Taxi Driver Online

Not so long ago, City of Edinburgh Council, guided by Jim Inch (you remember him), used licence suspension as a punishment for licence holders' minor infractions.

So, elected councillors happily dispensed 4 weeks suspension here, three months suspension there, all on the pretext of the licence holder being deemed not "fit and proper" to hold a licence.

Of course, when asked what "fit and proper" was, there was a deafening silence. It's not defined. Licence holders are punished for a "crime" which has no definition.

And when asked how such an individual could become fit and proper again to allow them to regain their licence at the end of their "sentence", again there was a deafening silence. The council couldn't explain it.

Of course the whole thing was a nonsense, there was nothing in the CGSA 1982 to permit this, and the council, to some degree of credit, changed their procedures and abandoned such punishments.

Except, rather than go back to the Act and interpret it properly, they continued to issue punishments, only rather than dispense variable short periods of suspension they resorted to simply suspending licences until renewal.


What this means is that two individuals, committing the same heinous crime, like swearing at an obnoxious customer for example, would be subjected to a variable punishment depending on how long their licence still had to run. And given the three year licence renewal period most succumb to, it could be from 1 month to getting on for three years.

Now remember, all of this happens in secret. No records are published. When you appear before the kangaroo court, you have no idea how other people have been treated. All you know is that you will not be treated equally with them.

Now, the paradox is that when the council writes to you officially to advise you of their decision, the letter will say that your licence has been suspended. But it really hasn't. It's been revoked. And, as such, there are immediate grounds for appeal that the council has erred in Law.

If my experience with Edinburgh's council shows anything, it is that the council is not interested in properly applying the Law which governs it, rather it is only interested in interpreting it in such a way that it can maintain draconian control over we minions.

Is this what councils should be about? Should we be subjected to councils abusing us in this way, because they know the cost of seeking redress through the Courts is prohibitive, unlikely to attract legal aid, and the Sheriffs, so as to not interfere with the political process, will only speak to matters of procedure and allow councils the widest latitude, thereby failing to protect us.

And all of this is propped up by elected politicians who should be questioning every process the council operates. That is what they are charged to do. That is their duty to the electorate to ensure fair treatment for we who elect them.

But politicians don't. Never have. Never will. Because election into the system behoves them to protect that system over all else, especially from us.

So, politicians are protecting secret kangaroo courts, variable punishments, unequal "justice".

This is the reality in Stasi Scotland 2013.

_________________
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?"

I agree with most of what you say here. However this isn't the same across Scotland.
Stasi Edinburgh might be closer to the mark, although it doesn't quite have the same ring about it.

_________________

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

quite a bit of what you've written could be said about Edinburghs west coast sister.


perhaps rather than ranting here about it you should take it up with your representative at the Scottish Parliament?

Doesn't it worry you that taxi drivers in general accept the situation or perhaps can't see the problem?

TBH I chose the double "s" for the purpose of the forthcoming book cover. The SS connotation will have real impact on Kindle.

I'm on the case.

_________________
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?"

I was at the meeting, and those conducting the “interview” don’t even see the problem.

When someone makes a complaint, you should receive the complaint in writing. And before being asked to appear at interview and speaking to the allegation.

You should also be informed you have the right to be accompanied by a legal representative to speak on your behalf or someone to act as a witness to proceedings.

If it’s a civil complaint, you should not be interviewed by Police Inspector acting in a civilian capacity no matter what the complaint is about.

You should also be informed how they are to determine there is a case to be answered i.e. by what might be admitted during the interview or proven by any other means and before being told you have a right of silence.

Upon speaking to the complaint it should be explained that any information gathered may be held on file and used against you at a later date.

And all before appearing up at Cooncil HQ and facing the Kangaroo court on whether or not you are a fit and proper person to hold a license, which is of course, another story.

Now can anyone explain how the above protects your right to a fair hearing?

Think I just answered this on the tw4t thread.

_________________

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

I'm sure Lothian's finest await it with baited breath

_________________

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

Unless you're making an extremely clever point which I can't fathom, its ... bated.

_________________
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?"

O grade English

_________________

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

It worries me greatly to the point that I along with other worried private hire colleagues setup the private hire drivers association to give us a voice with the councils have a look and tell me what you think www.thephda.co.uk

It’s a fair start. However, you’ve got to be careful you don’t become a part of the problem and not the solution. Most committees end up getting sucked into the process, like a bunch of old Uncle Tom’s. It stops being about their members and the trade and all about big’n themselves up to their colleagues and families, while achieving very little in the way of real change and representation for their members.

First things first - you need the rules of your association written into a formal constitution. I don't really know what you stand for, you need to establish the fundamental principles for governing your association.

You should also consider fixed-term committee positions. A committee member should only be allowed to serve a maximum term of perhaps three years, before being forced to stand down. Oh and that’s it. You can’t stand for re-election. Every committee needs new blood and no one should be allowed to turn it into a job or an ego trip.

There’s also the question of charging membership fees to pay for your time on committee but more importantly, to fund legal representation for your organisation and its members. Without any legal teeth, you are on a hiding to nothing. Your council simply doesn't have to take you seriously. You need to be in a position to give them a bloody nose through the courts, and if need be, to take direct action into the streets.

If you fail to achieve any of the above, you’ll end up at Cooncil HQ, drinking cups of tea and coffee while passing around the gypsy creams, pretending you’re actually doing something.

Oh and Good Luck.

I'm curious, what's the legal structure of the PHDA?

http://thephda.co.uk/

Oh and you need to get your articles of association on your website.

They are. Up in the forum very much doubt you'll ever find some of our committee would ever get sucked in. Think of you and jasbars weegie ph cousins but if your bored and feel like making any pointers them were always open to objective criticsism always good to get the views of the other side of the trade too.


a brief who what and why

http://www.thephda.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2


and our constitution

http://www.thephda.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=120