of London’s largest radio taxi company.

september 2026

today’s butterboys possess a super knowledge, its unlikely. No, the process was changed and there were less people willing to give up 4-5 years of their life and who can blame them. The number of applicants dropped, those on the knowledge took an eternity and that was when the rot started. ZEC and its implications have clearly had an effect, older drivers who aspired

Whereas badges not being renewed, surrendered, revoked or suspended have been in the mid-teens to twenties. Last week it was a decrease of 9. Cabs have also been reducing, last week was a reduction of 33. If nothing changes the numbers look certain to reduce further until the whole industry withers on the vine. Currently there seems to be two schools of thought:

The slow but gradual demise of the London taxi industry should be lamented on many levels. When I and many other working-class lads and lasses did the knowledge a career as a taxi driver, in what was then a thriving industry, was very attractive. You were your own boss worked the hours you wanted and were recognised as a professional. Many things have changed since those days, public transport has got better and safer, congestion has got worse and competition since licensing has got a whole lot sharper. But the taxi industry has still got a role and a firm place in the transport eco system. So one might ask why is it now smaller and getting smaller? I would suggest that, unlike many who simply and I might add lazily cite competition, that the loss of taxi market share in London has been caused by change. When I did the knowledge, it took on average a year, I took 15 months, some did it in less. Ignoring the outliers the knowledge peaked in duration at around 4-5 years. So were my colleagues and I less knowledgeable? I don’t think so, it was never easy. So do

to semi retire at 65/66 and planned their last cab purchase carefully so that it was all paid for when they hit the magic number and they could semi retire recently found that their cab was no longer fit to be licensed. The growing shortage of cabs means that hiring for a couple of days a week or a few hours a day is no longer viable or in some cases due to insurance costs possible so whereas old cab drivers didn’t die they just faded away they now unhappily retire. New taxi driver licences have started to appear at a rate of 1 or 2 a week, last week there were 3.

the turning circle is like Samson’s seven locks of hair, cut it off and he has no strength. Whilst the turning circle can at times be very useful it is hardly the elixir of life the cab trade needs to stay breathing. And even if it is, then no one will buy a cab that doesn’t have it will they? Well not unless there is nothing else to buy. Recognition of a taxi is clearly important, but we have had numerous different vehicles over the years: Beardmore’s, Metro’s, Vitos, Nissans etc and all as far as I aware managed to earn a living. Waiting around until the third quarter of next year for a new purpose-built vehicle

appears what the mandarins term a’ brave decision’. Surely if a vehicle can pass muster on safety standards and is wheelchair accessible it should be licensed. What is the alternative hope that a new vehicle appears next year? Well, if you want to hold on don’t buy a conversion but I would suggest neither should other’s who do wish to go to work be stopped from buying a conversion. What happens if there is a strategic decision in far flung lands and the manufacturer changes its mind and another purpose built never appears? Does the taxi industry simply begin to look like Honduras running elderly vehicles until they fall to bits before ceasing to provide a service. Or do we accept that change happens license one or more conversions that are safe and accessible and solve the problem? The risk I would respectfully suggest is not with the cab trade, it is with the manufacturers. If they convert X number of vehicles that no one buys as they don’t have the traditional turning circle it is the manufacturer who loses out. If driver numbers continue to reduce and the purpose built is not replaced London will be the loser on many levels. A solid employment opportunity will be lost for those who wish to work for themselves. Drivers tend not to leave the trade so a job that would have been beneficial to many thousands of young people for decades ahead will be lost. More jobs will go in ancillary services, this is now underway with big garages, small garages, accountants and the rest closing or focusing on different segments. A service that is valuable, appreciated and enjoyed by Londoners and visitors alike will be gone. And for

those who are disabled the freedom and social inclusion that taxis offer will diminish and eventually disappear. Whilst some lament the disintegration of what was a vibrant and buoyant industry others may take the view that it’s the best thing that could happen, less cabs means more fares for the survivors. But is it that simple? Sage’s law tells us that supply creates its own demand, and I believe there is an element of truth in that within reason. If the number of taxis drops to a point where regularly there are queues at ranks and hardly any cabs and finding a yellow light is harder than locating rocking horse poo won’t people gradually exclude taxis from their travel portfolio? Won’t the few survivors find themselves locked into a lack of demand as a consequence of the lack of a supply? Theatres still burst, trains and planes still arrive, guests still stay at hotels etc. So why is the industry in decline, why has the industry allowed its supply to diminish, why is it letting its supply be adversely impacted by one manufacturer when others are vying to enter the market? Preserving what is good is important, the gold standard of the knowledge, a distinctive vehicle available on ranks, to be hailed by hand or app and its flexibility. A traditional turning circle, a four-year knowledge and any other encumbrance simply needs to be removed and new entrants will come as will demand. Cutting off supply will simply guarantee the demise of a wholesome and valuable service, more drivers retiring against their will and London at all levels will be the poorer.

september 2026

24mph in a 20mph zone - is the LEVC speed limiter part of the story? A London taxi driver and LCDC member is challenging the police, TfL and London EV Company over an issue that could affect drivers facing 20mph speeding prosecutions in LEVC TX taxis. The driver received a Notice of Intended Prosecution alleging his TX was travelling at 24mph in a 20mph road. On the face of it, straightforward. But is it — and is the TX speed limiter part of the story?

described by LEVC as a driver aid that prevents exceeding the selected speed, with a temporary override available by pressing the pedal "fully." The driver disputes that wording: he says there's a distinct point of increased resistance before the pedal's mechanical end of travel, and that crossing

the set speed and — if fully released — the vehicle will be actively braked back down. That's not a passive "easing back"; it's active braking. Does that match what actually happens when a driver eases off in traffic expecting a gradual return? If not, that's a second discrepancy between the manual and

THE BIT THAT MATTERS TO A CAB DRIVER When the limiter is engaged, there's a distinct resistance or kick-down point in the accelerator. Push through it and the limiter can be overridden — not with a gentle creep, but a rapid increase in speed. The driver then has to ease off or brake to settle back to the selected speed. Braking hard isn't always attractive in a working cab with a cyclist or motorcyclist close behind, so the natural response is to lift off and let the vehicle settle. That's why the physical behaviour of the limiter matters. Most of the time a driver sets it and carries on — but London is full of enforcement cameras, and sooner or later a TX driver will be using the limiter where one operates. If the override triggers at a resistance point the handbook merely describes as pressing the pedal "fully," that's information that matters — because by the time the driver realises, the camera may already have recorded the vehicle. THE SPEED LIMITER The TX's limiter is standard equipment,

that point — not reaching full travel — is what actually triggers the override. The handbook clearly describes an override; the question is whether "fully" accurately describes the pedal action that triggers it. Other manufacturers using similar systems describe this more explicitly, referencing a resistance or kick-down point. COMING BACK DOWN A second question concerns release. The handbook states that once the accelerator is released after an override, the limiter remains active at

real-world behaviour. REFERRED TO TRADING STANDARDS The matter has gone to Warwickshire Trading Standards via Coventry Citizens Advice (LEVC manufactures at Ansty Park, Warwickshire). Key questions include: does the TX have a distinct kickdown point; exactly where does the override trigger; is that the designed factory operation; what does LEVC mean by "fully"; should drivers be warned about the resistance point; and does release behave as described — active braking

— or differently in practice? The driver has offered to demonstrate the system under controlled conditions. COULD THIS AFFECT A PROSECUTION? Ultimately a matter for the court. At 24mph in a 20mph limit, the offence falls within Band A of the Sentencing Council guideline — normally three points, with a £100 fixed penalty or possible speedawareness course. For most motorists that's minor; for a professional driver, repeated endorsements can threaten a livelihood, especially near the 12-point totting-up threshold, where disqualification applies unless exceptional hardship is proven. Separately, section 44 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 allows a court to withhold endorsement for special reasons connected to the offence itself — not the driver's circumstances (which is what exceptional hardship addresses). A driver could accept the recorded speed while asking the court to weigh the circumstances that produced it, including the limiter's actual operation. Whether that amounts to special reasons is for the court on the evidence — not an easy argument, since it requires establishing how a factory system actually works and whether the manufacturer's instructions are accurate.

is accurate, that should be demonstrable; if the vehicle behaves differently, that should be too — and drivers need to know either way. LEVC needs to clarify precisely what triggers the override and what happens on release, and update the handbook accordingly if "fully" undersells a lowereffort trigger point. TfL, as regulator of London's taxi trade, has an interest in ensuring driver-assistance systems on TX vehicles are properly understood by the people using them. Warwickshire Trading Standards has been asked to examine the accuracy of LEVC's information. IF YOU GET A 20MPH NIP

ARE THE PROSECUTIONS SAFE?

