Taxi Driver Online

PH driver looses his badge, because he was caught repeatedly touting in area A.

Gets badged as a Hackney in area B.

Advertises as "your local taxi firm", ten miles from area B. in area A (yellow pages etc)

No booking office, but lives in area A.

Still plys for hire on the streets of area A

Been reported many many times, nothing happened (no surprise there! - its Chichester District)

I count six offences so far - any advance???
_______________________________________________________

PH driver looses his badge, because he was caught repeatedly touting in area A.........one

Gets badged as a Hackney in area B.........no offence

Advertises as "your local taxi firm", ten miles from area B. in area A (yellow pages etc)............doubt it, yell/phones/radios know no borders

No booking office, but lives in area A........hes a area B hackney now, doesnt need an office surely

Still plys for hire on the streets of area A........if hes caught, yes, but innocent till proven guilty is a cornerstone of english law.

so thats one, maybe one and a half?

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

I don't count if he hasn't been caught - the act is still illegal

Should have said he did not declare his ban when he applied to area B



Not a fit and proper person?

Did he make area B aware that area A revoked his license?

_________________
IDFIMH

Nope:

how do you know?

the LO cant have divulged that to you

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

lots of things are illegal

litter
spitting
speeding

but yr only guilty if caught, charged and convicted

30 years ago carl bridgewater (13) was shot dead and 4 men locked up, they are now, officially, innocent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Bridgewater

go figure

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

I asked - and got a reply



Um... Right or wrong - he most certainly did.




Its the ACT that is illegal - conviction is secondary, and is intended to prove culpability.



Very true, but the poor lad was still murdered, which I believe is an illegal act??

your logic fails totally here.

The failing was that the system brought a guilty verdict on four innocent men, thankfully overturned latterly.

returning to our miscreant HC driver, when he gets caught, charged and convicted then and only then is he actually guilty of any offence

by the way, its only partially the act that is the offence, he may not be aware its an offence, and maybe you could advise him?...

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

You are guilty when you break the law - not when you get caught or convicted.
Being guilty means you have broken the law - even if you get away with it.
Capture and conviction mean you have been proven guilty by legal process.
Not the same thing at all.



That's a crock of sh*t.
Ignorance of the law is no defence. You are still guilty of an offense even if you didn't know it was illegal.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

What does it mean to “knowingly” commit a crime?

Great question. Glad you asked. Many laws require that you “knowingly” engaged in a criminal act (iit doesn’t matter if you knew or not whether your actions violated the law, it only matters that you “knowingly” committed an act that was against the law). When a criminal statute says that, in order to be convicted, you must have “knowingly” committed the crime, the crime involves mens rea.

It may be easier to explain this concept by illustration: Let’s say that a statute made it a crime to “knowingly carry a gun into a supermarket.” To be convicted of the crime, you must have known that 1) you had a gun, and 2) you were in a supermarket. If, for instance, you were completely loony and you thought you were carrying a box of Twinkies into a donut shop, then you didn’t “knowingly” commit the crime, and therefore you didn’t commit the crime. Likewise, if an ex-boyfriend approached you at the entrance of a supermarket and secretly dropped a pistol into your bag, then you didn’t “know” you had a gun when you walked into the supermarket and, therefore, you didn’t commit the crime.

The government doesn’t always have to prove that you “knowingly” committed a crime through direct evidence (such as a confession). Circumstantial evidence is also allowed. Therefore, in the above case, if you didn’t admit to knowing you had a gun in your bag when you entered a supermarket, the government could introduce evidence that someone saw you put the gun in your bag or overheard you telling someone else that you planned to take a gun in the supermarket or even that your bag was too heavy not to know there was a gun inside it.

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

Like "knowingly" Plagiarising?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
http://www.quizlaw.com/criminal_law/wha ... nowing.php
Nice cut and paste BTW

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Is the Answer 87?

No you forgot to carry the 1 Silly

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/