Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - The allegation is ....

Oh dear,

Gary sounds more guilty by the minute.

All that silence usually means somebody has something to hide.

As frank says

The silence is deafening!

So lets say you and your neighbour have an argument and you witness him smashing your window at 3am!

You go to the police and he says "it's only an allegation! You got any proof?"

Does that make the allegation any less true? It's then up to the authorities to find the proof.

IMO. Skull knows he did wrong and decided to stay quiet, thinking (perhaps under advisement from his best friend) that as it was only an allegation and there is no truth to the matter (as skull claims) he thought the matter would be washed away. But the matter hasn't been washed away. Skull was given many a chance to put forward his version of events. He didn't. The LA then decided to suspend him as they mustve felt there was enough evidence to back the allegation.

you want a legal system that punishes you on tittle tattle. On unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusation.

Jasbar wrote:

you want a legal system that punishes you on tittle tattle. On unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusation.

If Skull had given his side of events, who is to say he would be punished? If he had given his version then maybe it would have been seen that the accusation was unfounded. By refusing to co-operate, the council can come to any conclusion that they see fit.

It wouldn't matter what Skull said.

BTW Let's be quite clear about this.

According to the council's own procedures, the Skull didn't breach any of the licensing conditions he is claimed to have.

His licence was taken from him simply because the council claims he had.

Now, given that the council ignored his response, and it has a record putting documents "before" councillors who then ignore the content, what would be the point of arguing this before the committee.

The decision was pre-determined. Indeed it is certain that some specific steps were taken to reach the outcome, rather than that outcome following as a result of procedure.

Quality!

Author:	Jasbar [ Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:	The allegation is ....
.... just that. An allegation. It has no basis in fact unless corroborated. The Skulls licence was removed based on an allegation alone. Apparently Reid appeared to vent his spleen. You remember Reid, he's the guy who just before the alleged incident took note of derogatory press about black cabs. Seems he recalled all this to encourage him to make complaint. No bias thee then. Except there's no evidence that any incident actually took place. On this basis Keir took away a man's livelihood. Think about that when you're paying you mortgage this month. It's Keir who decides whether you will next month. Whether you will even have a mortgage. Whether your children will have a roof over their head. And based on what someone tells him, not established fact. This is the quality of the scottish national party. This is how they conduct themselves in government. They don't protect rights, they ignore them so they can maintain their fragile control over us. If Aberdeen's committee was misguided in refusing a licence .... ?

Author:	Frank Lay [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:02 am ]
Post subject:
Oh dear, Gary sounds more guilty by the minute. All that silence usually means somebody has something to hide.

Author:	LongshanksED [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:39 am ]
Post subject:
As frank says The silence is deafening!

Author:	gusmac [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:03 am ]
Post subject:
Frank Lay wrote: Oh dear, Gary sounds more guilty by the minute. All that silence usually means somebody has something to hide. LongshanksED wrote: As frank says The silence is deafening! "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

Author:	LongshanksED [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:28 am ]
Post subject:
So lets say you and your neighbour have an argument and you witness him smashing your window at 3am! You go to the police and he says "it's only an allegation! You got any proof?" Does that make the allegation any less true? It's then up to the authorities to find the proof. IMO. Skull knows he did wrong and decided to stay quiet, thinking (perhaps under advisement from his best friend) that as it was only an allegation and there is no truth to the matter (as skull claims) he thought the matter would be washed away. But the matter hasn't been washed away. Skull was given many a chance to put forward his version of events. He didn't. The LA then decided to suspend him as they mustve felt there was enough evidence to back the allegation.

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

The allegation is .... http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16403	Page 1 of 5

Author:	Jasbar [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:39 am ]
Post subject:
LongshanksED wrote: So lets say you and your neighbour have an argument and you witness him smashing your window at 3am! You go to the police and he says "it's only an allegation! You got any proof?" Does that make the allegation any less true? It's then up to the authorities to find the proof. IMO. Skull knows he did wrong and decided to stay quiet, thinking (perhaps under advisement from his best friend) that as it was only an allegation and there is no truth to the matter (as skull claims) he thought the matter would be washed away. But the matter hasn't been washed away. Skull was given many a chance to put forward his version of events. He didn't. The LA then decided to suspend him as they mustve felt there was enough evidence to back the allegation. You do understand what your saying, don't you? I know you're not the brightest candle in the box, but you want a legal system that punishes you on tittle tattle. On unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusation. This how you really want to live? This was the same process that the Nazis used to pluck people out of their bed and send them to the gas chambers. FFS grow up.

