Taxi Driver Online

So the man from Edinburgh was right then, when he said that all, not some, not even the odd one or two, but all were drug runners?

And you clearly missed my point, that if someone wanted to run drugs, then the licensed PH trade, with all the records they have to keep, would perhaps be the worst way to run drugs.

Whereas if they just used taxis off the ranks and streets, of say Calderdale, then they would be able to do so without a record of their wrong doings.

Makes you think doesn't it?

_________________
IDFIMH

you have missed the point rather, and did very early on! in that cabs are independents often whereas private hire are in companies and structures
its the structures that are relevant here.

and its why, more work is put in by councils in many places opening the hackney market effectively smashing the cartels or thats the theory

In Calderdale As I have said beffore most taxi drivers run sheets, its a revelation to me that taxi drivers nationwide dont, though,

but things are changing and the GPS proposals of charging for roads use coupled with private hire and taxi exemption therof will mean we will be monitored on every trip by big brother.

Evidence will never be forthcoming Mr Guest, after all its nearly impossible for someone to provide substance to their allegations when their train of thought forms an opinion with so many discrimanative priorities.

I think the burden of proof should be on the author of the CTN article to substantiate his allegegation, not on anyone to disprove it.

Dusty

and what makes you think that then?
if there was a challenge it would be for the challenger to disproove it.
and the responsibility is the publishers ie CTN

you say something and if someone else says you are saying fibs, then surely you would jump at the chance to reply to his remarks.
if you keep quiet it's often for a reason.

What kind of challenge are you talking about?

If it's under the libel laws then it would be for CTN to prove the points made, otherwise we'd be making all sorts of accusations against each other all the time, because it's a lot easier to make false and scurrillous accusations than to disprove them.

And you're also wrong about the responsibility - both the author of the article and anyone responsible for disseminating it would be liable, in this case CTN/T&G.

That's not to say that it is libellous because it's obvious been quite carefully worded to sound as if it is generalising, but is perhaps merely pointing towards specific cases, but the intention is perhaps to convey the former- in other words, to scaremonger.

As regards the substance of the point, presumably you think that the piece makes a good point against de-restriction? No, I didn't think so!

Dusty

Ok suppose I said you were liabalouse (which I am not)
I take you to court,
YOU are in the dock the judge would surely ask demonstrate why hes liabalous?

it couldnt get to court if I hadnt the evidence

silly bin

Well see a libel lawyer if you don't believe me.

I'd stick to the day job Wharfy, not the bar room lawyer.

Dusty

dun it! he wanted to know how I knew it was liabalous!

by the way not Wharfie!

Eh?

Dusty

seen a liabel lawyer he wanted evidence and I am not Wharfie

Of course you're not, you're Yorkie!

Dusty

Yorkie, Yorky, Wharfie, Paddington Bill or whatever your deciding to call yourself in a vain attempt to deflect your identity, do us all a favour mate and stop drinking will ya, or at least stop drinking before you start writing posts.

Guest
why are you writing under one of my names?