Don't ignore it — deadlines apply. Keep the NIP and make a contemporaneous note: was the limiter engaged, at what speed, what happened with the accelerator, what you understood the controls to be doing. Keep relevant pages/screenshots from the Driver Handbook. A speed-awareness course may be available depending on force and history; if you already hold points, take advice before accepting a fixed penalty — three points look different at nine. And remember: special reasons and exceptional hardship are separate arguments — don't conflate them, and don't assume either will succeed.

The LCDC member isn't claiming every TX 20mph prosecution is unsafe — only that it can't properly be assessed without first establishing how the limiter actually operates, on the way up and the way down. If the handbook

If you've experienced the same thing — a limiter set at 20 recording a few mph over, that extra resistance point, or a braking sensation on release that doesn't match a gentle coast - the LCDC wants to hear from you.

september 2026

'Sleep deprived' new mother who killed black cab driver in head-on crash avoids prison

A new mother who killed a black cab driver in a head-on crash while driving on the wrong side of the road has been spared jail.

Mr Pountney's daughter said in a statement to the court that his death was a 'devastating shock' to her mother, who was later admitted to a care home in a move the family sold their home to fund.

Erica Buenor, 35, crashed into Arthur Pountney, 77, as he drove his taxi in Kidbrooke, south-east London, in the early hours of June 9, 2023.

Tearful members of Mr Pountney's family attended the hearing while Buenor sat in the dock wearing a white cardigan, showing little emotion as sentence was passed.

Mr Pountney, a grandfather of five who had chronic heart issues, suffered a fractured clavicle, broken ribs and 'extensive' bruising to his shoulder, chest and arms. Though his injuries were not lifethreatening, they increased pressure on his heart and he died of a cardiac arrest in hospital two days later. But the mother-of-three avoided prison after the court heard she suffered a 'momentary lapse in concentration' when she 'drifted' on to the wrong side of the road after breastfeeding and working all day on little sleep.

A crash investigator found the taxi was in Buenor's line of sight for 13 seconds before the crash. Buenor, who was previously an intelligence researcher for British Transport Police and Thames Valley Police, admitted causing death by careless driving on the first day of her trial in July.

Reading a statement by his daughter Angela Vale, Mr Saunders said: 'Dad had a big heart, and he looked out for people. He was full of chat and laughter.' She said the death came as a 'devastating shock' to her mother, who had been married to the cabbie for 56 years. 'Mum's whole life changed, and we can see she wasn't coping well. She wasn't eating properly, and she fainted on more than one occasion.'

She said the family had no choice but to take her to a care home and even had to sell their family home when 'money ran out'. Adam Butler, defending the former Croydon Council crime analyst, said: 'The first thing she wants to say is her apology to Mr Pountney's family. The mother-of-three showed no emotion as she was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months. Judge Trowler also banned Buenor from driving for four years and ordered her to perform 90 hours of unpaid community work, which was reduced due to her 'childcare commitments'. She will also pay court costs of £1,630. Buenor, of Crawley, West Sussex, admitted one count of causing death by careless driving. She has no previous convictions. Courtesy of The Daily Mail

BUILT AROUND PEOPLE, NOT JUST REQUIREMENTS For wheelchair users, accessibility is more than a specif ication. It’s about having the space and f reedom to travel comfortably. That’s why Ford MAXiCab was designed with accessibility at its heart, with over 20% more wheelchair manoeuvrability than its nearest competitor.

ACCESSIBILITY SHOULDN’T JUST MEET A STANDARD. IT SHOULD SET A HIGHER ONE.

Find out more about MAXiCab at CabDirect.com/London

MAXiCab Made for What Matters

september 2026

End of the Up experiment: ‘I trust When Tony Walker was seven, a Granada camera crew arrived at his East End school. Asked to speak to the camera about his ambitions, he replied that he wanted to be a jockey. It was 1963. Speaking today, in the pristine Epping Forest caravan that is his home, Walker is reflecting on the closing of a documentary project that has chronicled his life across the six decades since that moment. “You see it through a different lens than I do,” he says, the self-confessed “gabby Cockney cabby” growing visibly emotional. “You see it from the outside in. I see it from the inside out.” Beginning with 1964’s Seven Up and returning at seven-year intervals, the Up films have become one of the most remarkable experiments in filmed history. A 2024 poll of TV writers called the Up series the single most influential programme of the past 50 years, while the film critic Roger Ebert ranked 1985’s 28 Up among the 10 greatest films of all time. Now it is coming to an end. Following the death of series director Michael Apted in 2021, the Up films close with the Asif Kapadia-directed 70 Up: The Final Chapter, which airs on ITV and ITVX on 15 September. “The emotions,” admits Walker, “are overwhelming for me.” When I meet Walker, he is worried. The cast, whom he compares variously to a family and a football team, uphold a tradition of watching the films together. But this time it’s different. For one thing, Apted is no longer here. “I can’t seem to get over the fence without getting emotional about

him,” he mourns quietly. There are tears in his eyes. “I trusted that man with my whole life.” What viewers didn’t see, he explains, was the director taking Walker around the world to promote the films, or on to the sets of his Hollywood films. “I felt he loved me, and I loved him,” he says. “He wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea with the cast. But to me, he was like a dad.” This is why, even today, he struggles with the idea that 70 Up will be the final edition. “I wanted it to continue, right up until…” He pauses, lingering on his omission. “If Apted was still in body and spirit, it would have gone on. But two cast members have passed. No one knows what’s around the corner.” It is, he eventually concedes, “the right decision”. Walker was selected to represent some of the most deprived upbringings in 1960s Britain. He was born in Bethnal Green council housing to a prisoner father and an alcoholic mother (he’s never touched a drop). “How you see me there at seven is how I was: a ruffian,” he reflects of his cheeky, unfiltered and optimistic outlook. He quickly won viewers’ hearts and Apted began almost all of the Up films with Walker’s story. Walker’s jockey dream came true, briefly. He rode in three races before walking away from the sport. “By 20, my dream was over,” he says, and in 21 Up we find him retraining to be a taxi driver. As we talk, the racing continues on mute on a television behind him. A golden pendant of a horse dangles from the chain around his neck.

His decades of driving have given him an unusual perspective on the series. “I’ve picked up most of the cast in my cab,” he beams proudly, including tweedy barrister John Brisby (“we had tea in his lovely china cups”), and he waited at traffic lights next to the elusive Charles Furneaux, who returns to 70 Up after quitting the show in his 20s. “He waved,” remembers Walker, “the lights changed, and I’ve never seen him since.” And then there was “our Neil”, Merseysideborn Neil Hughes, whose unpredictable ups and downs (he became homeless after dropping out of university, then dabbled in politics, before becoming a lay reader in the Anglican Church) became the show’s central mystery. Walker drove past him in Hackney in the 1990s. “Very shy, very tentative,” he remembers. He took Hughes in for a sandwich, “before his nerves got the better of him”. He’s also driven his colleagues to funerals. Off screen, Walker is closest to the East End girls, who included the brilliant librarian Lynn Johnson. “When she passed, God bless her,” he remembers of her sudden death in 2013, “I took most of the cast to the cemetery.” Across nine films, viewers have watched Tony pursue the lifestyle and material security he never had as a child. He relocated his family to Spain before coming unstuck by the 2008 financial crisis; his livelihood was then hit by the arrival in London of cab-hailing app Uber. Walker left the East End to become the archetypal Essex man, but in 2012’s 56 Up, Apted put to him that his comments on how

immigration had changed the East End “sounded racist”, which Walker rebutted. On 63 Up, in 2019, he revealed that he voted for Brexit, but was wavering in his lifelong support for the Conservatives, even threatening to vote Green. But when we meet, Walker tells me unprompted that he will not answer any questions on “politics or race”. In 70 Up, Walker argues for “Great Britain first, any other people second”. At his side throughout has been his wife, Debbie, who first appeared in 28 Up. She joins us in the caravan. “To be truthful, I never wanted to go on it,” she says with the warm bluntness that defines her screen appearances. “But I done it for Tony.” This came at a cost. One of the series’ most jawdropping moments came in 42 Up, when Walker confesses to being unfaithful to his wife. “I know I’ve been a boy,” he admits euphemistically.

