France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
from the because-that'll-help dept
Yesterday, we wrote about taxi drivers in France going absolutely insane in protesting the fact that they don’t like competition from Uber. They took drivers hostage, set fires and flipped cars over — basically reminding everyone that “hey, Uber drivers aren’t nearly as fucking crazy as taxi drivers.” But here’s the amazing thing: the French government apparently has decided to appease these modern day luddites:
France ordered a nationwide clampdown on UberPOP on Thursday, siding with taxi drivers who blockaded major transport hubs in angry protests against the popular online ride-sharing service.
Not only that, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, rather than call out the taxi drivers, pretended that it was the fault of “both sides”
Prime Minister Manuel Valls condemned the violence and incidents “on both sides” as the government sought to take a tough stand on the protests while backing the drivers’ case.
“They give a deplorable image to visitors to our country,” he said during a visit to Colombia, adding that all available legal measures would be taken to halt the UberPOP activity.
The French bureaucrats are now telling law enforcement to seize cars from Uber drivers. Really.
In a toughening of the French stance, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve ordered Paris police to issue a decree banning UberPOP and said cars defying the order would be seized.
“The government will never accept the law of the jungle,” he said in a television declaration on Thursday evening.
Again, as most users of Uber and other such services will tell you, the experience tends to be a lot better than crappy cab experiences.
And European bureaucrats sit and wonder why they can’t have more innovative internet companies starting up there. Perhaps they should look at situations like this and how they respond to innovative companies that disrupt legacy, monopoly services by providing something that the public actually wants.
Filed Under: bernard cazeneuve, cabs, france, innovation, luddism, manuel valls, riots, taxi
Companies: uber
Comments on “France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber”
There is one point that has its merits and was raised in the article about their collective freak out: taxi drivers have to pay quite large sums of money to be allowed to provide such services. So while Uber may have its casual drivers there are those who are making a living out of it. Which isn’t a problem at all. However when you have some people paying big to go into the business and others that aren’t paying at all you do create a very unfair situation. What I’m saying is that years of regulatory capture will turn against cab drivers in a very ugly way. It’s not Uber’s fault nor its users but it does create a serious problem. The solution is simple but complex to apply: eliminate the steep fee to enter the cab business.
Maybe we should use this as an example of why regulatory capture is bad?
Re: Re:
Well, the playing field is sure not fair, but as conservative as I am, I think at least the same regulations should apply to the uber drivers.
There is nothing I hate more than a citizenship that tries to skirt the very laws they let their politicians enact to avoid paying the price of the stupidity they keep voting in.
Uber is a great idea, but just not for the idiots of France. Someone needs to pay the price of stupid, and there is no better group of people to pay that price than the idiots electing the idiots in.
Re: Re:
Shh, don’t interrupt the “free market heroes!!!!11111” worshiping of a business which only thrives because the market is NOT free.
If there were no laws requiring ass-pull fees to enter the market, Uber couldn’t gain an advantage by blatantly ignoring those laws (or as Masnick likes to describe it “disrupt[ing] legacy, monopoly services”), and pseudo-libertarians couldn’t make themselves look dumb by once more extolling a success story which turns out to be one of the biggest moochers.
Re: Re: Re:
Wait are you saying that a company that relies entirely on the existence of tax payer roads- should not have its pseudo employees paying their fair share for maintenance and upkeep. I don’t believe it!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh pretty sure Uber drivers still pay taxes, just like everyone else.
Is a big lie.
Re: Re:
They will never accept the law of the jungle…as they accept the law of the jungle in the form of taxi driver rioters who embody it.
Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
Not just Google but EVIL CENTRAL: Goldman Sachs.
Since Uber is JUST a web service, and we know those are cheap, then HOW could it possibly be valued so high? Uber should be charging maybe a quarter per referral — Ebay does more in the way of site services and has low rates — and since Uber claims drivers aren’t employees but independent contractors, it can’t have much in the way of expenses or structure.
Uber is also making money by SPYING on users everywhere if you install its app! So fits right in with Google.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/23/technology/uber-ftc-complaint-tracking/index.html
Now why does Masnick keep running these? — Anyone new here, take the Copia link on any Techdirt page, there’s Masnick proudly stating Google sponsors him, and its logo.
