John T wrote:
It's amazing how you reach ridiculous conclusions.
To put it simply for you Jim, The Council, whether you like it or not have evidence that shows there is no "Significant unmet demand." They believe there is no significant unmet demand, the taxi trade knows there is no significant unmet demand. Only you seen to have a problem with this.
The decision was made because you had not produced any evidence to show that the information held and accepted by the council was wrong. Your soliloquy was rejected as it failed to produce any evidence of significant unmet demand. You were not required to show unmet demand and failed. You were required to prove the council information wrong and you failed.
Maybe if you stopped writing long-winded bullshit and concentrated on producing straightforward clear facts, you might make some sense.
Of course there are taxi queues at times. Show me an area where there are none at peak times. Transport marshals were introduced to reduce problems such as queue-jumping and violence at taxi ranks and to make them safe for people wanting to wait for a taxi in the city centre rather than walking outwards - demand had nothing to do with their introduction.
You're not the brightest candle in the box are you John T. You clearly can't understand logic or even basic English.
Wrong 1:
Under the Act I don't have to prove that there is a significant demand which is being unmet. Of course, you being a bright boy may now respond and
show us all specifically where the Act says I should provide such information. I await this with bated breath.
The onus is on the council to prove that there isn't. The test is they need to be
reasonably "satisfied" that it doesn't exist. It is duty bound to have robust information which demonstrates this. That was the opinion of the Sheriff in the Dundee Taxi Company v Dundee City Council case.
The Sheriff opined that the council is required to have continuous updated information if it wants to restrict licences under section 10 (3).
What Edinburgh has doesn't even begin to pass this test.
Wrong 2:
A disputed survey in 2005 that only examined those indicators that were known not to provide eveidence of demand. remember this survey was instigated because the council's restriction policy was under threat from 40 applications. The survey was used to deny those applications, despite Wigglesworth saying it was flawed.
The 2007 interim survey was specifically brought in to deny our licence applications. Remember it was not a pre-intended survet, because the council at the time was instituting its policy plans through the taxi action plan. Remember the taxi action plan?
The 2007 survey, once again was a knee jerk response which only looked at the specific criteria that could be used to deny applications. Once again Wigglesworth came over the hill to tell us that the survey was only accurate for those stances covered and that there may be demand elsewhere. He even suggested that the figure could be 100 licences required, however the committee failed to recognise he was trying to get the council out of an interested parties list hole, and refuse to go along with it.
So, you see John T, the council most certain does NOT have evidence that there is no significant demand.
Wrong 3:
You John T, and the rest of the numpties in our trade who are depending on the council to keep their plate values are wrong to think the council is going to win here. It can't in a heartbeat. The race here is whether our licences are granted before the council can close the door. But granted they will, probably by a Sheriff, and we are fully aware the council will appeal these all the way to Judicial review.
Wrong 4:
You are clearly stupid if you believe that the weak state of the taxi trade is going to protect your interests. A trade left to pick off the carcass left by strong public sector transport and a vibrant unrestricted PH is going to leave you with nothing more than bare bones to eat. Only those with strong teeth will survive.
Until you put your brain cell in gear and begin to deal with the issues both the taxi trade, and I have to say the PH, are going to get savaged by the strong public purse of council transport services, Longer hours and less reward are the only outcome.
Finally, the writ of appeal is being written now. I suggest you look at it very carefully and see the new areas of appeal that we will be engaging. yes, the matter has been cranked up even further.
Also, the next round of licence applications are due. On the back of the council's "reaffirmation" of its restriction policy we expect to be summoned to the November meeting.
We are prepared.
Login
Register
FAQ
