Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:39 am

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 7:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43966
Location: 1066 Country
Assault cabbie gets his licence


A Stafford taxi driver with a conviction for assault has been granted a permanent licence, nine months before regulations suggest he should get back behind the wheel.

Gary Williams, who drives for Kaminski Taxis, based in Newport Road, was handed his licence for driving Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles by Stafford Borough Council's public appeals committee members after a three-month probation period.

Mr Williams was first licensed as a taxi driver in July 1998 but had it revoked in September 2001 after being convicted of using threatening, insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of provocation of violence in July 1999, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm two years later.

Appeals against the decision were dismissed by both the magistrates and crown courts. Guidelines issued to Stafford Borough Council by the Home Office suggest anyone with convictions for violence should not be granted another taxi drivers' licence for three years after their last conviction.

But this year Mr Williams was granted a temporary three month licence. Now the committee has ruled he should have his permanent taxi driver's licence back.

Stafford Borough Council's principal environmental health officer Mark Street said: "In the three months of driving we have not received any complaints and had no reason to issue penalty points or take any action disciplinary or otherwise against the applicant."

David Kaminski, owner of Kaminski Taxis, said: "I feel he has proved himself and I have been keeping a close eye on him as a supervisor."

**************************************************

Well that's alright then, because he hasn't knocked out anyone in the last three months, then everything is just ticker-tee-boo. :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:20 pm
Posts: 3272
I wonder exactly how Mr Kaminski is going to keep a close eye on him??

Dusty


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:15 pm 
Sussex Man wrote:
Assault cabbie gets his licence


A Stafford taxi driver with a conviction for assault has been granted a permanent licence, nine months before regulations suggest he should get back behind the wheel.

Gary Williams, who drives for Kaminski Taxis, based in Newport Road, was handed his licence for driving Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles by Stafford Borough Council's public appeals committee members after a three-month probation period.

Mr Williams was first licensed as a taxi driver in July 1998 but had it revoked in September 2001 after being convicted of using threatening, insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of provocation of violence in July 1999, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm two years later.

Appeals against the decision were dismissed by both the magistrates and crown courts. Guidelines issued to Stafford Borough Council by the Home Office suggest anyone with convictions for violence should not be granted another taxi drivers' licence for three years after their last conviction.

But this year Mr Williams was granted a temporary three month licence. Now the committee has ruled he should have his permanent taxi driver's licence back.

Stafford Borough Council's principal environmental health officer Mark Street said: "In the three months of driving we have not received any complaints and had no reason to issue penalty points or take any action disciplinary or otherwise against the applicant."

David Kaminski, owner of Kaminski Taxis, said: "I feel he has proved himself and I have been keeping a close eye on him as a supervisor."

**************************************************

Well that's alright then, because he hasn't knocked out anyone in the last three months, then everything is just ticker-tee-boo. :(





Hang on a minute,

each case has to be considered on its individual merits, and those must be examined, even though its very brave of the committee, to overule the crown court.

Wharfie


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:18 pm 
Dusty Bin wrote:
I wonder exactly how Mr Kaminski is going to keep a close eye on him??

Dusty


The same way we all keep a close on drivers, monitoring closely times taken keep ears to the ground.

the pressures caused to propietors by length of licensing is obviously leeding to the taking of unacceptable risks.

Wharfie


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Maybe Wharfy, but my point was that when the driver is actually doing his work then it's difficult to keep a 'close eye' on him.

In other jobs where people have close contact with the public there is less need for government involvement because the employer can keep a closer eye on the worker, but not as a cab driver, hence the need for licensing, but in this case the licensing process has obviously come up with a controversial outcome.

If Mr Kaminski really could keep a sufficiently close eye on the driver, there would be no need to license the latter.

Dusty


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:50 pm 
Dusty Bin wrote:
Maybe Wharfy, but my point was that when the driver is actually doing his work then it's difficult to keep a 'close eye' on him.

In other jobs where people have close contact with the public there is less need for government involvement because the employer can keep a closer eye on the worker, but not as a cab driver, hence the need for licensing, but in this case the licensing process has obviously come up with a controversial outcome.

If Mr Kaminski really could keep a sufficiently close eye on the driver, there would be no need to license the latter.

Dusty


what we dont know is the circumstances of the conviction, and whether the driver is cabbed or not, it looks on cold print terrible, it might not be.

either way I hope for committe sake he doesnt go beserk the press will make mincemeat of them.

Wharfie


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43966
Location: 1066 Country
Wharfie wrote:
Hang on a minute,

each case has to be considered on its individual merits, and those must be examined, even though its very brave of the committee, to overule the crown court.

Wharfie


Wharfy did you have to quote the whole blinking thing, don't forget someone has to pay for all this memory. :D :D

However your right the committee did have the evidence before them, as did the court.

My point is that just because someone is a good little boy for three months, doesn't in my view make him fit and proper.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 7:16 am 
perhaps we shod lets the customers decide if they want to get into a thugs car. would i feel sfae my family going home in a thugs car no and why should anyone else have to.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43966
Location: 1066 Country
That's another problem with having 400 different sets of licensing conditions.

Even if the thug was banned in one area, he still might meet the fit and proper criteria in another district.

I'm afraid we are back to those nasty national conditions. If a thug is a thug in one manor, then he should be a thug in them all.

Yes even Mansfield. :D :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 12:16 am 
Sussex Man wrote:
That's another problem with having 400 different sets of licensing conditions.

Even if the thug was banned in one area, he still might meet the fit and proper criteria in another district.

I'm afraid we are back to those nasty national conditions. If a thug is a thug in one manor, then he should be a thug in them all.

Yes even Mansfield. :D :D :D


but each indivatual case has to be determined on its merits!
he might be a thug in Worthing, but magistrates in Mansfield might find him not guilty

Wharfie


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43966
Location: 1066 Country
I think you are agreeing with me Wharfy. :?

When I mean national standards, I mean national laws. If a driver speeds in Worthing and gets caught by a camera, he gets 3 points and a £60.00 (I think) fine.

If he does like wise in Halifax, he receives the same penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:09 pm 
Wharfie wrote:
Sussex Man wrote:
That's another problem with having 400 different sets of licensing conditions.

Even if the thug was banned in one area, he still might meet the fit and proper criteria in another district.

I'm afraid we are back to those nasty national conditions. If a thug is a thug in one manor, then he should be a thug in them all.

Yes even Mansfield. :D :D :D


but each indivatual case has to be determined on its merits!
he might be a thug in Worthing, but magistrates in Mansfield might find him not guilty

Wharfie


A person can appeal at the magistrates if he thinks he's been victimised by the Council, 99.9% of the time the magistrates will go in his favour and rule against the Council. It's happend in other areas.

Image


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 3:37 am 
but not your eh? :oops:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 12:51 pm 
Wharfie wrote:
but not your eh? :oops:


Been there got the T-shirt and won Geoff. :D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2003 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 11:04 pm
Posts: 725
Location: Essex, England
Anonymous wrote:
perhaps we shod lets the customers decide if they want to get into a thugs car. would i feel sfae my family going home in a thugs car no and why should anyone else have to.


Thats an idea, perhaps we should all have our criminal record on the door of the cab?

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 44 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group