captain cab wrote:
I thought the basic rule of thumb was for a councillor to ask if he would trust the person appearing before them with close relatives or friends whilst alone driving a taxi.
F*** me that gets rid of 50% of the trade down here.
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Fit and Proper http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17112 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | jimbo [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Fit and Proper |
All taxi drivers have to be "fit" and "proper" to hold a drivers licence. Is there a legal definition of this requirement? |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fit and Proper |
jimbo wrote: All taxi drivers have to be "fit" and "proper" to hold a drivers licence.
Is there a legal definition of this requirement? The Gov's Best Practise give a reasonable definiotion of medical fitness, but not IMO a good overview of criminal fitness. That will be down to each council to decide on. But if the mush on the Clapham Omnibus thinks a driver shouldn't be driving because of his previous criminal convictions, then he shouldn't. All you need to do is find that mush and ask him. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I thought the basic rule of thumb was for a councillor to ask if he would trust the person appearing before them with close relatives or friends whilst alone driving a taxi. CC |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: I thought the basic rule of thumb was for a councillor to ask if he would trust the person appearing before them with close relatives or friends whilst alone driving a taxi.
F*** me that gets rid of 50% of the trade down here.
|
|
| Author: | toots [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: captain cab wrote: I thought the basic rule of thumb was for a councillor to ask if he would trust the person appearing before them with close relatives or friends whilst alone driving a taxi. F*** me that gets rid of 50% of the trade down here. What kind of members of the trade do you have down there |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
toots wrote: What kind of members of the trade do you have down there
Maybe a slight exaggeration, but to answer your question we have quite a lot of operator and plate baron fodder. |
|
| Author: | jimbo [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
vague definition then? |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jimbo wrote: vague definition then?
B&H have a Blue Book which outlines their viewpoint. (pages 46-63) http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgC ... x?ID=30385 |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: I thought the basic rule of thumb was for a councillor to ask if he would trust the person appearing before them with close relatives or friends whilst alone driving a taxi.
CC Wher the f*ck have you dragged that out from? |
|
| Author: | toots [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: jimbo wrote: vague definition then? B&H have a Blue Book which outlines their viewpoint. (pages 46-63) http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgC ... x?ID=30385 So following your theory it doesn't rate high on the agenda then |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
toots wrote: Sussex wrote: jimbo wrote: vague definition then? B&H have a Blue Book which outlines their viewpoint. (pages 46-63) http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgC ... x?ID=30385 So following your theory it doesn't rate high on the agenda then Hehe!! 
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
toots wrote: Sussex wrote: jimbo wrote: vague definition then? B&H have a Blue Book which outlines their viewpoint. (pages 46-63) http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgC ... x?ID=30385 So following your theory it doesn't rate high on the agenda then I don't think the standards are set high enough. |
|
| Author: | jimbo [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Leeds City Council v Hussien is one I may take a look at... |
|
| Author: | jimbo [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jimbo wrote: Leeds City Council v Hussien is one I may take a look at...
and... "(3) The purpose of the power of suspension is to protect the users of licenced vehicles and those who are driven by them and members of the public. It's purpose, therefore, is to prevent licences being given to or used by those who are not suitable people taking into account their driving record, their driving experience, their sobriety, mental and physical fitness, honesty, and that they are people who would not take advantage of their employment to abuse or assault passengers. In other words, the Council when concidering whether to suspend a licence or revoke it, is focusing on the impact of the licence holder's vehicle and character on members of the public, and in particular, but not exclusively on the potential users of those vehicles. This does not require any consideration of the personal circumstances, which are irrelevant, except perhaps in very rare cases to explain or excuse some conduct of the driver." |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Perhaps Maidstone Crown Court v Olsen 1992? It is for the applicant to prove that they are fit & proper CC |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|