This isn't sensible regulation. This is an outright ban, which is a whole different ball of wax.
Is an outright ban "anti-innovation"? You can't do sensible regulation once you've banned entrants in favour of the taxis.
Is an outright ban "anti-innovation"? You can't do sensible regulation once you've banned entrants in favour of the taxis.
Reporting an Uber driver doesn't necessarily mean any action is taken.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-... has a story about a driver committing a sexual assault, being reported to Uber who didn't report it to the police -or- fire him, and he went on to commit another which Uber -also- didn't report to the police.
> In total, Uber had failed to report six sexual assaults, two public order offences and one assault to the police. This had lead to delays of up to 7 months before they were investigated.
This is why MetPol are arguing strongly against licensing Uber.
Uber is able to continue business while it appeals. As long as the appeal process is continuing (and it may well continue for years to the High Court) Uber can continue business as usual.
Uber can change its processes during the course of the appeal, and if they match what is required, the ban will fail.
This is a high-visibility, high-impact method of regulation that Uber can't ignore. Given Uber's habit of ignoring regulations it doesn't like, it seems entirely appropriate.
One of the largest problems that the UK has had with the EU is that EU-mandated regulations are not implemented by some EU member countries. This is against all the rules of the EU, but there's no enforcement.
In the UK, regulations are implemented and enforced. This is that enforcement in practice. One of the reasons London has flourished as a financial centre is because the regulatory agency doesn't mess around and does its job properly. This gives certainty, stability, and engenders trust in trading partners.
The article is entirely wrong, completely misunderstands what's happening here, and why.