“But a long time ago. We’ve had our ups and downs. Even last night we had a lovely row.” What did they argue about? He looks a little tentative. “Giving our daughter some money.” Debbie argues that this candour is why the programme feels so truthful. “Look,” she tells me, “Some days I think, ‘Oh God, he gets on my nerves, get him away.’ But that’s the way of life. Nobody has a perfect marriage. You either work through it or walk away.” You can sense that the series throws up complicated things for Walker. He agrees with his wife’s assessment that he “loves the adulation” that the show brings. He is the only cast member with an active social media presence. He’s also a jobbing actor, showing me an advert in which he recently appeared with Joanna Lumley. But as our interview draws to a close, he asks me whether he resembles the man I have

september 2026

ted that man with my whole life’

As the final instalment of the groundbreaking documentary series airs, one of its stars, Tony Walker, reflects on the importance of the show, and its late director Michael Apted, to his life

watched on screen across nine films. Pausing, I tell him that there is a sensitivity to his character that is not always present on screen. “We’ve gone through a tunnel of darkness to come out the other end with our credibility intact,” Walker says. Watching the show, he adds: “I’d really like to sit at the back all on my own with a scarf wrapped around

me. Because I know I will break down.”

It all comes back to him having lived the show from the inside. Watching his own archive footage, he says: “I can smell all the smells of the races and the horses. My mum and dad phoning me up crying at how proud they were. My own children growing up. How they’ve developed, and everything else that’s

happened, good or bad.” The sun sets over Epping Forest, the caravan darkens a dim blue. “And I know what’s coming next.” Seven Up! may have chronicled the lives of 14 people, but its lessons are universal, Walker believes. “It touches that nerve that we all have,” he says enthusiastically as he prepares to drive me to the station in his

KING'S TRIBUTE TO MY MUM Where to start...?

Let me introduce myself, my name is Lesley, I was born in Bermondsey South London. I’ve been a London Cabbie for 35 years and have enjoyed my journey, which I will be sharing with you, if I may. Firstly, by the time this is in your hands my mum’s brother, Uncle George, a veteran, will be 100 years old! Congratulations Uncle George, Happy Birthday! He is the last of my mum's 8 brothers, (her younger brother.) My mum almost made 100, she wanted so much to make it, missed it by 2 months, she really wanted that telegram. I said to her don’t worry mum, to me you are a hundred, what’s 2 months. She passed within a

couple of weeks of the Queen’s passing. Sept 2022.

After she passed, I missed her terribly, I’d go to phone her, then remember, I can’t ring her, she’s not here. Then I thought, I must try to get some recognition for her service in the RAF, and almost reaching 100

years old.

deserved.

My mum was a Lance Corporal, she was a flight mechanic, she repaired The Spitfire, Lancaster bomber and Hurricane. She told me it was the best five years of her life in the RAF.

Here’s a picture of my mum at the last veteran meeting we attended at Biggin Hill. She was 99 years old.

So I wrote to The King.

I will continue my journey with you next month.

He replied. And so I got her recognition she

I miss her every day.

Lesley

cab. “We all grow old, we all have a dream, we all have parents, we all have a job that we might not like.” He is proud, he tells me, to be able to leave a legacy for his children and grandchildren. “To think,” he wonders, “I’ve been part of something that has lasted so long.” Courtesy of The Observer

september 2026

Private Hire operator fees

London’s private-hire industry has changed fundamentally. The modern PHV market contains thousands of small operators alongside enormous businesses and technology platforms capable of onboarding drivers and connecting passengers with vehicles on a scale the traditional minicab industry never contemplated. TfL’s review of PHV operator fees is an opportunity to ask whether the regulatory system properly reflects differences in scale, responsibility and cost. TfL has previously acknowledged a significant mismatch between operator fees and the costs of licensing, regulation, compliance and enforcement. It also concluded that larger operators were effectively being subsidised by other licence holders. That finding matters because the case for reform does not originate with the taxi trade. TfL itself has identified an imbalance. The current five-year operator fees range from £2,000 for operators with up to ten vehicles to £2.9 million for those with more than 10,000 vehicles. Intermediate bands include £150,000 for 101–500 vehicles, £350,000 for 501–1,000 and £700,000 for 1,001–10,000. The headline figures can obscure the effective cost. At 10,000 vehicles, a £700,000 five-year fee equates to £70 per vehicle over five years. Above 10,000 vehicles, the £2.9 million fee does not simply increase with every additional vehicle. As fleets grow, the effective

contribution per vehicle can therefore fall. The issue is not whether large operators pay substantial fees. They do. The issue is whether a regulatory system designed to recover regulatory costs should allow the contribution per vehicle to decline as an operator becomes larger.

TfL confirmed in its April 2025 Finance Committee papers that it was reviewing the PHV operator licencefee structure and that the existing deficit in licence and assessment fees was not sustainable, with other TfL budgets having to support essential licensing activity. The review should therefore reconsider the principle, not simply increase the existing figures. The fee should have a clear relationship with the size and regulatory responsibility of the business. Scale and the taxi ownerdriver The difference between a large PHV operator and a London taxi driver is fundamental. The typical black-cab driver is a sole trader operating one vehicle. They cannot spread the costs of finance, insurance, maintenance, repairs, tyres, fuel or electricity across a fleet. If that vehicle is off the road, the driver’s ability to earn is immediately affected. A London taxi is also not an ordinary passenger car. TfL requires all London taxis to be wheelchair accessible, and they are purposebuilt vehicles designed for London’s streets. The cost of providing that specialist vehicle falls on the individual taxi business. HMRC states that taxi and private-hire passenger

transport is normally standard-rated for VAT, subject to the circumstances of the taxable person and turnover. The Government’s 2025 response to its PHV VAT consultation confirmed that services supplied by VAT-registered taxi and PHV businesses remain subject to the standard 20% rate. A one-vehicle taxi business therefore cannot achieve the economies of scale available to an operator running thousands of vehicles.

indefinitely if it cannot demonstrate that it effectively controls the drivers it already has. TfL could consider complaint rates, safety incidents, driver monitoring and training, response times, service reliability, governance and record keeping. Where performance deteriorates, further onboarding could be paused until effective

demonstrate sufficient demand or effective supervision.

If too many drivers compete for too little work, earnings can fall, waiting time can increase and drivers may face pressure to work longer hours. The LCDC submission identifies the potential connection between driver oversupply, falling earnings, longer working hours and fatigue.

The principle should be straightforward: small operators should make a reasonable contribution, but the effective regulatory contribution per vehicle should not fall as a fleet becomes larger. Scale creates responsibility. An operator with thousands of vehicles has more drivers to monitor, more records to maintain, more journeys under its licence and greater requirements for effective oversight. Operator capacity and onboarding The question of scale also applies to driver onboarding. The LCDC submission on lawful regulation of PHV onboarding argues that TfL does not have the power to impose an arbitrary fixed numerical cap on PHV drivers, but can regulate the rate at which an individual operator expands where necessary to ensure effective control, safety oversight and compliance. This is not a market-wide cap. It is a performancebased approach. An operator should not be allowed to expand

control is demonstrated, with appropriate rights of representation. This matters because technological capacity is not the same as operational efficiency. An app may be capable of onboarding another thousand drivers, but that does not

This does not mean every additional PHV driver is unsafe or every large operator is inefficient. It means growth should be sustainable and properly controlled. The same principle should inform fees: an operator running thousands of

september 2026

s: time to make scale pay vehicles should make a contribution reflecting the scale and responsibility of its operation. Digital platforms and regulation The regulatory environment has also changed. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024

conduct requirements and pro-competition interventions.

The Act also introduced new consumer-protection provisions from April 2025 covering unfair commercial practices, including misleading practices and matters such as fake reviews and drip pricing. These provisions do not automatically apply to

That should inform TfL’s approach.