Re: Re:
out_of_the_blue absolutely loathes it when due process is enforced.
Hoarding with the Horde
This is “at the end of a gun” Socialism at it’s best. Instead of favoring “the Public Interest” which has overwhelming been in favor of Uber, they side with the rampaging hordes of Socialism. The market should be allowed to dictate best practice, not a heavy handed Govt “approved supplier” which instills a monopoly.
Re: Hoarding with the Horde
I belong to group A. I use public roads to make my living. Without the public roads I have no living. Naturally I’m expected to pay taxes for the maintenance and upkeep of these roads.
Then there is group B. They rely on the public roads too. Except none of their earns go towards the upkeep and manitance. I wonder why Group A is upset?
This isn’t the evil socialist using their guns this is people reacting to a purely extractive service that gives nothing back. The law is the law, you want it changed then their are means in France to do this. Use democratic accountability to remove accountability. What a novel idea /s
Re: Re: Hoarding with the Horde
They rely on the public roads too. Except none of their earns go towards the upkeep and manitance.
Uber and its drivers don’t have to pay any taxes in France?
Re: Re: Hoarding with the Horde
The dirty, kidnapping, arsonist Socialist scum aren’t relying on the law, but resorting to the undemocratic means of the typical fascist to terrorize those it wants to control (see above article). People in France want this service (TechDirt- “As Uber Crackdown In France Continues, Uber Downloads In France Reach Record Highs” & “Cabs Strike In Chicago Against Uber; Uber Drivers Presumably Report Uptick In Business”), but the terrorizing Socialist govt is helping the street thugs to crush innovation by seizing Uber cars (TechDirt- “France Takes Its War On Uber Up A Notch: Arrests Top Execs) instead of working to find a “legal” solution.
Please prove that “group B” doesn’t pay any taxes for road maintenance in any of their lives? Do they not buy gas (tax), do they not buy cars (tax), do they not pay yearly (tax) on those cars?
Stop making up lies, you’re not smart enough to get away with it.
Re: Re: Re: Hoarding with the Horde
France has professions and trades with quite high prices, balanced by very high taxes and social charges which have to be paid by the professionals and tradesmen. That is group A.
Group B is doing the same exact thing and skirting the taxes that A is paying into. Are you that daft? Whether or not the taxes in place or just or not is irrelevant at the moment. If you drive a taxi you need to pay the taxes that all taxi drivers pay. Are Uber drivers little special rays of sunshine that are exempt from the system? No.
I’m even ignoring the fact that Uber was allowing uninsured drivers with no background checks on the road. Kind of a French law you know? But then again when you feel that the law doesn’t apply to you and the evil Commie / Socialist /Facist (you forgot Nazi) comic book villain govt enforces the law of all thing… well cry me a river.
Et voila no lies just a touchdown looks like I got way with it!
Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
Not just Google but EVIL CENTRAL: Goldman Sachs.
Since Uber is JUST a web service, and we know those are cheap, then HOW could it possibly be valued so high? Uber should be charging maybe a quarter per referral — Ebay does more in the way of site services and has low rates — and since Uber claims drivers aren’t employees but independent contractors, it can’t have much in the way of expenses or structure.
Uber is also making money by SPYING on users everywhere if you install its app! So fits right in with Google.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/23/technology/uber-ftc-complaint-tracking/index.html
Now why does Masnick keep running these? — Anyone new here, take the Copia link on any Techdirt page, there’s Masnick proudly stating Google sponsors him, and its logo.
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
“JUST a web service” says a moron who wouldn’t be able to function without web services.
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
“– Ebay does more in the way of site services and has low rates — “
I don’t know what batshit crazy world YOU live in, but here in the real world no one considers 12% of your gross sales to be a “low fee.”
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
Since Uber is JUST a web service, and we know those are cheap, then HOW could it possibly be valued so high?
If creating a web service is so cheap, why are you still here leeching off of Mike’s service?
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
Since Uber is JUST a web service, and we know those are cheap, then HOW could it possibly be valued so high?
So then is eBay overvalued as well?
Facebook?
LinkedIn?
Twitter?
Insert favorite website here?
What a piss-poor argument. You’re slacking, really.
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn’t love?
