Taxi Driver Online

From: James Barclay Taylor

TO: The Conveners and Committee members
Regulatory Committee / Licensing sub-committee
City of Edinburgh Council

Date as application

Sir/Madam

Re: renewal of Licence no. 12/12684/TDR1 Expiry 30/8/2013

As with last year I apply to renew my taxi driver’s licence for 1 year and enclose the fee of £52, which I do although I am no longer allowed to work in the trade. This letter forms part of my application.

My reason for renewal for only one year remains the same. When sentencing drivers for perceived mis-demeanours, the Committee dispenses punishment of “suspension” until renewal of licence. Given that councillors do not take account of the remaining portion of the licence period, by taking this action, they are denying licence holders equality before the law. This is a clear breach of individuals’ rights.

Last year I expressed my concern that the council would use its processes to work to remove my licence from me because of my opposition to the fascist manner in with taxi licensing is operated by the council. This remains true today, and in fact my experience this year is that the council attempted to go down this route and draw me into your complaints process.

Following a complaint made by two lying police officers to the cab inspector, I was hauled into a meeting where an attempt was made to coerce me to corroborate the claims of the lying cops and engage me in the council’s kangaroo court system in an attempt to punish me by licence suspension. It is certain that this was only prevented by the fact I had a witness. I contend that had this not been the case, then you would have revoked my licence on the word of two lying and arrogant cops.

Last year I wrote about my concerns how the council routinely breaches the Human Rights of licence holders.

Knowing this, Inspector Smith was expressly asked at the outset of our meeting what my rights were under the process. His response was “What Rights!”

It is clear that Inspector Smith had no knowledge of what an individual’s rights are, he has never understood what their rights have been, and he has never accorded individuals their rights as he set about coercing them, under fear of punishment by the council, at any point of the process he, as a council official, subjected them to.

Council legal support officer, Terence Higgins, also attended the meeting. He had no prepared details of what an individual’s rights are, instead bumbling what can only be described as spontaneously fabricated blurb off the top of his head, that comes nowhere near what an individual’s rights are under Human Rights legislation which entitles us all to a fair hearing.

I have since asked the council to define my rights to me. It can’t. At each juncture the council ignores any response about Human Rights and deflects back to an individual’s obligations under its complaints process.

City of Edinburgh Council has never considered an individual’s rights specifically in terms of Human Rights Law, which as a public authority it is charged to do. Neither has it considered how any of its taxi licensing regulations conforms to Human Rights law.

This is a clear administrative error, which has led to many licence holders’ rights being breached, a trail of council wrong-doing stretching back to the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998.

On another matter, the taxi trade in Edinburgh has won, principally because of the council’s restriction of licence policy which empowers those within the trade to deny me the right to work in a trade I have served for 19 years, because of my opposition to taxi restriction.

It disturbs me that this is what Scotland has become, a land where the right to work is denied by a restrictive government policy. I fear that with this mentality our nation should become independent. Scotland would become a real banana republic.

OK, I know councillors will not read this, I suspect the administration will ensure they don’t. And even if they did, their proven track record is not one of equality of opportunity or fairness in any degree. The policy is all, and councillors on the political gravy train will never buck the policy. No matter, the purpose of this letter is that whether they read it or not, they will be legally adjudged to have received it, and I intend to rely on this in the days and months to come.

Watch this space!

Kindest regards


James Barclay Taylor

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

Just out of the goodness of my own heart, I have emailed this to all concerned even all councilors for you

Not fancy coming over to Glasgow and upsetting our licensing berks Jasbar?

Thanks skip.



BTW Can you do the MSPs as well?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

Skip

I would give you the video of the attempted "interrogation", but we're saving it for youtube, coming soon to a PC near you

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

Interesting. Fact is, I consider that licensing was designed to control standards in order to protect the public. I just can't see it being Parliament's intent that it should be used to control markets.

And particularly where councils, like Edin burgh's, operates transport services in direct competition to other transport interests it is restricting?

Which other commercial enterprise gets to control its own competition in this way?

Do you honestly think this was Parliament's intent?

Perhaps the disappointing aspect is that the Scottish Parliament's first role should have been to rein in the power of councils, and return real accountability to the public to them.

But, not only has Salmond failed to pick up the baton to protect us from authoritarian councils, one of his first acts on assuming power was to sign a concordat assuring COSLA that they would not do as such.

Salmond is not on OUR side. He is an establishment man, who throws a few scraps to the minions to attract votes. But free passage on the Forth Road Bridge is not sufficient reason to trust the man. He is not to be trusted.

What should be the case is a single licensing system, with freedom of vehicle choice and the right to work enshrined.

Else taxi trade workers are little more than slaves, to be exploited and subjugated.

And those who support restriction of licences, opportunity and common decency? Well they are those who would be the slave masters.

And what kind of a person denies others the right to prosper?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

But apart from that everything is ticker-tee-boo?

_________________
IDFIMH

well that was interesting

Not....................................

Dear cretin

When are we going to meet up?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

jasbar I only meet with people I am interested in hearing what they have to say. Which is precisely why we will never meet up

Cue the usual jasbar abusive reply......

Crapper!

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"