Taxi Driver Online

Well well. Vexatious is a slight, irritation or annoyance.

And for this the council bans one?

That's a negation of the right to confront politicians. The council would seek to protect the puir wee souls from the harsh reality that the unelected officials, aided and abetted by the elected clique that decides all, don't want them to see.

Note that the Conservative group leader wasn't concerned about the nature of the correspondence, he was more concerned about the implications of the fallout if another rape takes place in similar circumstance, and which may be attributed to the difficulty to get a taxi.

And, don't we all know that if it happens at all, isn't it increasingly likely to happen at a busy festive period.

Now, there are some on this council who realise that they have been set up for a fall. Some others will go away on holiday totally oblivious, because they were prevented from being warned.

Let's just hope that no one is raped or injured as a result of the council's actions, eh?

In Edinburgh, or any other restricted taxi area.

Now CC. Tell me where I have got it wrong. tell us all how the council is right to restrict taxis in the current climate.

BTW What price now sending mail directly to councillors' homes. Is that what the council masters want?

BTW2 Isn't this just another nail in the coffin of our alleged "democracy"?

No you accused people of taking bribes, accused them of being responsible for rape, called people scumbags, called your city a Cesspit.

I'd suggest you're bordering on either libel or slander and possibly on the verge of being visited by the police for harassment.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Let's hope so.

A scumbag is a "disgusting or contemptible person" according to the OED. So, where did I get this wrong?

Isn't it disgusting that the SNP and Labour group voted to maintain the restriction, despite the difficulties the public have getting a taxi? Females having to walk alone for an hour at 1 in the morning because they can't get a cab. None available on the streets and company fones being left to ring out? Is that disgusting?

Isn't it disgusting the the RC convener works for the council's own bus company who benefit from restricting taxi numbers, and doesn't accept the clear conflict of interest? The council's own bus company who set up their own taxibus enterprise taking what used to be taxi customers to and from the airport from the city centre, then expanding outwards to the outskirts, competing directly with the taxi trade they restrict?

Isn't it contemptible that those who voted for the restriction couldn't be bothered to read the hundreds of pages reports Inch laid before them as a deliberate disincentive to inform themselves?

Isn't it contemptible that the deputy leader of the council has his own private hire interests and was the driving force behind the restriction policy?

No CC. If they want to sue me because I used unparliamentary language towards them, bring it on. The publicity would be more than welcome.

Accusations of them being responsible for rape? I have stated this before without the reaction to ban me. However, a council is responsible for the public's safety. Think I would have any difficulty demonstrating how council policy mitigated against public safety? No taxis, a private hire trade that regularly picks up from the street, intoxicated member of the public thinks she's getting into such a licencesed vehicle. But she didn't, it was unlicensed and she was in danger?

I asked what the contents of a brown envelope might be. That's a question, not a statement of fact. I also asked what other explanation could there be. The council could always have answered the charge But they choose not to. In fact they choose never to engage. I'm therefore fully entitled to crank up the ante in the face of their refusal to answer questions. Let's bring this to court. I have got a record of their failure to ask questions going back 4 years. They act in an unaccountable way. And they are, because the elected officials continually fail to question what is going on.

Is it wrong to ask a politician how he can possibly sleep at night because of the decisions he takes as a councillor? I think not.

That leaves the Cesspit jibe. Come to Edinburgh and look around. Come and see what this council has done to this city. Using the term cesspit is perhaps mild under the circumstances.

Think they would like to go into court, suing me, and having their record as an administration put under the public limelight?

All of the above is entirely justified. Our politicians are getting it wrong, and deviously so. No one is holding them to account.

I contacted my MSP to ask questions in Parliament on my behalf. He wouldn't because when elected Salmond's administration struck an agreement with COSLA saying there would be no reform of councils for the lifetime of this administration. COSLA responded by saying that they looked for to working with the Parliament as equal partners.

Now, tell me that the system here in Scotland isn't corrupt. Tell me how their carving up the power base and excluding opposition except through expensive legal process isn't a complete negation of everything our "democracy" is supposed to stand for?

All of the above is pertinent. This will be proved by the action the council takes. They want to persecute me for despising them, then I welcome the challenge and will prove I'm right. They take no further action, then it proves I was right all along.

I would welcome the publicity, perhaps the press might actually do their job in the public interest for a change. Would the council also welcome it?