Yeah, really, I mean just look at how much he loves YouTube… oh wait.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150622/23534431429/youtubes-inane-response-to-handing-popular-youtubers-channel-to-cosmetics-company-blame-algorithms.shtml
Blue, you need new talking points that aren’t so easily debunked. Go back to whoever is giving you yours and ask for an updated set that make you look just slightly more realistic.
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
Google is the new illuminati to some people. And why shouldn’t it be? Quite easy to think how Google can pull all the strings of the planet.
And because it is easy it must be dismissed.
Yes, really. That’s what happens when you make a habit of flouting the law: the law eventually decides enough is enough.
If you don’t like the law, the appropriate thing to do in a democratic society is to work to get the law changed. Instead, like the barbarians who run the company, Uber has been thumbing its nose at the law and saying “Nyah, nyah! So what are you going to do about it?”
Well… this is what. It’s about time, and I really hope the USA follows their example.
Re: enough is enough
It’s called civil disobedience.
It’s what you do when the law is unjust and immoral.
Re: Re: enough is enough
If Uber drivers get to ignore the law when it serves their business model, what’s your problem with traditional drivers doing the same?
Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
Yeah, coz flouting local taxi laws is just the same as wonton destruction of other people’s property and threatening them with actual physical harm right!
Re: Re: Re:2 enough is enough
In other words, ignoring fees is civil obedience to you, but heaven forbid somebody sets fire to something. Quite the revolutionary you are…
Re: Re: enough is enough
…and do you know what happens to people who engage in acts of civil disobedience by breaking the law? They very frequently end up getting arrested or having other punishments meted out upon their heads, as befits people who break the law.
People who choose to engage in civil disobedience know this, and they do so with their eyes wide open, betting that they’ll be vindicated by the court of public opinion and come out ahead in the long run. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
To try to make the claim that someone should be able to get away with blatantly flouting the law, whether or not you believe it’s a form of noble “civil disobedience”, without any legal consequences, is pure fantasy.
Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
…and do you know what happens to people who engage in acts of civil disobedience by breaking the law?
Yes. Sometimes they get the law changed.
Re: Re: Re:2 enough is enough
Rarely as a consequence of the disobedience. You know, there are more than five services I know about doing transportation on demand and for some reason Uber is the only one getting flamed.
Maybe their particular method is what is wrong and not the law or disruption in general?
Re: Re: Re:3 enough is enough
Precisely. I don’t understand why someone as intelligent as Mike keeps on making this same mistake over and over, acting as if people have a problem with Uber competing with taxi companies and disrupting their monopolies. What people have a problem with is them acting as if they were run by an Objectivist, (most likely because they are!) flouting the law at every opportunity, trampling on the rights of everyone who’s not Uber, harming their workers and their customers, and yet somehow playing the media skillfully enough that most people never find out about all the crap they pull and they somehow come out looking like good guys.
That’s what the people who don’t like them don’t like.
Re: Re: Re:4 enough is enough
“What people have a problem with is them acting as if they were run by an Objectivist…”
I doubt that any of Uber’s passengers give a shit about this.
“…flouting the law at every opportunity…”
Broad, meaningless generalisation. Are they stealing cars, running red lights and kicking puppies? Or just pushing up against transportation laws?
“…trampling on the rights of everyone who’s not Uber…”
Another broad, meaningless generalisation. Who exactly is “everyone who’s not Uber”? That’s quite a lot of people. What rights exactly? Free speech or something?
“…harming their workers and their customers…”
All of them? Some of them? A tiny fraction of them? Are they harming them more or less than taxi workers and customers?
Your claims are grandiose and without any explanation. Explain how a company can be as successful as they are if, according to you, all their drivers and passengers are having such a terrible experience and hate them so much? Nobody is forcing people to drive for them or use the service. Are you claiming it’s all just “playing the media skillfully”and we’re all just stupid?
Re: Re: Re:4 enough is enough
What people have a problem with is them acting as if they were run by an Objectivist, (most likely because they are!) flouting the law at every opportunity, trampling on the rights of everyone who’s not Uber, harming their workers and their customers
Wait, what? If their workers and customers were being harmed, they have many, many, many other options for them. Especially the workers. So why do they keep signing up more and more people to drive for them?
