Dusty Bin wrote:
You may be right as far as the law is concerned Wharfy, but as far as policy making is concerned, then presumably everything can be relevant??
Cab Trade News certainly cites loss of income regularly as a reason for maintaining quotas, so why not loss of premiums, as Mick does?
As far as policy is concerned, the OFT will view premiums as being unhealthy to say the least, of that I'm quite sure.
Indeed this may be the source of the problem - many in the trade don't want to highlight this because they know it looks bad.
Dusty
When I ran my committees we had a solicitor, who used to tell us what we could consider and what we could not.
The Wirral judgement mentions that the council have not gone through the thinking statement of case.
It revolves around the law, if I applied for plates and cannot have them because of drivers takings I am on a roll at judical review.
When we went to court we always defended on enforcement issues though of course we only had one poor challenge.
taxidrivers are very poor at defending thier position, and when they do according to Mick its "abuse"
that wirral case is a cracker, its about a taxidriver who was issued a plate and when the council went to issue more he went to appeal on violation of human rights, like some trade unions his brain thought power of numbers would influence the argument(its not true in court you are right or wrong)
so he said all 70 were behind him, when he lost the court asked for all thier names to gaurantee the costs!
The judgement was written by a trainee judge its in minute detail and covers areas in theory on licensing principle, the high court laughed the appeal application out of court.
I can just see Mick falling into that trap, power is not in numbers but in the quality of the argument, price of premiums or driver takings are irrelevant, when used its a lost case.
I am sorry that Mick who always says stick to rules, then advocates arguments that are out of sink, thinks that is abusive the trade cannot progress with that attitude
Wharfie