Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Apr 30, 2026 9:05 am

Board index » General » Licensing and legal

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 6
  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Nidge2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:13 pm 
What the Counicl said when I phoned up was, we are judging him on what he is now not what he's done in the past.
Top
  
 
ged may
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:26 pm 
Silly me I thought they were the dates of the Acts not his convictions.
Ged
Top
  
 
Alex
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 6:09 pm
Posts: 1180
Location: Miles away from paradise, not far from hell.
As did I Ged, as did I. :oops:

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk
Top
 Profile  
 
Guest
PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 10:35 am 
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
no convictions for over 20 years, he has a right to be considered.


Wrong, his last conviction was 6 years ago.



Nothing on list after 1978. You must have a different list.
Top
  
 
Nidge2
PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:37 am 
Anonymous wrote:
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
no convictions for over 20 years, he has a right to be considered.


Wrong, his last conviction was 6 years ago.



Nothing on list after 1978. You must have a different list.


He was only 7 years old in 1978.
Top
  
 
Sussex
PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57349
Location: 1066 Country
Anonymous wrote:
Nothing on list after 1978. You must have a different list.

The dates given by Nigel are the dates the acts were in-acted, not the dates of the driver's convictions. :shock:

_________________
IDFIMH
Top
 Profile  
 
Nidge2
PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 9:24 am 
Sussex wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Nothing on list after 1978. You must have a different list.

The dates given by Nigel are the dates the acts were in-acted, not the dates of the driver's convictions. :shock:


Cheers :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Top
  
 
Guest
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:19 pm 
This debate has amused me as it assumes licensing officers per say have power to issue licences at all, they dont they must follow proceadures rules and regulations strictly to the letter.

how was this information got by Nigel in the first place and who gave authority for it to go on the internet?

its confidential information, and breaks almost all the rules and laws governing the internet.

the most terrifying thing to me is that Nigel thinks hes fit to judge! Nige you are not, you are untrained, undiciplined.

and you think you can tell your council? definitly not.

they could be right they could be wrong but thier decision is better than the one Nige could make from stolen information thats incomplete.

and as it is so no one can judge it.
Top
  
 
Nidge2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:17 pm 
Anonymous wrote:
This debate has amused me as it assumes licensing officers per say have power to issue licences at all, they dont they must follow proceadures rules and regulations strictly to the letter.

how was this information got by Nigel in the first place and who gave authority for it to go on the internet?

its confidential information, and breaks almost all the rules and laws governing the internet.

the most terrifying thing to me is that Nigel thinks hes fit to judge! Nige you are not, you are untrained, undiciplined.

and you think you can tell your council? definitly not.

they could be right they could be wrong but thier decision is better than the one Nige could make from stolen information thats incomplete.

and as it is so no one can judge it.


Welcome back Geoff, the guy in question gave his CRB sheet to be photocopied to a person who shall remain anonymous this resulted in it no longer being confidential information, the local paper is running a story on it next week so look out :shock: :shock: :shock: Legal advice has been taken and we are not in the wrong, it's the Council who are in the wrong. Oh by the way Geoff please don't make out I'm a thief because I'm not a solicitor will prove that if you want a letter from him to prove so I will get him to draft one up and send to your address the last person who accused me of being a thief it cost them £3,600. Would you want this man taking your kids to school? I know I wouldn't.
Top
  
 
Nidge2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:24 pm 
Anonymous wrote:
This debate has amused me as it assumes licensing officers per say have power to issue licences at all, they dont they must follow proceadures rules and regulations strictly to the letter.

how was this information got by Nigel in the first place and who gave authority for it to go on the internet?

its confidential information, and breaks almost all the rules and laws governing the internet.

the most terrifying thing to me is that Nigel thinks hes fit to judge! Nige you are not, you are untrained, undiciplined.

and you think you can tell your council? definitly not.

they could be right they could be wrong but thier decision is better than the one Nige could make from stolen information thats incomplete.

and as it is so no one can judge it.


Oh and 1 more thing, under the enhanced CRB checks no conviction is classed as spent, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Top
  
 
Guest
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:54 pm 
Anonymous wrote:
its confidential information, and breaks almost all the rules and laws governing the internet.


and you know all about breaking rules and laws governing the internet Geoff don't you.
Top
  
 
Guest
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:29 pm 
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This debate has amused me as it assumes licensing officers per say have power to issue licences at all, they dont they must follow proceadures rules and regulations strictly to the letter.

how was this information got by Nigel in the first place and who gave authority for it to go on the internet?

its confidential information, and breaks almost all the rules and laws governing the internet.

the most terrifying thing to me is that Nigel thinks hes fit to judge! Nige you are not, you are untrained, undiciplined.

and you think you can tell your council? definitly not.

they could be right they could be wrong but thier decision is better than the one Nige could make from stolen information thats incomplete.

and as it is so no one can judge it.


Welcome back Geoff, the guy in question gave his CRB sheet to be photocopied to a person who shall remain anonymous this resulted in it no longer being confidential information, the local paper is running a story on it next week so look out :shock: :shock: :shock: Legal advice has been taken and we are not in the wrong, it's the Council who are in the wrong. Oh by the way Geoff please don't make out I'm a thief because I'm not a solicitor will prove that if you want a letter from him to prove so I will get him to draft one up and send to your address the last person who accused me of being a thief it cost them £3,600. Would you want this man taking your kids to school? I know I wouldn't.




stop right there!
you got this information unauthorised and there is not enough to determine the application.

Nige about taking my kids to school can i SAY MOST PRIVATE HIRE AND TAXI DRIVERS YOU INCLUDED WOULD not be deemed suitable to take my kids to school.
Top
  
 
Guest
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:31 pm 
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This debate has amused me as it assumes licensing officers per say have power to issue licences at all, they dont they must follow proceadures rules and regulations strictly to the letter.

how was this information got by Nigel in the first place and who gave authority for it to go on the internet?

its confidential information, and breaks almost all the rules and laws governing the internet.

the most terrifying thing to me is that Nigel thinks hes fit to judge! Nige you are not, you are untrained, undiciplined.

and you think you can tell your council? definitly not.

they could be right they could be wrong but thier decision is better than the one Nige could make from stolen information thats incomplete.

and as it is so no one can judge it.


Oh and 1 more thing, under the enhanced CRB checks no conviction is classed as spent, please correct me if I'm wrong.



read the form its all confidential sensitive information.

and yes what you say is wrong enhanced check is just that the information status changes nothing Nige you are wrong.
Top
  
 
Sussex
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57349
Location: 1066 Country
Nidge wrote:
Oh and 1 more thing, under the enhanced CRB checks no conviction is classed as spent, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Nigel you have done me proud, so take no notice of him. :D :D

_________________
IDFIMH
Top
 Profile  
 
Gateshead Angel
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:07 am 
Sussex wrote:
Nigel you have done me proud, so take no notice of him. :D :D


No-one should take any notice of him, he's a bitter, twisted and evil liar who sees nothing wrong in trying to cause drivers problems.

B. Lucky
Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 6
  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Board index » General » Licensing and legal

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 226 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group