I cant see them wanting to sue you, it wouldnt be a profitable exercise, but there position would been to be justified.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Did you mean seem to be justified? If so, how?

I refer you to my previous, previous post.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I doubt that defending the limit in court has been exactly good value for the council tax payers of Edinburgh either.

_________________

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

If they incur anymore costs defending this they will just put up licence fees again to compensate £1200 for a licence when the average is £200

But it isnt about that.....jasbar needs to know that you cant go around making slanderous allegations, whatever the rights and wrongs he's doing it more harm than good.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Jasbar.....take this as advice.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2468268.0.0.php

SNP council faces probe over Souter hovercraft funding

DEMAND FOR PROBE: An SNP-led council is facing an investigation into why it has earmarked £1 million of public money for a transport project planned by the Nationalists’ main donor.


AN SNP-LED council is facing an investigation into why it has earmarked £1 million of public money for a transport project planned by the Nationalists' main donor.

Fife Council has set aside the six-figure sum so that a hovercraft service, the brainchild of SNP donor Brian Souter's firm Stagecoach, can run between Kirkcaldy and Portobello.

Labour are demanding an Audit Scotland probe after it emerged the local authority pencilled in the funding without having a business plan in place.

The £1 million pound contribution is the latest twist in Stagecoach's attempt to win public subsidy for a hovercraft service across the Firth of Forth.

Last year the firm, which is forecast to make pre-tax profits of £192.2m next year, asked the Scottish government and other stakeholders for a £3.3m contribution for the project.

But the service, which has been piloted, ran into trouble after Labour questioned the prospect of the SNP administration doling out public money to help their main donor's company, Stagecoach, whose owner bankrolled the SNP's Holyrood election campaign last year with a £500,000 donation, went cool on the project and slammed critics of the scheme for treating it as a "political football".

The hovercraft plan now appears to be back on the agenda after Fife Council, run jointly by the SNP and Liberal Democrats but which has a Nationalist leader, set aside £1m in infrastructure costs for the initiative earlier this year. LibDem Councillor Tony Martin also said: "We have put in £1 million, which came out of our revenue budget."

He added that the money would only be provided for the scheme if Edinburgh City Council, another LibDem-SNP administration, stumped up a similar amount of cash.

"The money would be used for building ramps for the hovercraft to go on in Kirkcaldy. I'm very supportive of it, but we need a commitment from the Edinburgh side," he said.

Martin said another pre-condition for handing over the £1m subsidy would be for the council to receive a plan setting out a full business case for the service.

Souter has said of the support: "If I could get Edinburgh to give as much help as Fife, we would be up and running."

The council will discuss its funding commitment to the project in a meeting this week.

However, George Foulkes, the Labour MSP for the Lothians, said he had concerns about the council's priorities: "Fife Council have to be careful for two reasons. One is that they might be subject to European regulations. Secondly, they should be concerned about favouring one company that has connections with people who are funding the SNP. This will raise a lot of eyebrows in the Kingdom when the council is cutting back on home care services. I will be writing to Audit Scotland to ask for an investigation into how this £1m was allocated."

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser said: "Given that the government has been cool towards a hovercraft, it is highly questionable that Fife Council seem to think it is worthy of support. And given that Brian Souter is the highest-profile donor to the SNP, SNP-run councils have to be extremely careful to demonstrate their dealings with him have been done in a proper arms-length manner."

Fife Council leader Peter Grant, who represents the SNP, said: "If we, as a local authority, think there are significant benefits to the people of Fife from this service, we should see if we can support it in some way. If George Foulkes thinks we'll just put money in Brian Souter's back pocket then he is out of touch."

A Stagecoach spokesman said the transport firm was committed to a £10m investment in the project, adding: "Stagecoach Group does not give money to any political party. We are apolitical and work with councils and governments of lots of different outlooks.

Asked why the firm could not meet the full costs of the hovercraft service, he said: "We have asked for potential public funding support for a project that would bring economic, social and transport benefits to people both in Fife and Edinburgh."

During last summer's trial, 32,099 passengers travelled on the hovercraft between July 16 and 28.

A meeting of the South East of Scotland Partnership (SEStran), which contributed £92,000 of the £100,000 public subsidy towards the trial, recorded that: "The press release from Stagecoach appears to have contradicted some of the information from the consultants."