A modern PHV business may be a transport operator, technology platform, marketplace and consumerfacing digital service at the same time. Regulation should therefore consider more than the number of vehicles attached to a licence. TfL should consider how drivers are onboarded, how work is allocated, how complaints and incidents are managed, how pricing and passenger information are presented, and whether the operator retains effective control at its actual scale. A proportionate system The solution should be simple. Small operators should pay a reasonable minimum fee. Large operators should make a substantially greater contribution reflecting their scale. Crucially, the effective contribution per vehicle should not fall as the fleet grows. The largest operators should also demonstrate that they have the systems, staffing and resources necessary to manage their operations at that scale.

established a new UK digital-markets regime and gave the Competition and Markets Authority new powers concerning powerful digital firms. The regime came into force on 1 January 2025. Firms designated as having Strategic Market Status can be subject to tailored

every large PHV platform. Strategic Market Status requires the CMA’s statutory designation process. They nevertheless demonstrate recognition that very large digital businesses can create regulatory challenges that traditional frameworks were not designed to address.

Regulatory costs should remain the responsibility of the licensed operator. If TfL increases fees to fund licensing, compliance and enforcement, those costs should not simply be passed down to drivers through increased commissions, additional charges or reduced earnings. If operators choose to reflect legitimate costs in passenger prices, that is a commercial decision. What should not happen

is for the regulatory cost of a large corporation to be transferred to the individual driver already paying for the vehicle, insurance, fuel, maintenance and other operating costs.

The same principle should apply to taxis. A sole-trader blackcab driver operating one expensive wheelchairaccessible vehicle should make a proportionate contribution towards regulation, but should not carry anything approaching the same effective regulatory cost per vehicle as an operator running thousands of PHVs. The taxi trade is not seeking exemption from regulation. Effective regulation protects passengers, drivers and the reputation of the industry. But regulation must be properly funded through a proportionate system. A modern regulatory framework The wider objective should be a regulatory framework based on scale, risk, capability and actual regulatory cost. A one-vehicle sole trader and a multinational digital platform are not equivalent businesses. A wheelchairaccessible taxi carries costs and accessibility responsibilities that do not disappear because TfL needs additional revenue. Equally, a platform capable of rapidly onboarding thousands of drivers carries responsibilities that come with that scale. The continuing “fit and proper” requirement for PHV operators should mean more than passing a test when a licence is first granted. It should include

the continuing capacity to manage the business properly at the scale at which it operates.

The operator-fee review should therefore be considered alongside onboarding, operator capacity and digital regulation. These are different parts of the same question: how should London regulate businesses that have grown beyond the scale contemplated by the traditional private-hire model? The principle should be simple: The greater the fleet, the greater the regulatory responsibility; the greater the regulatory responsibility, the greater the operator’s contribution should be. A sole-trader black-cab driver with one specialist wheelchair-accessible vehicle should not subsidise a corporation operating thousands of PHVs. Large operators should make a contribution that reflects their scale and demonstrate that they can safely and effectively control the operation that scale creates. If regulatory costs ultimately need to be reflected in passenger prices, they should be recovered transparently through the operator’s commercial model, rather than simply taken from the earnings of the person behind the wheel. TfL has identified the problem. Its current review provides the opportunity to address it. The objective should be a genuinely proportionate system in which scale brings greater responsibility rather than cheaper regulation.

You know the job. We make it easier. ComCab can provide the taxi, tablet, meter and credit card reader so you can focus on what matters. Just 15% + VAT Commission.

Join today

0207 432 1600 | join@comcab.com

september 2026

should the taxi trade trust a mo

WHAT IS LEVC REALLY BUILDING?

TX production has ceased. A new cab is promised for 2027. Before the trade hands its future to a single supplier again, it should ask why that has ever gone well for drivers. There was a time when the biggest decision facing a London cab driver was whether to buy a new FX4 or keep the old one going for another year. Those days have long gone. Now we have electric vehicles, apps, charging points, range anxiety and enough technology to make a grown cabbie nostalgic for a carburettor. And now LEVC has announced that the next generation of London black cab is on its way. The company says the new taxi will be launched in the UK during the second half of 2027, replacing the TX, production of which has now ceased. That sounds straightforward enough. But here is the question the trade keeps failing to ask before it is too late: what happens when the vehicle every licensed driver depends on is controlled by one commercial supplier, answerable to shareholders rather than to the people who actually drive it? That is not a hypothetical. It is the position the trade is about to be in again. THE TX IS ON ITS WAY OUT The TX has been London's modern electric black cab since 2018, designed specifically for the capital, bringing together

wheelchair accessibility, electric driving and the traditional London taxi shape. For many drivers, it became the only realistic option when replacing an older cab — not because it was necessarily the best vehicle for every driver, but because it was effectively the only one.

That is the position a monopoly supplier puts the trade in. LEVC's latest accounts show sales have fallen sharply. The company is making far fewer vehicles than it once expected, and the business remains heavily dependent on support from its Chinese parent company, Geely. That does not mean LEVC is disappearing tomorrow morning. It does mean the company is not operating in a comfortable, profitable market where drivers are queuing around the block to buy new taxis — and a struggling sole supplier is exactly the kind of business a driver should not want to be entirely dependent on. A COMMERCIAL COMPANY, NOT A GUARDIAN OF THE TRADE LEVC says the next vehicle is being developed from the ground up. That is good news in itself. But drivers should be cleareyed about who this vehicle is really being built for. LEVC and Geely are commercial companies, investing because they believe there is money to be made in the future of urban transport. That is business, and there is nothing wrong with it — but it is precisely why drivers should be wary of trusting any single commercial supplier to look after their interests. The manufacturer wants to sell vehicles. Drivers need to make a living from operating them. Those two things are not always the same, and when

one company controls the only vehicle a driver is realistically permitted to buy, the balance of power sits entirely with the manufacturer.

responsible for keeping it running when something goes wrong.

The accounts make no secret of the wider ambition, identifying opportunities in other UK regions and overseas markets. That makes commercial sense; no manufacturer can depend indefinitely on one city and one category of customer. But it also means the next black cab may be designed around an international strategy in which the London owner-driver is one customer among many, rather than the business the company exists to serve.

The accounts refer to the replacement vehicle

TX6: A PLAN, BUT NOT A GUARANTEE

A manufacturer announcing a new vehicle is one thing. A manufacturer having a fully funded, commercially sustainable production programme is another. And when there is only one manufacturer, drivers have no fallback if

THE ACCOUNTS TELL AN INTERESTING STORY LEVC's latest accounts were filed at Companies House at the end of August. You do not need to be an accountant to understand the general picture: the company sold fewer vehicles, employed fewer people and continued to record substantial losses. That is the company the trade is being asked to depend on exclusively. The accounts also raise questions about the future of the Ansty manufacturing facility. The company says it is exploring future opportunities with Geely, including possible assembly work, but does not provide a firm commitment that the next black cab will be manufactured in Britain. That matters. The London black cab is one of the most recognisable vehicles in the world — not simply another electric car rolling off a production line. For generations, Britain has designed and built specialist taxis for London. Drivers should know where the next one will come from, and who will be

as the TX6, saying the current TX has reached the final stage of its product life and that the TX6 is currently in development. But the wording is cautious: the timing of the development, investment and introduction of the new vehicle remains uncertain, as does the future use of the Ansty facility.

the programme slips, stalls, or changes shape to suit the parent company rather than the trade. AND WHAT ABOUT AUTOMATION? Before anyone starts panicking, LEVC has not announced a driverless taxi. There is no evidence the new cab will arrive in 2027

september 2026

monopoly with its livelihood? without a steering wheel and a driver. But it would be foolish to ignore what is happening elsewhere in the motor industry. Artificial intelligence and automated driving systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated, learning

the next black cab will be autonomous. It does mean we should ask whether it is being designed with the future in mind — simply the next taxi for a professional driver, or part of a much bigger urban transport system that has less need

called over to approve an age-restricted item or clear an error message. The job did not disappear overnight. It was hollowed out, one machine at a time, until barely any of the original role remained. A licensed taxi driver

THE LAW WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY

There is also a legal question. Under the present London licensing system, it is the hackney carriage — the taxi itself — which is licensed to ply for hire, while the driver has a separate licensing requirement. Section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 concerns the licensing of the vehicle; Section 8 concerns the driver and the requirement for the vehicle to be under the charge of a licensed driver. So, under the law as it stands, a London taxi cannot simply operate without a licensed driver. But that is a statutory requirement, not necessarily an eternal feature of the hackney carriage — the vehicle and the driver are legally separate concepts. If Parliament eventually decides that autonomous hackney carriages should be permitted, the legislation could be amended; the obstacle would be legislative and regulatory, not the concept of a hackney carriage itself.

to navigate traffic lights, pedestrians, cyclists, roadworks and all the other complications of driving around a city. If a computer can eventually manage all of that, recognising somebody standing at the kerb with their arm in the air hailing a cab is probably the easy bit. That does not mean

for the driver at all. Look at what happened in the supermarkets. Nobody announced the end of the till operator. Self-service checkouts simply arrived a few at a time, and the staff who once served every customer became the person standing in the middle of a bank of machines, occasionally

should ask whether the same slow hollowing-out is being planned for the cab — not a dramatic switch to driverless taxis, but a trade gradually reduced to babysitting the technology, standing by in case the automated system gets it wrong, on a wage that reflects a diminished job rather than a skilled professional one.

