Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Wed Apr 22, 2026 3:32 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
Licensing Sub-Committee meeting 4/2/2010

Keir bottled it, the meeting was chaired by Councillor Lang. His excuse now is?

The committee rearranged the order of the agenda again.

Gallacher was called before the others on the agenda, there was an outstanding police objection, he failed to show – case continued - to a definite refusal (fair hearing?)

Feachan was called – His case had been continued from the 18th Jan meeting because his application had not had the requisite time for objections to be lodged. He was refused.

Peden was called - His case had been continued from the previous meeting – he had averred that he should have been granted because his real position on the IPL was 25. The council agreed they had screwed up and granted his licence. This means that the council has now gone over the alleged 30 licences “needed to satisfy outstanding demand”. One councillor stated he was happy to agree to this grant on the basis that next time a demand was identified it could simply be reduced by one (Yup, this is for real).

City and Central maintained their objection to this application. The objection was ignored. This proves that the council never had any intention to accept these objections – presumably because it realises that they are entirely borne out of commercial interest and not relating specifically to the applicant. (Members have shelled out more cash to fund these two miscreants on a jolly pursuing their own agenda.)

Mustapha was next – he had been position 104 on the agenda, but was called early to allow the councillor representing him to attend another commitment. (What would have happened if his new status on the order of play had fallen when the council were granting licences?)

Garry represented another applicant. (I believe Naeneck shrivelled up when he saw them) In his presentation he pointed to the fact that the process denies a fair hearing. It sets a pre-programmed refusal for those not on the IPL – no one can get access to the list because it has long been closed. He pointed to vested interests. He pointed out the right to unfettered access to the tools of the trade. Plate prices; ITS going down; the real prospect of guys losing shedloads; the unsustainability of refusing licences on Section 10 (3) etrc.

The council is all over the place. Everyone who applied can get their licence through the court. There is enough evidence now to amply demonstrate the callous disregard for the process shown by the council. More than enough to allow a Sheriff to grant outright rather than refer it back to the council.

This process is so fundamentally flawed that the Aberdeen Corporate Services Director’s contention that the process is untenable has now been amply shown.

The council allowing this matter to go before the court, with all that has happened, will severely embarrass the council, the councillors and the whole political process. Sheriffs don’t like to have to clear up a political mess of a council’s making. It highlights that the system is failing, that the natural order is breaking down.

And it has clearly broken down here. The council has failed. Parliament has failed by its MSPs and office bearers refusing to intercede to bring common sense to matter. They are jointly bringing the political process into disrepute.

And all to prop up vested interests in a taxi trade that suborns the rights of individuals to determine their own work situation, their enterprise and their right to best provide for their families.

The politicians and the media ignoring all of this is a disgrace. They should be protecting us from such bureaucratic autocracy. They aren’t. So, what is the alternative? And is that what we really want in 21st Century Britain?

Time for a serious rethink here - by ALL concerned.

_________________
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?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57319
Location: 1066 Country
Jasbar wrote:
One councillor stated he was happy to agree to this grant on the basis that next time a demand was identified it could simply be reduced by one (Yup, this is for real).

Image

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 2372
Location: edinburgh
2/4/2010

surely you mean 4/2/2010 jasbar

f*cking hate the way Americanism creeps into our country.

keep it british :lol:

so were all in the same ball park....a mean fitba pitch

fecking ronald mcdonald f*cks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 2372
Location: edinburgh
Sussex wrote:
Jasbar wrote:
One councillor stated he was happy to agree to this grant on the basis that next time a demand was identified it could simply be reduced by one (Yup, this is for real).

Image

well why the f*ck didn't he grant them all and simply reduce the next demand by 70 next time round.
priceless absolutely priceless. :lol: :lol:

and these morons run our city..our country............or do the!!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 306 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group