In February this year, Midlothian councillor Colin Imrie, SEStran chairman, said he had met Stagecoach and "both parties recognised that much more work needed to be done on the business plan before any commitment for public fuinding could be made.

"SEStran support the scheme in principle, but we must be confident that a solid business case exists."

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

While I agree with what you say, my point was that the fact that litigation may not be a cost effective route hasn't stopped Edinburgh before.

_________________

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

But I haven't made any slanderous allegations.

I have merely been "unparliamentary" in my approach.

remember these are politicians and officials who have continually dodged the issue, playing their game out, at their speed and at great cost to all. And they've been doing this since the 666maxblack et al applications.

I have tried to deal responsibly with them, I have raised the argument, I have given them good reason in the applications, I have asked my councillor twice to intercede on my behalf, two separate councillors, I have involved my MSP, and all before I raised the matter to the level of nasty.

There is no excuse by them for the system not working, but I know it doesn't.

They will not listen to reason. This is not politicians making the decisions here, but council bureaucracy. Those who are elected to control that bureaucracy are instead controlled by it. The system is failing, and because they have the deep pocket of the public purse to defend their decisions, they exercise their discretion with the widest latitude.

This is no longer about just winning the licences, it's about demonstrating how joe public gets shafted by local government.

The latest ban is a wheeze. This arrogant council can exercise the ban, without giving any reason.

Doesn't that concern you? That government take such unaccountable action? negating my rights to approach councillors in the same way as anyone elese in the electorate? Where do they get the power to do this?

Not cause you concern CC?

Very interesting, and I personally would welcome the hovercraft service, but I don't see what point you're making.

Are you suggesting that I do a soutar and donate to the SNP election coffers? Just so the cash wouldn't have to be in a brown envelope?

The SNP have proven, by failing to lead the country honestly and openly and control the Executive, that they are no better than Labout. Equally contemptible and disgusting people. I just shortened it to scumbag so we all knew where I was coming from.

I disagree with you Jasbar, I dont think you can make allegations such as;

as the corrupt brown envelope receiving SNP and Labour scumbags are pre-programmed to do? Nothing.

Colin Keir is responsible for these females being raped

Isn't Colin Keir a scumbag. And if it was his daughter being raped?

Isn't City of Edinburgh Council corrupt with their policy to restrict taxis?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Interesting


First, how can it be an offence in law to claim a politician is corrupt. There are many types of corruption, moral, political as well as financial. The council didn't seek any explanation before they took their action.

All politicians receive brown envelopes. I haven't stated that there was any question of financial or other inducement contained in them.

I have asked Keir how much is in a brown envelope (could be his bus company pay packet), once again a question, not a statement of knowledge or fact, or specific allegation, although any allegation may be hinted at. Asking "What other explanation ..." is an invitation for him to explain himself. But he won't. Once again, no explanation sought. No invitation to retract.

Remember, Keir restricts taxis while working for the council's bus company, a clear conflict of interest. Isn't that corrupt?

There are some quite extraordinary actions being taken by this RC, supported by the council's lawyers, perhaps we may now get a chance to bring them to the attention of the court.

Colin Keir, because of his policy, which he has gone to considerable levels to enforce, much of it documented and witnessed by others, so it is no accident, is responsible for the consequences emanating from that policy. And, where difficulty in getting a taxi is caused wholly, substantially or in part, by the artificial restriction of taxis, then he is indeed responsible, accountable and culpable for the consequences of that difficulty, either wholly or at least in substantial part.

Scumbags is a shortened term to describe these groups of politicians as despicable and contemptible. Given what has happened in our trade over recent years I would have no difficulty proving this in any legal suit.

As for the reference to his daughter, this is irrelevant in terms of any legal suit. I don't even know if he has a daughter. I don't care. But we should be aware that the next incident needn't be a rape, it could be an assault, serious injury, manslaughter or murder. All would have the same effect. And it COULD happen this Christmas. If the difficulty in getting a taxi is deemed a part of the case, then responsibility lies at the council's door. I'm sure they must be aware of this.

Again, you're assuming that corrupt means financially corrupt. My argument would be that they are politically and morally corrupt. I would suspect no difficulty with this.

Perhaps the council will sue me. I would welcome this. The publicity, certainly before Christmas would be very welcome.

Let's hope that the increase in the tariff doesn't come before Christmas. The extra disincentive encouraging people to walk will simply increase the dangers.

The council is now walking a tightrope. But, it's one of their own making.