That raises an interesting question. If a future hackney carriage is capable of driving itself, and the law changes to allow it to ply for hire without a human driver, what becomes of the driver's role? LEVC has given no clear answer, and it is not obvious that one exists yet — the accounts describe a vehicle in development, not a settled vision of what the trade will look like once it arrives. In an era where automation is advancing across the motor industry, a manufacturer with no obligation to keep a human driver at the centre of the business model has every commercial incentive to build towards a future where it does not need one.

ACCESSIBILITY: THE ARGUMENT THAT COULD BE DESIGNED OUT

Whenever the trade is asked why a human driver is essential, accessibility is the first answer given. The driver deploys the ramp, helps the passenger aboard, secures the wheelchair and makes the journey possible. It is the strongest card the trade holds. Drivers should think very carefully about what happens when a vehicle is designed from the ground up to no longer need it played. Because a genuinely new design does not have to rely on a driver at all. If the passenger compartment lowers itself to kerb height, a wheelchair user can wheel themselves straight in without anyone lifting, pushing or manoeuvring them aboard. Securing and restraining the wheelchair once inside can be automated too, rather than left to a driver wrestling with straps and clamps in the back of a cab. Doors can open and close themselves, the floor can raise itself again, and the whole process from pavement to secured position can be handled by the vehicle. Modern accessible buses already use lowfloor entrances to make boarding easier without anyone getting out to help. A purpose-built taxi starting with a blank sheet could go considerably further. For wheelchair users, that is a genuine improvement, and it should be said plainly: independence at the kerb is something disabled passengers have asked for, and a vehicle that delivers it is a better vehicle. Not every passenger or wheelchair is the same, and some people will always want assistance. But a cab that can be boarded and Continues on page 21

Unlock your full earning potential Daily payments*

Easy-to-use driver app

24/7 driver support

Rewardng VIP & corporate account work

Driver oﬀice in Zone 1 (326 City Road, London EC1V 2NZ)

Year-round bonuses, discounts, and £200 referral rewards

Scan to get started

Scan the QR code to sign up, download the app and start earning.

*Weekdays, Monday to Friday. Earnings from Friday will be credited to the account on Monday the following week.

september 2026

trade needs supplier choice Continued from page 19

secured without a driver is entirely achievable, and there is no reason to assume a manufacturer would leave that capability out. The uncomfortable part, for the trade, is what that means for the driver. Automating accessibility is presented as a way of reducing the physical demands placed on drivers, and it would do exactly that. It would also quietly remove the most persuasive reason the law and the public have for insisting that a licensed human being sits in the front of a wheelchair-accessible taxi. Take the physical work away, and the driver's role in an accessible journey becomes supervisory at best — precisely the hollowed-out job the supermarket checkout attendant now does. LEVC has not said whether its accessibility thinking is intended to support drivers or to work without them, and nobody should assume the answer lands in the driver's favour by default. Those decisions are being made now, and the trade is not in the room. REMEMBER HAILO There is a warning from the past that should not be forgotten. When Hailo arrived, many London cab drivers welcomed it because it appeared to offer something the industry wanted: technology designed around taxis. Drivers supplied the knowledge, the vehicles and the understanding of the customer and the streets. But the technology was never truly owned by the trade. Hailo struggled financially, withdrew from some markets and was eventually absorbed into the wider MyTaxi operation, later becoming part of FREENOW.

The lesson is not that technology is bad. The lesson is that the trade can embrace technology, help build its customer base and provide the expertise that makes it work — without retaining ownership or control of the commercial direction. A manufacturer may listen to drivers. A technology company may consult drivers. None of that means the drivers control the business model. The trade must stop

confusing participation with ownership, and it must stop mistaking a supplier's goodwill for a guarantee. WHO IS THIS REALLY BEING BUILT FOR? There is a list of questions the trade could put to LEVC. Where will it be built, and will Ansty remain central to production? What will it cost, not as a list price but as a total cost of ownership? What is the real-world range in London traffic with a full load and the heating on, rather than under laboratory conditions? Can a driver complete a full shift without unacceptable charging downtime? How long will parts be guaranteed now that production has ended? Will wheelchair users be able to board and secure

themselves without a driver at all — and if so, what is the driver actually there for? Will the professional driver remain central to the business model, or is the vehicle being designed with automated systems in mind? Reasonable questions, all of them. But the trade should be honest with itself about why it is asking, and what it realistically expects to

development of the new vehicle, drivers should ask what that sentence actually commits the company to. Consultation is not control. Being listened to is not the same as being served. A manufacturer can hold focus groups, attend trade events, speak warmly about the heritage of the black cab, and still build a vehicle designed primarily for tech bros, for overseas markets, or for a future in which the driver's role has

hear back.

been steadily reduced.

A company does not spaff a billion quid up the wall out of concern for the welfare of London cab drivers. LEVC is not a philanthropic organisation for disaffected taxi drivers. It is a commercial manufacturer developing a vehicle it believes will earn a return in a global urban transport market. Every design decision it makes will be measured against that return — not against whether a licensed owner-driver in London can still make a living in five or ten years.

And here is the part that should concentrate minds. A trade with a genuine choice of supplier would not need to ask most of these questions at all. It would simply take its business elsewhere if the answers were unsatisfactory. Questions are what you are left with when you have no alternative — the polite request of a customer who has nowhere else to go. Drivers are not negotiating. They are hoping.

That is not a criticism. It is simply what a business is. The criticism belongs to a trade that keeps expecting otherwise. So when LEVC says drivers are central to the

SHOULD THE TAXI TRADE TRUST A MONOPOLY WITH ITS LIVELIHOOD? There is no reason for taxi drivers to oppose a better vehicle. A more reliable, comfortable, accessible and

efficient black cab would benefit passengers and drivers alike. But progress should not mean the trade simply accepts whatever is handed to it by the one company left standing. A business under financial pressure, answerable to a parent company and its own shareholders rather than to licensed drivers, is not a guardian of the trade's interests. It is a commercial operator making commercial decisions, and those decisions will not always run in drivers' favour. Those in the trade advocating for a one-vehicle monopoly should think carefully about what they are actually supporting. A purpose-built taxi is one thing. A market dependent upon one manufacturer, with no competitor to hold it to account, is something else entirely — not forwardthinking, but strategically blinkered. The future of the trade will not be secured by limiting choice or placing blind faith in a single supplier. It will depend on understanding where technology, accessibility, ownership and commercial control are heading, and on demanding real alternatives while there is still time to insist on them. Because once a single supplier holds every card, the contracts are signed and the market is locked in, it may be too late to discover that the future everyone was celebrating was never really designed for the people behind the wheel. So before the trade signs up to another singlesupplier solution, perhaps it is time to ask the question that matters most: why would any driver trust a commercial monopoly to look after their livelihood, when nothing in its history gives them a reason to? Christopher Johnson

september 2026

Taxi Feeder Park Governance Meeting – 25 September 2026 Falling movements, future charges and the fight to keep the TFP regulated Falling movements, future The September Taxi Feeder Park Governance (TFPG) meeting took place on Friday 25 September against a backdrop of falling Taxi Feeder Park (TFP) movements, continuing problems with the new Taxi Management System and growing concern about the future cost and governance of the facility. The figures presented by Heathrow show a significant decline in TFP movements. July recorded around 65,000 movements, 11% below 2025 and 10% below 2019, while August recorded approximately 46,000 — 25% below 2025 and 28% below 2019. Heathrow cautioned that the August figure was affected by the changeover to the new system and should be treated carefully, but confirmed that the June and July decline was a genuine trend. The financial position was a major part of the discussion. Heathrow’s 2026 figures show forecast expenditure of approximately £2.647 million, against forecast income of £1.167 million, with a £1.471 million previous-year overrecovery carried forward to offset much of the current year’s recovery requirement. Mark White challenged Heathrow’s description of the position as being only around £9,000 away from forecast, pointing out that this year’s pricing had

come through There was, however, some positive news regarding the new Taxi Management System. Heathrow said the current pricing model had already assumed six months of reduced IT and APCOA costs as a result of the new system. The 2027/28 calculation should therefore benefit from a full year’s savings.

