Taxi Driver Online

Jock1,
Now you are double posting, perhaps you should ask a child how to use a forum.

Perhaps we should keep on topic for a change

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Oh course he isn't going to grovel. And I guarantee his feelings a rants he makes to the cab office/inspectors/council/licensing authority on the forums won't be repeated by him. Wonder if any of the authorities read these forums? Would make an interesting hearing if his rants were taken note off!

Recently heard that skull was dragged away in handcuffs a few years ago at the airport rank when it was still anyone could use it. This the case Gary?

You'd think that and the time you belted a fellow cabbie on haymarket rank could come back to haunt you?

Wouldn't you?

_________________
IDFIMH

You really need to wake up to yourself Longshanks. This head in the sand, routine just won't do. Think procedures. My past won't even come into it. It's amazing how people always remember the negatives? What about the wee lassie being attacked on the walkway at the Sheraton Hotel? It was yours truly that fought it out with her attacker. Things got messy but the cops knew who was to blame. I think it had something to do with him head butting her in the face before I even got involved. The punter in the back of my taxi thought I was a great guy, although he never set foot outside the taxi when the blood and the [edited by admin] was flying. He did manage to call the cops though, and at the time, I was thankful for small mercies.

On the other hand, what about the heart attack victim walking her two dogs in westerhails.Yes, it's me again. I got a letter of thanks and twenty quid for calling the emergency services and taking control of her dogs. The two cops that arrived were terrified of dogs and persuaded me (forced me) to take them to their kennels or wait for the dog handler. The good Samaritan on this occasion got stuck with a psychotic German shepherd and schizoid Labrador. The cops seem to think it was alright for me to be bitten but not them, imagine that.

I could go on Longshanks, but you wouldn't be interested anyway because this was never about me, it was all about you.

Whatever skulls views are on the taxi trade, this is one we should all agree
that we are entitled to our silence when faced with possible criminal charges and should not be forced to speak to police

jesus think about it

Yes the authorities read these forums.

Yes, we hoipe that they note what we say, and try to use it.

Yes, Frank Smith is a Turkey.

yes, Colin Keir is a scumbag.

Now pay attention. The battle is about to begin.

Credits should also go to two others.

Jim Inch as the Lord High Scumbag.

And Sue Bruce who has had the problem dumped on her lap.

The Skull has only ever had the interests of those who actually do the owork in our trade at heart.

We are indeed entitled to remain silent.

But on the other side of that coin, they are allowed to draw inference from that silence.

Sometimes if people refuse to put their side of an allegation forward, the authorities will have no option to take it up the road to a panel / court / village stocks / guilliotine.

skulls has only remained silent up to a point actually he did answear, he said the allegations where untrue

so now he is harrassed coerced even into speaking

take this scenerio

fight breaks out between you and customer

customer hits you

you hit him back

customer reports incident

and claims you hit him

only you and him there

what do you say?

You're suspended, probably revoked.

Why?

Because the council listening to one sided allegations, and brin ging in other evidence because they dislike you politically, means that like other taxi drivers you're walking about with a target on your back.

True

Also the claim is impossible to answear without incriminating youself

coz if you do and admit hitting in retalation or self defence your on a criminal charge

If you dont answaer your up in front of the r.c. and forced to answear

You cant win

the sysyem is wrong

There doesnt appear to be much support for Garry Thomson on this one, yeah a couple of drivers are popping onto the forum to have a bash at me, they're probably gary or jim's alter ego's anyway.

What does amaze me is the fact that this is an everyday occurance throughout the UK.......indeed on the same day two other drivers have to appear in front of the committee for complaints of some description.....of course now Garry Thomson has been captured its obviously a flawed system, its political......I know one thing....its certainly amusing.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

http://absolvitor.com/2010/09/22/the-law-of-hearsay/


As every student of Scots law knows, Section 2 of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 allows for the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil cases: “evidence shall not be excluded solely on the ground that it is hearsay”.

