1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
Too Much Freedom for Railways
Page 79
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
T00 much latitude is being given to the railways in the matter of objections, said Mr.' R. W. Sewill, national director of A.R.O., at a meeting in Gloucester, last week. He was referring to the serious blunder in Section 11 of the 1933 Act, which was revealed exclusively in The Commercial Motor. Road transport had long been willing to co-operate with the railways, said the speaker, but while the railways continued to oppose hauliers on the flimsiest pretext there could be no hope of reconciliation between the two forms of transport.
Mr. Sewill strongly criticized the regulations concerning the keeping of records, and he referred to the present difficulties in many parts of the country concerning wages.
A demand for justice for the lorry driver was made by Major Eric Long, T.D., J.P., who said that the industry was suffering from malignant persecution from the police. The fault, however, did not lay with the police or the magistrates, but rather with the Government, which forced them to take action. Special courts to deal with motoring offences were, said Major Long, an urgent necessity.
Mr. T. D. Corpe dealt at length with the subject of agreed charges, and he pointed out that this matter was of vital importance not only to hauliers, but to each individual trader.