Airport Matters

Winter said: “What you should find is that in next year’s prices, you’ve got another six months worth of lower costs that should factor through to impacting the price for next year.”

By Mark White been supported by the substantial previous-year over-recovery. “But we were subsidised by about one and a half million.” Ian Winter acknowledged the point, explaining that the £9,000 figure represented performance against the forecast for

the current year, rather than what drivers should expect when the 2027/28 tariff is calculated. When Mark pressed him on what would happen if demand continued to fall and the £1.5 million was no longer available to reduce the amount recovered through the tariff, Winter gave a frank response:

“I think that if demand falls and you have a million and a half from this year that will not be carried into a reduction for next year, that your prices will go up. It’s, you know, simple maths.” He would not put a figure on the potential increase. Some savings should

However, he also acknowledged that the removal of the £1.5 million previous-year overrecovery, combined with continuing lower demand, meant that the overall price was still likely to increase. The trade will therefore need to scrutinise the figures closely when the 2027/28 tariff consultation begins.

september 2026 TFP must remain regulated unless Heathrow can demonstrate otherwise A central issue remains Heathrow’s proposal to remove the Taxi Feeder Park from the existing regulated ORC framework and move towards a commercial arrangement. The trade’s position remains clear: Heathrow must demonstrate why moving away from the regulated arrangement would provide a better outcome for taxi drivers. Sam Houston made the trade position clear during the meeting: “We don’t want to come out of ORC. It’s the best value for our membership and for the taxi trade at Heathrow. It’s the best way to run. A regulated pricing system is the best way to run a regulated taxi service.” Mark also challenged Heathrow on the fact that the promised explanation of the benefits of leaving ORC had still not been provided.

23 Ian Winter accepted that this needed to be addressed and said Heathrow would put its explanation in writing. The initial benefit he identified was the possibility of a more stable and predictable price under commercial arrangements: “The obvious one that I know I’ve heard is you get a much more stable price. You know, the price will be set based on commercial considerations, not on costs…” He acknowledged that he did not have the full detail and said he would speak to Ed and provide a written explanation. Importantly, the action was not closed. The meeting minutes record that Heathrow will provide a written explanation of the proposed benefits of removing the TFP from ORC and that the action will remain open until it has been discussed again in December.

Round-table meeting to go ahead The long-awaited roundtable meeting will also proceed. This is particularly important because a number of outstanding operational problems cannot be resolved through the normal TFPG meeting alone. Ian Winter confirmed that Heathrow would bring together the people who selected and implemented the new system, together with those responsible for operational decisions, governance and communications. The trade has been asked to provide two or three possible dates in October or November. The meeting will therefore provide an opportunity to address the continuing problems with the Taxi Management System, including responsibility gaps between Heathrow, Sensor Dynamics and APCOA, inconsistent information being given to drivers and outstanding

system functionality. Winter acknowledged that communication around the rushed implementation had been poor and said Heathrow needed to address this with the responsible teams. Other issues raised The meeting also covered the deteriorating standards in the driver facilities, including reports of rats and poor cleaning in the canteen and toilets. Heathrow agreed to identify who is responsible for pest control, establish how frequently inspections take place, when the last inspection occurred and what remedial action has been undertaken. The lack of reliable EV charging provision was also raised, along with the possibility of redesigning the feeder parks to provide better charging, queuing and covered parking. Private-hire congestion was another concern, with

reports of PHVs blocking ramps and perimeter roads and causing delays for taxis and passengers. Heathrow agreed to take the issue to the roundtable and involve those responsible for PHV operations. Trade attendance Attendance from the trade side was disappointing. UCG and RMT did not attend, while LTDA representative Sam Houston had to leave before the meeting concluded. Kamal Abdellaoui remained throughout and took notes, while Mark White raised the majority of the substantive questions on behalf of the LCDC. Nothing has been closed The important outcome from this meeting is that the major issues remain alive. The round-table is going ahead. The outstanding actions remain open. Heathrow has agreed to provide a written explanation of the benefits it believes would result from removing the TFP from ORC, and the issue is due to return for discussion in December. Meanwhile, the financial position means the trade will need to watch the 2027/28 tariff process very closely. Falling movements, the loss of the previous £1.471 million over-recovery and the eventual impact of the new system’s promised savings will all feed into the next calculation. For Heathrow taxi drivers, the key question remains straightforward: If Heathrow wants to change the way the Taxi Feeder Park is governed and charged, it needs to demonstrate clearly why that change is in the interests of the taxi trade — and what safeguards will exist for drivers in the years ahead.

september 2026

WWII veterans receive VIP welcome at the world's largest walking event

Ten WWII veterans travelled to the Netherlands with the Taxi Charity for Military Veterans last week, receiving a wonderful welcome and VIP treatment at the finish of the world-famous Wandeltocht, the largest walking event in the world

Arriving on the overnight ferry from Harwich, the itinerary began on Friday 4 September with a very special breakfast at the British Ambassador's Residence in The Hague, where the veterans and members of the Taxi Charity party were warmly welcomed before continuing their journey to Arnhem. The following day, Saturday 5 September, the ten veterans were given VIP treatment at the finish line of the Wandeltocht, one of the world's most famous and largest walking events. This year marked the event's 79th anniversary, and the presence of the WWII veterans proved to be a particularly moving and memorable part of the celebrations. The WWII veterans travelling with the Taxi Charity were Dorothea Barron, Robbie Hall, Betty Withers, Paul Terry, Alf Cooley, Geoff Roberts, George Durrant, William Puckett, Ivan Staines and Arnold Walton. Among them was Geoff Roberts, whose own wartime service included involvement in Operation Market Garden, the Allied operation fought in the Netherlands in September 1944 and Paul Terry who having landed in Normandy after D-Day, moved through France, Belgium and into the Netherlands, before fighting in Operation Market

Garden and helping to secure Nijmegen Bridge. For Geoff, returning to the Netherlands was particularly poignant. Operation Market Garden remains one of the most significant campaigns of the Second World War, and the opportunity to return to a country whose liberation

is so closely connected with the experiences and sacrifices of his generation was a powerful reminder of the enduring bond between the Dutch people and the Allied veterans who fought for their freedom. Taxi Charity Trustee Ian Parsons said: “It was a great trip and visiting the 79th Wandeltocht was a real highlight.

Our veterans thoroughly enjoyed meeting and interacting with the Dutch people, who came out in their thousands to salute them as they crossed the finish line. The warmth and respect shown to our veterans is truly wonderful to see. It was also a real pleasure to

Ambassador to the Netherlands said: "It was a great privilege to welcome these wonderful veterans to the Residence ahead of the annual Airborne walk, the Wandeltocht."

visit the Ambassador’s Residence in The Hague and to enjoy such a warm welcome. We would particularly like to thank His Majesty’s Ambassador to the Netherlands, Chris Rampling CMG MBE for his ongoing support for the Taxi Charity and the work we do for military veterans.”

an amazing trip. It was an absolute privilege and an honour to be part of something so special. It’s very hard to put into words what it means to be a part of this amazing team, thanks to everyone behind the scenes, companions, drivers and volunteers, thank you. I will never forget this for the rest of my life.”

Netherlands was a reminder of just how deeply the Dutch people continue to value the courage and sacrifice of those who helped liberate their country more than eight decades ago.

Keith Allen Deputy

The Taxi Charity for

www.taxicharity.org

London Cab driver and Taxi Charity volunteer Kevin Taylor said: “What

Military Veterans regularly takes veterans back to the places where they served, ensuring that their sacrifices are remembered and that they continue to receive the recognition and appreciation they so richly deserve. The warmth of the welcome received in the

To fund and facilitate their work, the charity is wholly reliant on donations, grants and sponsorship.

september 2026

LONDON CABBIE SLANG: Most of us know the origins of the many slang words used by Taxi drivers, most come from Cockney rhyming slang…but there are some that have no links to cockneys whatsoever.

we have back slang such as 'Ruof' for Four, 'Xis' for Six and 'Neves' for seven. Also, Pony (25) and Monkey (500) relate to the illustrations on the Rupee notes, used by British serviceman who served in India.