According to the Scottish Law Commission, the position was as follows:

The rule against hearsay is, broadly speaking, to the effect that statements made other than by a witness giving evidence in court are not admissible. The rule extends both to verbal statements and to written statements …

REPORT ON CORROBORATION, HEARSAY AND RELATED MATTERS IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS (Scot. Law Com. No. 100; 1986)

www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/download_file/view/438/

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/

I start – for reasons which will shortly become obvious - with the dictum of Diplock LJ in an old case concerning adjudication on a claim for industrial injuries benefit: R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner, ex p Moore [1965] 1 QB 456, 488. Dealing with hearsay evidence, His Lordship stated: “These technical rules of evidence, however, form no part of the rules of natural justice. The requirement that a person exercising quasi-judicial functions must base his decision on evidence means no more than it must be based on material which tends logically to show the existence or non-existence of facts relevant to the issue to be determined, or to show the likelihood or unlikelihood of the occurrence of some future event, the occurrence of which would be relevant. It means that he must not spin a coin or consult an astrologer, but he may take into account any material which, as a matter of reason, has some probative value in the sense mentioned above. If it is capable of having any probative value, the weight to be attached to it is a matter for the person to whom Parliament has entrusted the responsibility of deciding the issue.”

That decision – now nearly half a century old – has repeatedly informed decisions of the higher courts in the field of licensing.

In Kavanagh v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall [1974] QB 624 the Court of Appeal was dealing with a submission that on an appeal from a refusal of a shotgun licence, Quarter Sessions (the then equivalent of the Crown Court) should not receive hearsay evidence. The Court torpedoed the appellant’s observations that there was no authority on evidential requirements under firearms legislation by observing that no-one had been brave enough previously to advance the submissions the appellant was now making! The Court upheld the judgment of the Divisional Court which, in applying the dictum of Diplock LJ cited above, held that hearsay evidence was indeed admissible. Lord Denning made it clear that neither the decision-maker nor the magistrates or crown court on appeal are bound by the strict rules of evidence. They are all entitled to act, he said, on any material that appears to be useful in coming to a decision, including their own knowledge. They may receive any material which is logically probative even though it is not evidence in a court of law. Agreeing with him, Lord Roskill added that the decision-maker “is entitled and indeed obliged to take into account all relevant matters, whether or not any reports and information given to him would be strictly admissible in a court of law.”

Perhaps the only surprising matter is the frequency with which that clear statement of the law has had to be reiterated over the succeeding decades.

It got an outing in the 1980’s, when Pill J delivered judgment in Westminster City Council v Zestfair [1989] 88 LGR 288 which concerned night cafes, holding hearsay evidence to be admissible. It enjoyed a reprise in the 1990s in the Court of Appeal in the taxi licensing case of McCool v Rushcliffe [1998] 3 AFR 889 in which Lord Chief Justice Bingham said: “I conclude that, in reaching their respective decisions, the Borough Council and the justices were entitled to rely on any evidential material which might reasonably and properly influence the making of a responsible judgment in good faith on the question in issue. Some evidence such as gossip, speculation and unsubstantiated innuendo would be rightly disregarded. Other evidence, even if hearsay, might by its source, nature and inherent probability carry a greater degree of credibility. All would depend on the particular facts and circumstances.”

There was a repeat performance at the turn of the millennium in R v Licensing Justices for East Gwent ex parte Chief Constable of East Gwent [2001] LLR 693 in which the Justices had refused to admit evidence from local residents of rowdy behaviour in a neighbouring public house and were held to have been wrong to do so. Shortly thereafter, the rule was adduced by Davis J in R (Brogan) v Metropolitan Police [2002] EWHC 2127 (Admin), which concerned evidence given on applications for special orders of exemption under the Licensing Act 1964.

This amounts to a simply overwhelming cadre of authority that a licensing decision-maker is entitled to act on any material which appears to him to be logically probative, including his own local knowledge. The only boundaries are rationality – a decision to admit evidence must not be perverse – and fairness, in the sense that a party must have the opportunity to comment on that which is being relied upon by others. It is no exaggeration to say that the opposite case – that only evidence admissible in a court is admissible before a licensing authority – is completely unarguable.

Not only is the position plain, but there is a good reason for it. Whether the decision-maker is making a judgment on whether a person should be allowed to wield a shotgun, drive a member of the public in his car, run a late night burger joint or operate a nightclub, the judgment fundamentally involves an evaluation of risk. If there is no risk, there is no need for interference. If there is a significant risk – whether of physical harm or nuisance to the neighbours – then some form of interference, be it by the imposition of conditions or outright refusal, may be merited. The evaluation of risk can never be weighed as a matter of fact, as though one is weighing sugar for a recipe. It is a value judgment.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin