Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Council Corruption, On the Take!

Skull wrote:

What says you JD I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter? It seems there are a number of questions that need answering on this one.

My initial opinion is in line with that stated by Councillor David Guest, who said, "the board should suspend the licence and would lose credibility in future if it did not.

This is an extremely serious situation that was not a one-off whereby the owner was purchasing food from a poacher.

He showed no effort to cancel the deal after he realised the quality of the wine meant it had to come from somewhere such as a London auction house.

And any responsible applicant would surely have done something about it at that time. The idea that someone in the restaurant business, a licence holder, can be involved in this sort of transaction and face no punishment from the licensing board is simply not acceptable. In future it would be difficult to censure any licence holder if we turned a blind eye to this."

The two cases are dissimilar but one has to weigh the gravity of the circumstances, one offence was a spur of the moment spontaneous act of violence, in retaliation to being spat at, which could have even resembled the John prescot Egg throwing affair.

The other offence was not only calculated it was continuos over a long period of time. The offence was not in isolation on the contrary there were many occurances and as I have previously stated all were contrived over a long period of time. It may even be the case that this poacher was stealing to the order of the license holder?

At the time these illegal offences took place the mens rea or criminal intent was firmly evident in the license holder's mind. That means the crimes were calculated. I think the gravity of the crimes can be summed up by the sentencing of the courts, where one offence resulted in a fine, the other resulted in a custodial sentence. I think that speaks for itself.

I won't comment on the custodial sentence of two months but considering the prolonged activity of the offences it was probably about right.

As I said we are being asked to consider two dissimilar cases and I think Councillor Guest has it about right when he states "the Council will lose all future credibility".

I hope my observation helps.

Regards

Author:	Skull [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Council Corruption, On the Take!
What a Joke "Not a Fit and Proper Person" By Edinburgh Councils scale of administering Justice, this guy should have got the Electric Chair. http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=1680402005 A little bit more than a £150 fine for a slap and he gets to keep his licence. http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=580642005 Don't anyone tell me that Edinburgh Council are not taking the p***

Author:	Skull [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:57 pm ]
Post subject:
Taking the p* or not you decide? And licensing board member Eric Milligan, who is a former provost, spoke up on Mr Wencker's behalf saying that while he thought this was a very serious matter he did not feel it appropriate to strip the restaurateur of his licence. Good old Eric Milligan! But Councillor David Guest said the board should suspend the licence and would lose credibility in future if it did not. You better believe it! He added: "This is an extremely serious situation that was not a one-off whereby the owner was purchasing food from a poacher. "He showed no effort to cancel the deal after he realised the quality of the wine meant it had to come from somewhere such as a London auction house. Now there's a shock!**

Author:	Sussex [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Well let's hope someone from Edinburgh council comes on here to defend their apparent 'one rule for one, and one for another' attitude. But who are the bigger fools, the ones who vote for them, or those that get voted for?

Author:	Skull [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:32 am ]
Post subject:
I sent out the links to every Councillor in Edinburgh I am sure that they will be having a wee look on Monday. They all got an email claiming that they are corrupt and on the take needless to say they intimated legal action. As you can see I am feeling really intimidated, I mean who wouldn't be after all, it's not every day you get the opportunity call Councillors like Eric Milligan and Donald Anderson corrupt scum. Gee, do you think they will revoke my licence, I better watch out.

Author:	Skull [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 4:47 pm ]
Post subject:
Councillor David Guest said: "In future it would be difficult to censure any licence holder if we turned a blind eye to this." A "blind eye". I wonder if the Council will try and do something about the allegations I am making or will they just turn a "blind eye" or maybe it will be my turn for a brown envelope? RealCabforce/RealCabforceforum I am surprised you are not defending the Councillors actions in this matter? Turns out I was right about the council after all.

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

Council Corruption, On the Take! http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2460	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Sussex [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Skull wrote: Gee, do you think they will revoke my licence, I better watch out. I don't think they will Mr Skull, I mean if they let a £18,000 thief get away with keeping his license, then surely a few words wont hurt them.

Author:	Skull [ Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: Skull wrote: Gee, do you think they will revoke my licence, I better watch out. I don't think they will Mr Skull, I mean if they let a £18,000 thief get away with keeping his license, then surely a few words wont hurt them. Isn't it funny that when Mr Daniel Wencker was given a custodial sentence for a deliberate breech of his licensing conditions and his licence was not suspended for the period of his Jail sentence. I would have thought it to been normal practice to suspend his licence pending appeal to a sheriff the council or both to have his licence reinstated? What says you JD I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter. It seems there are a number of questions that need answering on this one. Like how is it that Mr Teflon Wencker managed to operate his Bistro from the tin pail? One rule for one and another rule for another springs to mind.