As John Sigismund Tanner, was the medallist and designer at the Royal Mint and it was he who designed the sixpenny piece for George II, it’s extremely likely it was his name that stuck for the coin, right up until decimalisation.

The first word I looked at was "Droshky" or "Drosky", a slang term sometimes used by taxi drivers to refer to their vehicles.

This word evolved from a card game term to a general slang term for cheating, swindling, or failing to pay a debt (especially for lodging or Hackney carriage fares).

The most commonly used term for a Cab is Sherbet Dab.

London’s main line terminals have all manner of "handles." Some are pretty obvious – 'The Loo’ for Waterloo, 'Padders' for Paddington, ’The Bone’ for Marylebone. If there were a queue at the Marylebone rank, radio cab operators would say 'there’s meat on the Bone lads.

"Droshky" or "Drosky" is a Yiddish word, originating from the days of horsedrawn Cabs and was commonly used by drivers referring to their Hackney Carriage. There are many slang words Cabbies and costermongers use referring to money, but some go beyond rhyming slang, especially when referring to certain denominations.

The three months it took to complete the task became associated with the number three. Then

While not in common use today, "tosheroon" can be encountered in older literature or historical contexts, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. For example, In Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, the term "tosheroon" is used to refer to a valuable coin. One of the most often used term by Cabbies is "Bilker."

Many believe it’s Cockney rhyming slang for Droshky McNab, but that’s not correct, the term is in-fact Sandy McNab (according to the Londonist).

Terms such as Bottle (2 or 200) and Carpet 3 or 300, were used by costermongers to confuse customers. Bottle of glue = 2 is rhyming slang, but "carpet" originated from the time inmates in Victorian prisons would take to weave coarse mats.

coin of high value.

Remembering the Tanner, also known as a Sprarsy

Do you remember the term "Tosheroon" ?

Sprarsy: This part of the phrase is obscure, though some interpretations suggest it is a slang amalgamation, potentially a mix of "Susie" (an older slang term for a sixpence) and "brassy" (referring to the coin's low silver content or lack thereof).

A slang term that referred to a half-crown coin, which was worth two shillings and sixpence (2s 6d) in the predecimal system. The term "tosheroon" is of uncertain origin, but it is thought to be related to "tosh" a term for copper items, and roon was an old

Some of the most commonly used terms speak for themselves, not needing much working out. Terms such as "Roader" (a longer than normal journey) "Flyer", which obviously refers to a job to one of London’s airports. Then we have the Gas Works which is the Houses of Parliament. Cabbies also have names for the fashion in which they ply their trade. Musher, nothing to do with huskies sadly, the term refers to a cabbie who owns their own taxi. The word itself derives from Romani, meaning a traveller who owns his own horse and cart. Drivers on

the other hand who opt to rent their ‘sherbet’ from a garage are known as ‘Journeymen’, (going back to the time when drivers would get a Taxi from a garage and would pay a percentage of the daily takings registered on the meter. One of the most commonly used terms, which applies to a newly passed out Taxi driver is "Butter"…Butter-Boy or nowadays Butter-Girl. The definition of this term actually has nothing to do with Butter! Calling someone a Butter, is a shortening of the term " he’s but-a-boy or she’s but-a-Girl." The term butter, according to tradition, was originally supposed to last 3 licence renewals…a total of 9 years. But in later years was shortened to just one renewal. In my case, the term only lasted until my first license renewal in 1975. I was then taken on a night out by my Cabby colleagues from the Warwick Avenue Shelter, to the historic Prince Alfred pub, just down the road from the Shelter, to celebrate the end of my Butter Boy days. TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT: My personal favourite Cabby term is the "Royal Lobster", not that easy to work out. The term is not derived from Cockney rhyming slang, but from where "Kings Cross" (the station) is compared to a "Royal Crustacean" in this case, a King's Crustacean.

the blind eye that is k

Two-tier enforcement is destroying confidence in London’s private hire regulation. London’s taxi trade is not simply facing competition. It is facing a regulatory imbalance.

Black cab drivers operate under one of the most demanding licensing regimes in the country. They are expected to comply with the rules, and TfL is quick to enforce those rules when they do not. But what happens when similar concerns arise within private hire? Increasingly, the impression among drivers is that the answer is very different. There are now repeated examples of private hire businesses, booking arrangements and corporate structures being brought to TfL’s attention, yet concerns about licensing, operator identity and potentially unlawful activity can remain unresolved. That is no longer just a regulatory issue. It is becoming an existential issue for London’s taxi trade. The Craigslist warning Take a seemingly simple Craigslist advertisement. An individual advertised himself as an experienced chauffeur/driver in London and identified himself as a PHV/PCO-licensed driver. What the advertisement did not identify was the licensed London PHV operator through whom any booking would be accepted. That distinction is fundamental. A PHV driver's licence

september 2026

does not, by itself, authorise someone to invite or accept private hire bookings. Section 2 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 requires the person making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings to hold a London PHV operator’s licence. TfL's own guidance makes the position clear: the licensed operator is responsible for contracting with the passenger as principal. So the question is straightforward: Who is the operator? Where is the operator's licence? Where is its business address?

And why is the consumer being invited to book without being told who the legally responsible operator is? Those are not technical questions. They go directly to the integrity of London's licensing system and to consumer protection. The Bolt problem The Bolt evidence demonstrates just how complicated the private hire model has become. The evidence identifies two separate legal entities within the same corporate structure. One is the TfLlicensed London entity. The other is identified in company accounts as operating an agency model across the rest of the UK, including Wolverhampton. Yet the consumer-facing private hire terms identify only the London entity as “Bolt UK”. The second entity does not appear in those terms, despite the corporate restructuring having been

publicly disclosed before the terms were updated. The Wolverhampton licensing register, meanwhile, records simply “Bolt”, without identifying a legal entity. That leaves three different positions: the consumer terms identify one company, the corporate accounts identify another for the agency model, and the licensing register does not identify either legal entity with precision.

private hire operator licence. Companies House information also identified associated businesses registered in Yate, Bristol, while the Dagenham address was being used publicly in connection with the operation.

If there is not, enforce. That is what a licensing system is for. And then there is the Saudi Investment Bank example The same concern arises in central London.

TfL was specifically asked

Vehicles bearing

whether the business held an operator licence and, if not, what enforcement action would follow.

the Saudi Investment Bank livery have been observed alongside numerous other black people carriers apparently providing private hire services, while it was unclear who was operating some of them, which authority licensed them or under what regulatory framework they were operating.

That matters because consumers are entitled to know who they are contracting with. More seriously, the evidence raises a question requiring investigation under section 2 of the 1998 Act. The second company is registered at a London address but does not hold the TfL operator licence held by the separate London company. If that entity is involved in accepting private hire bookings from London, the legal basis for doing so requires an answer. This is precisely the sort of issue a regulator should investigate. Not pass around. Not leave unanswered. Investigate it, establish the facts and enforce the law where necessary. The Dagenham operation Then there is the operation publicly trading as an airport transfer business from an address in Dagenham. The business was advertising airport transport services and recruiting private hire drivers, while the investigation was unable to identify a corresponding TfL

Again, the question is remarkably simple: Who is the licensed operator accepting these bookings? If there is a licence, identify it.

killing the black cab september 2026

The concern raised with TfL was that there appeared to be virtually no TfL enforcement presence in the area.

regulatory system inevitably suffers.

The issue is not that every black people carrier is unlawful.

This is not about being anti-private hire The taxi trade does not need protection from competition. It needs protection from unfair competition.

The issue is that the regulator should know.

Technology is not the enemy. Apps have

already visible.

rules, TfL acts.

The number of licensed taxi drivers has fallen significantly. The taxi fleet has declined. The traditional manufacturing base for London taxis has been under severe pressure.

If a private hire operator breaches the rules, TfL must act with the same determination.

The Mayor has recognised that the taxi trade is in decline and TfL has itself acknowledged the need to halt that decline.

If bookings are being accepted unlawfully, investigate it.

But the solution cannot simply be to recruit more taxi drivers while leaving the regulatory imbalance untouched. Why would someone enter a heavily regulated profession if they believe they are competing against an industry where enforcement is less rigorous? The Nelsonian blind eye The most serious criticism that can now be made of TfL is not that it has failed to create enough rules. It is that it appears increasingly willing to turn a Nelsonian blind eye to concerns about private hire enforcement.

