Not really, there are lots of private-hire firms in London.

>> Are you seriously siding with "banning potential monopoly" to protect an entrenched centuries old monopoly.

Nope. That's a wilful misreading of what I've been posting and I'm not sure it warrants much response. I'm siding with protecting a diverse market from an unethical company who appear to be bending the rules and sinking a ton of investor money into distorting the market in an effort to capture it.

If thats your definition of monopoly, then UBER is also not a monopoly. Those still exist and can continue to exist.

> I'm siding with protecting a diverse market

You are not siding with protecting a diverse market because you are eliminating an option. Its the exact opposite direction. The rules are written by the same people that invented taxicabs. If the rules are removed, UBER would not be bending any rules. Its a problem created exclusively by the government, and uber drivers and passengers are being disregarded. This is what people want, and you are advocating for restricting those people in favor of another.

To help one side, you are advocating the attack of another one. That is not an even standing.

The rules are much more than there to protect just black cabs, they are there to protect consumers and workers too.

Uber are a set of problems all to themselves, and have only their own attitudes and practices to blame.

I am not advocating helping any one 'side', and to paint my arguments that way is disingenuous.