A friend of mine — just yesterday — went to the inspection center in Silicon Valley to get certified for Uber and was told to come back another day because the wait would be hours. For people getting “exploited” they sure seem to be eager to sign up…
Mason, you’re being really foolish if you really believe those regulations protect people, rather than protect against competition.
Re: Re: Re:5 enough is enough
There is a “race to the bottom” argument to be had here. Options aren’t the problem here. Standards are: If you allow oil industry to pollute limitless they will, since it is in their best interest. If you let the market dictate everything most economists predict monopolistic or collusive markets. It is protection against competition, but if the competition is lowering the standard, it may not be desirable. At the moment Ryan Air is fighting to have a right to shop for workers internationally to lower wages. Is that the way of the future: To let the lowest wages take the job?
Re: Re: Re:6 enough is enough
Standards are: If you allow oil industry to pollute limitless they will, since it is in their best interest.
This argument may have held true in the past when such things could be done pretty easily without public knowledge. I’m not so sure that in this day and age of social journalism that oil companies could get away doing things like that, even without the standards we currently have in place.
Re: Re: Re:7 enough is enough
You appear to be under the impression that in this day and age, journalism and exposure can do a thing to dissuade these companies. As a counterargument, I offer… oh, I dunno… maybe every single thing that we found out the oil industry has done since the invention of the Internet?
Re: Re: Re:8 enough is enough
You appear to be under the impression that in this day and age, journalism and exposure can do a thing to dissuade these companies.
I believe they can, to some degree. Public opinion does hold weight with stockholders who don’t wish their investments to be devalued by a public trashing of the company.
As a counterargument, I offer… oh, I dunno… maybe every single thing that we found out the oil industry has done since the invention of the Internet?
I don’t see the invention of the Internet as the turning point here. It’s since everyone started carrying a remote TV news crew in their pocket that’s the turning point. With smartphones and all the associated social media apps anyone can be a reporter these days. We don’t have to wait for mainstream media to get around to doing an in-depth exposé to get people up in arms about an issue.
Re: Re: Re:3 enough is enough
They have the most backing – translation- the Biggest Threat to the Govt run monopolies.
Govt Hulk SMASH market based threat!
Re: Re: enough is enough
“It’s called civil disobedience”.
No, it isn’t.
Civil disobedience is not and never has been “ignore the laws you don’t like and hope you get away with it”. Instead, it’s “publicly violate unjust laws in a deliberate attempt to get arrested, in order to clog up the court system (if done en-masse) or embarass the authorities (if done by a high-profile individual), in order to force a change in the law”.
Civil disobedience is a political campaigning tactic, not a catch-all excuse for whatever you feel like doing.
Re: Re:
1) There is a problem with what you propose, the entrenched companies, and their city politician allies can shout down a few people proposing changes in the law. Uber / Lyft / Airbnb type services need to be demonstrated as viable before they get much in the way of support to change laws.
2) So long as a person has the appropriate insurance, why should they be banned from making money with their own property to earn some extra money. No company or individual should have the right to protect their own income by preventing others from competing with them.
Re: Re: Re:
Because one of the most fundamental rules of civilization is that you can’t just do whatever you want just because you can. The pro-Uber folks, either out of ignorance or straight-up maliciousness, keep trying to paint this as some sort of David and Goliath story about an evil, oppressive “guild” shutting down competition.
The reality is that taxi driver certifications are very important. If you’re going to get in a cab, you have to be able to trust that the person behind the wheel is competent (not going to get you killed) and trustworthy (not going to rob, kidnap, murder, or simply swindle you). Think about the amount of trust you’re extending, placing your life and safety in the driver’s hands by getting into a cab. Certification provides a time-honored, well-understood way of demonstrating that that trust is warranted.
Yes, it’s expensive; most things of great value in life are. And so when a bunch of gypsy cab operators start breaking all the relevant laws and undercutting the legitimate taxi drivers, and then completely unsurprisingly causing harm all over (privacy violations, price gouging, maliciously interfering with competitors by calling for fake rides, etc,) why is anyone surprised that people don’t like it?