A properly functioning licensing system should allow TfL to establish who is operating, which operator is responsible for the booking, where that operator is licensed and whether the service complies with the law. When those basic questions cannot readily be answered, confidence in the

transformed the way passengers book cars, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

The evidence supplied to TfL demonstrates that these concerns are not new. Specific issues have repeatedly been raised concerning potentially unlicensed operators, consumer disclosure, booking arrangements and the identity of the person legally responsible for accepting bookings.

That creates a distorted market.

This is therefore not simply a disagreement between taxi drivers and TfL. It is a question of whether the regulator is enforcing the law consistently across the market.

And the consequences are

If a taxi driver breaches the

The problem arises when the law is not enforced by the regulator.

If an operator is unlicensed, investigate it.

If consumers are not being told who they are contracting with, investigate it. If corporate structures appear to obscure who is actually accepting bookings, establish the facts. The taxi trade is not asking for special treatment. It is asking for equal treatment. The answer: separate TfL’s taxi and private hire department. The time has come for the Mayor to instruct TfL's senior leadership to fundamentally reconsider the structure of Taxi and Private Hire regulation. Taxi and private hire should have two genuinely separate divisions, with separate leadership, accountability, enforcement priorities and performance measures. Private hire requires a regulator capable of dealing with complex corporate structures, apps, crossborder licensing, consumer law and sophisticated booking models. The taxi trade requires a regulator that understands the unique role of London's licensed taxis and the economic realities facing its drivers. The two sectors can sit within the same organisation, but they

should no longer be allowed to operate under a structure in which the priorities of one can overshadow the interests of the other. The black cab cannot survive an unfair two-tier system. The black cab cannot survive a system where there is strict enforcement for taxis but little or no effective enforcement against private hire. A level playing field does not mean reducing the rules for taxis. It means enforcing the rules that already exist across the entire passenger transport market. The choice facing London is therefore straightforward. Continue with a regulatory system in which serious concerns about private hire can be raised repeatedly without visible enforcement — or restore confidence by separating the functions, strengthening enforcement and applying the law consistently. The taxi trade does not need protection from modern technology. It does not need protection from competition. It needs a regulator that does its job. Enforce the law. Enforce it equally. And stop allowing those who comply with the rules to be placed at a commercial disadvantage by those who may not. If that does not happen, the decline of London's black cab trade will not simply be a story about changing technology. It will be a story about TfL’s regulatory failure.

september 2026

Katie Taylor’s farewell was a night of magic, impossibility and buried hatchets On Saturday night, Katie Taylor finally walked away from the sport she changed after a night of magic moments in front of 80,000 fanatics at Croke Park in Dublin. Her 30 years in boxing gyms and rings, at tournaments, on podiums, making history and creating memories, all came to an end with a final victory against Flora Pili. The fight was only a sideshow on a

win No 26, world-title fight No 21, but against a backdrop of tears and emotion, none of the numbers mattered. It was a retirement party like no other in the history of boxing, in a city that knows how to throw a party. Taylor is 40 now, a wise veteran, and her story is the story of women’s boxing, the story of how a little girl – posing as a little boy to get a fight – changed the boxing landscape forever.

she has dominated for so long. She will never return to fighting and we will miss her.

long before Taylor won her Olympic gold medal in London in 2012.

Her entrance on Saturday, through the same tunnel that Muhammad Ali used in his 1972 fight at the sacred venue, was spectacular. She looked relaxed, which seems an impossibility, but Taylor is always the calmest soul at the centre of any boxing storm.

Taylor has inspired a generation of athletes across all sports. And not just wideeyed, tiny girls with dreams of being the next Katie Taylor in the ring. She was a local hero as a teenager, a national hero as a young woman, and a global hero for the last 10 years; she has no rivals for that title in the sport she made.

She fought sensibly against

By Steve Bunce corners. His name is Peter Taylor, her father and first coach. Peter left the family home over 10 years ago, and on Saturday Katie praised him and his role in her success; it was the first open display of affection for her father since the split. It was also the very first time he had seen her box as a professional. There were multiple emotional tales in that ring and in the iconic venue. “We will never see another Katie Taylor, we will never see another night like this,” said Eddie Hearn, her promoter. The crowd of 80,000 were reluctant to leave at the end, loitering in their thousands, singing and shouting and savouring the moment. Why leave that magical place? Why turn away when Taylor was still in the ring, posing for the cameras and smiling? Why? Taylor was still in the ring nearly 30 minutes after the fight finished and then she left for the very last time and went on the slowest exit in history, shaking hands and stopping for pictures with those lucky enough to get close to the ringside barrier. Perhaps she also wanted to enjoy every last moment of her life as a boxer.

night of adulation. At the midnight hour, under a clear sky, and with the echo of Westlife still in the air, Taylor was loaded up with all four world title belts; it was

Late on Saturday night, the ring cleared during the postfight celebrations and Taylor, after circling several times and nodding at the roaring crowd, placed her gloves in the very centre of the ring

Pili, using her head and her feet as much as her fists. The result was never in doubt on a night when a nation stopped and watched – they had been stopping and watching in Ireland

In the packed ring at the end, as family members piled in for one final embrace and hug, a man made his way to one of the neutral

As midnight approached, it really was the end of an astonishing boxing career, and then Taylor went down another tunnel and out of our lives. Croke Park suddenly felt very empty, but the spirit of Katie Taylor will live forever in that grand home of Irish sport.

september 2026 If you are a keen student of the visual nature of the 1960s, you’ll know the images, though not necessarily the name of artist. They are the black and white ‘Op Art’, picked up on by the likes of The Who in their ‘Pop Art’ period. The sight of drummer Keith Moon, wearing a vortex of black and white swirls on a T-shirt is well known. Today I look at the life, times and work of the London artist responsible for that and much more, Bridget Riley CBE. Born in Norwood in South London in April 1931, she went on to study at Goldsmith College between 1949 and 1952, before moving on to The Royal College of Art alongside names such as Peter Blake and Frank Auberach. She graduated with a BA Degree in 1955. It was in 1960 that she first developed her ‘Op Art’ style, in which the painting took on an optical illusion, which in some cases, proved disorientating to the viewer. ‘Focusing isn’t just an optical activity, it is also a mental one.’ Her interest in ‘Op Art’ was first piqued while she worked as an illustrator in the advertising industry at the company J Walter Thompson. The work of Jackson Pollock, seen at an exhibition at The Whitechapel Gallery in 1958, became a strong early influence. She then exhibited her work in London in 1962 and she became a full time artist in late 1963. During that year, she had won the John Moore’s prestigious open section award. As shown by the garments worn by The Who, much her 60s work was often illegally reproduced by the rag

29 show in New York at the Richard Feigen gallery in 1965, with all of her 16 paintings sold out on the first day, with a long waiting list of collectors compiled very quickly for future work.

The Mumper of SE5

OPT IN FOR OP ART – A SPEAKEASY CLASSIC trade. A copyright law change in 1967 brought a stop (ish) to that, but in a curious way, it had had the effect of

highlighting her work, if not necessarily her name, to the wider public. During that heady

Always best known to the wider public, for her black and white art, she has also worked in colour from 1967. Although keener to have been known purely as an abstract artist, rather than a female abstract artist, Riley however became the first woman to win the International painting prize at the Venice Biennale of 1968. ‘I used to build up to sensation, accumulating tension until it released a perceptual experience’ Also in 1968, shewas instrumental in setting up SPACE – Space Provision Artistic Cultural and Educational – with the intention of providing affordable studio space for artists. decade, she was very much the ‘it’ girl of the art world. The extent of the clamour for her work was very clear at her first

Her work has been shown all over the World in her now nearly 60year career and in 1999 an exhibition of her work broke the attendance record for a show at The Serpentine Gallery in London with over 130,000 people attending. Again, it was reported that the geometric shapes and patterns within her work, left some sensing movement on the canvas, which brought on the effect of motion sickness. Her work in recent years, has been achieving remarkable prices. Classic 1960s pieces, such as ‘Chant 2’ and ‘Diagonal Curve’ changedhands for between 2 and 5 million dollars, setting her firmly among the top ten living British artists. Still working, Riley has studio spaces in London, Cornwall and the South of France.

London’s Trusted Taxi Insurance & Breakdown Cover All under one roof • Exclusive Insurance schemes • Breakdown cover only £99 • Roadside assistance and recovery • Recovery to any UK Location

Call us on:

0208 691 9691 Quotax Insurance Services is a trading name of London Taxi Insurance authorised and regulated by the FCA (504042)