Author:	Sussex [ Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:
Skull wrote: One rule for one and another rule for another springs to mind. Therein lies your answer.

Author:	JD [ Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:47 pm ]
Post subject:
Skull wrote: What says you JD I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter? It seems there are a number of questions that need answering on this one. My initial opinion is in line with that stated by Councillor David Guest, who said, "the board should suspend the licence and would lose credibility in future if it did not. This is an extremely serious situation that was not a one-off whereby the owner was purchasing food from a poacher. He showed no effort to cancel the deal after he realised the quality of the wine meant it had to come from somewhere such as a London auction house. And any responsible applicant would surely have done something about it at that time. The idea that someone in the restaurant business, a licence holder, can be involved in this sort of transaction and face no punishment from the licensing board is simply not acceptable. In future it would be difficult to censure any licence holder if we turned a blind eye to this." The two cases are dissimilar but one has to weigh the gravity of the circumstances, one offence was a spur of the moment spontaneous act of violence, in retaliation to being spat at, which could have even resembled the John prescot Egg throwing affair. The other offence was not only calculated it was continuos over a long period of time. The offence was not in isolation on the contrary there were many occurances and as I have previously stated all were contrived over a long period of time. It may even be the case that this poacher was stealing to the order of the license holder? At the time these illegal offences took place the mens rea or criminal intent was firmly evident in the license holder's mind. That means the crimes were calculated. I think the gravity of the crimes can be summed up by the sentencing of the courts, where one offence resulted in a fine, the other resulted in a custodial sentence. I think that speaks for itself. I won't comment on the custodial sentence of two months but considering the prolonged activity of the offences it was probably about right. As I said we are being asked to consider two dissimilar cases and I think Councillor Guest has it about right when he states "the Council will lose all future credibility". I hope my observation helps. Regards

Author:	Skull [ Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: Skull wrote: What says you JD I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter? It seems there are a number of questions that need answering on this one. My initial opinion is in line with that stated by Councillor David Guest, who said, "the board should suspend the licence and would lose credibility in future if it did not. This is an extremely serious situation that was not a one-off whereby the owner was purchasing food from a poacher. He showed no effort to cancel the deal after he realised the quality of the wine meant it had to come from somewhere such as a London auction house. And any responsible applicant would surely have done something about it at that time. The idea that someone in the restaurant business, a licence holder, can be involved in this sort of transaction and face no punishment from the licensing board is simply not acceptable. In future it would be difficult to censure any licence holder if we turned a blind eye to this." The two cases are dissimilar but one has to weigh the gravity of the circumstances, one offence was a spur of the moment spontaneous act of violence, in retaliation to being spat at, which could have even resembled the John prescot Egg throwing affair. The other offence was not only calculated it was continuos over a long period of time. The offence was not in isolation on the contrary there were many occurances and as I have previously stated all were contrived over a long period of time. It may even be the case that this poacher was stealing to the order of the license holder? At the time these illegal offences took place the mens rea or criminal intent was firmly evident in the license holder's mind. That means the crimes were calculated. I think the gravity of the crimes can be summed up by the sentencing of the courts, where one offence resulted in a fine, the other resulted in a custodial sentence. I think that speaks for itself. I won't comment on the custodial sentence of two months but considering the prolonged activity of the offences it was probably about right. As I said we are being asked to consider two dissimilar cases and I think Councillor Guest has it about right when he states "the Council will lose all future credibility". I hope my observation helps. Regards Quality, JD. We are pursuing the Council doggedly, there has got to be some sort of corruption behind this.

Author:	JD [ Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Skull wrote: We are pursuing the Council doggedly, there has got to be some sort of corruption behind this. I think past decisions taken by Edinburgh's licensing committee may well highlight some discrepancies between this case and ones gone before it. But as always that information requires a lot of research. Regards JD

Author:	Ollie [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:
Skull wrote: Taking the p*** or not you decide? We have a very good rapport with the PCO. Putty in our hands. Ollie

Author:	Skull [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Ollie wrote: Skull wrote: Taking the p*** or not you decide? We have a very good rapport with the PCO. Putty in our hands. Ollie A wee brown envelope perhaps? The way of the world as they say.

Author:	GBC [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Ollie wrote: Skull wrote: Taking the p*** or not you decide? We have a very good rapport with the PCO. Putty in our hands. Ollie Except when it comes to: Bus Lanes Ranks Advertising Use of the word 'Taxi' Phone numbers on Minicabs Access to the Royal Parks Etc. Etc. Still, never mind.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	chipper [ Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:30 am ]
Post subject:
we are they ones to blame for voting them in to office. but its like most things in life there is always one rule for one and one for another and its always the good guys who get the red hot poker up the (lets not go there LOL) thats for sure