…oh yeah. Because they’ve been fed a line of crap about how it’s about noble rebels fighting the Evil Empire of the “guild system”, and they believed it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funnily enough, it is much easier to be taken in by a fake registered taxi that it is by an Uber driver. In the first case all you have to go on is the medallion, in the second you can have a picture of the driver from an independent source, along with customer reviews, and therefore a more certain identification. Further, a third party has a record of who you are riding with, which gives better protection to customers, than a taxis maybe notifying their controller that they have a hire.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“If you’re going to get in a cab, you have to be able to trust that the person behind the wheel is competent (not going to get you killed) and trustworthy (not going to rob, kidnap, murder, or simply swindle you).”
Or overturn cars, or set tires on fire to block major roads, or assault competitors… Lucky we’ve got taxi certifications to prevent that from ever being able to happen!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that people are able to trust Uber drivers. That’s why they, you know, use Uber.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you’re going to get in a cab, you have to be able to trust that the person behind the wheel is competent (not going to get you killed) and trustworthy (not going to rob, kidnap, murder, or simply swindle you).
So can everyone get a list of these unstable ones that are setting shit on fire, and overturning Uber drivers’ vehicles?
Because not for nothing, I certainly wouldn’t get anywhere near those crazy fucks, let alone in a car with them.
Re: Re:
As an (I), I’m damn glad I don’t live a union mandated state. CA is doing it’s best to destroy the “choice” of Uber along with France, but aren’t liberalism & the EU based on the Rights of Choice / Pro-Choice?
That is… unless you want a choice of which ride, light bulb, school, health care, plastic bag, food, trade, gun or joining a union or accountable, proficient government. Good luck getting serious pro-choice options passed through the “Pro-Choice” legislatures.
Re: Re: Re:
It is more of a quality issue. Most of what regulation does is raise the minimum requirements for a market.
When that is said it is important not to grant monopolies or closed markets from those laws.
EU is a regulated market and not a libertarian wet dream. Overall, having some standards is a good thing. A race to the bottom as some libertarians propose is not always the way to go.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where customers cannot see other customers ratings for services like taxis and b&b, then some regulatory system to evaluate and if necessary act on customer complaints make sense. Where customer ratings are available, customers have the information necessary to make their own decision. Also customer reviews available to customers are more likely to reveal determination in behavior or conditions before it becomes a real problem.
For more personal services, customers will not let a race to the bottom go to the bottom, most will pay a bit more to get a decent service.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Sounds like a heaping helping of Special Pleading fallacy to me. Why would human nature be so radically different for “more personal services” that would cause the clear pattern we’ve seen with WalMart and airlines to not hold true in this specific case?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
A race to the bottom can occur when it is difficult due to costs for new players to enter a market, and the incumbents are working to maximize their profits. The problem with the big supermarkets is not the quality of their goods, but rather their buying power being used to force down prices from their suppliers.
Where customers can get and give instance feedback, and new people can easily enter the market, quality tends to settle to the level that the customers want, and is also somewhat varied allowing for different tastes and affordability.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you!
I don’t understand why so many people don’t understand this very simple point. Libertarians love to complain about how regulations make things more expensive to produce, as if all the money was just vanishing into a black hole somewhere. As if they’re completely ignorant of basic economics, and how producing a higher quality product (which regulations enforce, by setting a minimum bar) is generally more expensive. (And if they’re not completely ignorant, then they do know this, and are deliberately looking for ways to get away with producing a poor-quality product. Either way, it’s a harmful ideology.)
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Without the Internet it is very difficult to get hold of reviews, and regulation along with star rating systems gave some indication of quality. With the Internet it is trivial to get a review, which is more relevant accurate. Further the Internet allows near instant warning of a developing problem, like this driver is likely to fall asleep at the wheel, or the brakes are squealing every time the driver uses them.
Fast feedback gives a better quality assurance than the slow plodding of bureaucratic systems, which rarely act before a problem has become serious.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“As if they’re completely ignorant of basic economics, and how producing a higher quality product (which regulations enforce, by setting a minimum bar) is generally more expensive.”
Any yet my Uber experience has been so much better than practically every taxi ride I’ve ever had. Please explain.
Re: Re:
Should you really be focusing on the ones who aren’t rioting as the lawbreakers?
Re: Mason Wheeler shits the bed
“If you don’t like the law, the appropriate thing to do in a democratic society is to work to get the law changed.”
I think Rosa Parks had the right idea on how to deal with the shits in power and so do companies like Uber.
Today, you’ve laid out so much bullshit (like how dangerous it is to get in a Uber car…) that you’ve given ol’ Blue some serious competition for the BS artist of the day award.