Author:	LongshanksED [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:
If skull refuses to answer the allegation does that make the allegation less true? What wa the allegation? Personal threat of violence? Personally insulting the customer? Was it the customer that made the allegation or was it another member of the public? Without facts no one not involved can make judgements if skull is innocent or not but there has to be some substance to the accustation or there wouldn't have been one in the first place!

Author:	sunset [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:
longshanks said Without facts no one not involved can make judgements if skull is innocent or not exactly

Author:	Nidge [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:49 pm ]
Post subject:
Lets hope Skull is suffering because if he isn't he will be if Jasbar the clown keeps filling him full of shit.

Author:	grandad [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Jasbar wrote: you want a legal system that punishes you on tittle tattle. On unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusation. If Skull had given his side of events, who is to say he would be punished? If he had given his version then maybe it would have been seen that the accusation was unfounded. By refusing to co-operate, the council can come to any conclusion that they see fit.

Author:	Jasbar [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:
grandad wrote: Jasbar wrote: you want a legal system that punishes you on tittle tattle. On unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusation. If Skull had given his side of events, who is to say he would be punished? If he had given his version then maybe it would have been seen that the accusation was unfounded. By refusing to co-operate, the council can come to any conclusion that they see fit. Dearie me. And by cooperating the council can still come to any conclusion the see fit. And they did. It wouldn't matter what Skull said, it would be just as unsubstantiated as the allegations made against him. And, given the council's desire to witch-hunt who is it more convenient to believe? Remaining silent, the incident hasn't even been proven to have happened. BTW The reason the Skull is not posting directly is because some contractor(Council? ) has cut through fone lines and the whole area is down, possibly for another week. [/b]

Author:	Frank Lay [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:57 pm ]
Post subject:
By co-operating, You are able to put forward your own view of the incident. You are then entitled to use an appeals procedure. You can then move onto the courts if required. garys actions have had the effect of destroying that path for him. It's going nowhere now, even he must be realising that now. You were telling us a few weeks ago that the council would "bottle it" or if they did not the whole licencing system would collapse. That did not happen, you were wrong. The pair of you are nothing more than a couple of trouble makers, you are not as important as you seem to think you are.

Author:	grandad [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:
Jasbar wrote: It wouldn't matter what Skull said. Of course it mattered you fool. By saying nothing it was inevitable that he would be suspended. If he had said something he may not have been suspended.

Author:	Jasbar [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:21 pm ]
Post subject:
BTW Let's be quite clear about this. According to the council's own procedures, the Skull didn't breach any of the licensing conditions he is claimed to have. His licence was taken from him simply because the council claims he had. Now, given that the council ignored his response, and it has a record putting documents "before" councillors who then ignore the content, what would be the point of arguing this before the committee. The decision was pre-determined. Indeed it is certain that some specific steps were taken to reach the outcome, rather than that outcome following as a result of procedure. Quality!

Page 1 of 5	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Frank Lay [ Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:
Jasbar wrote: BTW Let's be quite clear about this. According to the council's own procedures, the Skull didn't breach any of the licensing conditions he is claimed to have. His licence was taken from him simply because the council claims he had. Now, given that the council ignored his response, and it has a record putting documents "before" councillors who then ignore the content, what would be the point of arguing this before the committee. The decision was pre-determined. Indeed it is certain that some specific steps were taken to reach the outcome, rather than that outcome following as a result of procedure. Quality! Did the complaint from a member of the public about his behaviour not amount to a beach of licencing conditions? Of course the complaint was open to challenge, but gary chose not to do that. As gary is clearly to ashamed to tell even us what he is supposed to have done, we can only presume the complaint was correct.