The simple fact is that consumers LIKE services like Uber and HATE traditional cab services and consumers WILL win this battle. Cab companies have only themselves to blame for that.
And despite all their fighting, the day is coming when pretty much every cabbie will be out of a job anyway as self-driving cars hit their stride. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of pricks.
Re: Re: Mason Wheeler shits the bed
I know, right? Mason Wheeler is at least usually in the ballpark somewhere. On this he seems to be wandering around outside kicking cans, looking for his lost ball.
What I want to know is ...
…how about *my* right to forget France?
So, the French government surrendered?
I normally don’t like going for the cheap “French surrender” joke, but this is one of those cases where it just seems to fit perfectly.
Insanity...
aka the will of the people
Cowardice and mob rule at it's finest
Prime Minister Manuel Valls condemned the violence and incidents “on both sides” as the government sought to take a tough stand on the protests while backing the drivers’ case.
Really, I guess I missed it when Uber drivers were out rioting and destroying vehicles.
“They give a deplorable image to visitors to our country,” he said during a visit to Colombia, adding that all available legal measures would be taken to halt the UberPOP activity.
If he was talking about the cab drivers and the riots, then yes, I would absolutely agree that their actions here give a deplorable image to visitors, but given that second half, I can’t help but think that he’s completely ignoring them, and instead blaming Uber for the ‘deplorable image’.
Because clearly Uber drivers are so much worse for the public image of a country than violent and/or destructive riots. /s
In a toughening of the French stance, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve ordered Paris police to issue a decree banning UberPOP and said cars defying the order would be seized.
“The government will never accept the law of the jungle,” he said in a television declaration on Thursday evening.
So I take it then that those that were destroying cars and other public property have all been arrested and are currently sitting in cells awaiting trial? I mean if Uber drivers can have their cars seized, then surely those involved in a riot and destruction of public property, surely those people are facing much harsher penalties for their actions, right? /s
And this is why...
the EU can’t have nice things.
UberPoP is illegal in France
Just want to point out that the government is NOT wrong in this case. The article clearly states that UberPOP is ILLEGAL in France. UberPoP is different (but similar and affiliated with Uber) than Uber. Uber as I understand it is legal, and it doesn’t look like France is cracking down on Uber, just the “PoP” version. So… it seems like a smart move on France’s part; Crack down on something that is illegal and appease the violence (while assumingly allow Uber to continue running).
Re: UberPoP is illegal in France
No, you have that backwards. Uber was already illegal in France since they have a law against ride-sharing for profit without giving the government tons of money as a kick-back like taxis do. So Uber came up with UberPOP, which is a non-profit version of Uber that is perfectly legal in places like France.
I’m not sure where the President of France thinks he gets the authority to arbitrarily declare things illegal when they were specifically set up to follow all the French laws. They would need either some kind of lawsuit against UberPOP where a court would rule them illegal, or to have a new law made that UberPOP doesn’t currently follow.
“The government will never accept the law of the jungle,” Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said in a television declaration on Thursday evening.
Seriously? It sounds like that’s exactly what he did, he accepted the law of the jungle and caved in like a dirty little whore. Cazeneuve should be ashamed to show his face in public to make such a speech and then do exactly what he said he would not do.
Talk about a fucking hypocrite.
“The government will never accept the law of the jungle,” Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said in a television declaration on Thursday evening, the day that the French government accepted the law of the jungle as laid down by rioting taxi drivers. Just sayin’.
The spoiled little children threw a temper tantrum and got their way. France sucks as parents.
too scared of the reprisals to blame the taxi drivers! but then you have to look back at where all this started. yup! you’ve got it! the good ol’ USA were the first ones to start making all sorts of new rules up and appeasing the taxi drivers in places like New York. all that is happening is everywhere else is following the lead. the really sad thing is that it happens so many times with so many new things. the old refuse to accept and adapt! brings the horse and carriage against the car to mind or even the train against the horse!
Sacre Bleu! A threat to our status quo monopoly! Kill it with fire!
I hope Uber just continues operating. Fuck them.
surprised
Wait you’re seriously surprised that France surrendered? That’s pretty much all those people know. It’s in their blood.
France surrenders, even to taxi drivers.