Taxi Driver Online

It strikes me that the scenario can be construed to be little more than car sharing, which is actively encouraged as its reckoned to be greener than everyone using their own cars.

Intention is key in determining whether this activity is criminal. The intention would be to engage in a contract for hire, rather than some contract or other agreement to car share. The contract for hire is constituted by the agreement between the parties for conveyance by one party to their chosen destination by the other party in exchange for reward.

Gusmac,

The fact that the passenger knows what he is doing is wrong is not a constituitive part of the offence in section 21, it may however be constituitive of a separate common law offence. I can assure you that there is absolutely no way that a passenger can be both the subject and the object of the defined criminal offence. In here they are the object, but it is the subject which is criminally liable, i.e. any person who picks up or permits the picking up of passengers.

There is no reference to the knowledge of the passenger being relevant here, rather it is the permission of picking up or indeed the picking up of the passenger, not the act of the passenger himself.

Having said that, I think we have gone far enough with this one. You may, however, wish to discuss your thoughts with the next suitably qualified criminal solicitor that gets in your cab, although that can be no guarantee of an intelligible response these days.

Well I see you have convinced yourself of something that we have known for many years. Section 10.1 makes simple reading doesn't it? I just wonder why you felt the need to paste it considering we can all recite the section backwards if need be?



We don't need smoke screens or irrelevant waffle, stick to the points I raised.



More irrelevant waffle.



I'm still with you alright and I suspect so is everyone else but like me they are probably wondering why you are rambling on about insignificant unrelated matters regarding the provision of council committees. You are doing an excellent job of maintaining your asinine persona.



It's a pity you didn't think of that before your fingers hit the keyboard and you posted the nonsense about taxis not being subject to section 21 in licensing and regulation of taxis and private hire cars.



Put it this way, you have demonstrated your knowledge and we are not impressed, I think that speaks for itself.



That is a brilliant deduction and you worked it out all by yourself? I assume you think the Scottish contingent on here don't already know that? Perhaps they don't? lol



Another brilliant deduction, I assume you've been reading section 23? These guys in Scotland are going to be thrilled at your revelations.



lol more sterling stuff from section 23, you really are a mind of information.



My oh My! It is yet still evident that you fail to understand the licensing structure of the provisions contained in this part of the act of 1982. Read my lips, for the purpose of the provisions contained in part 2 of the act relating to taxis namely sections 10 to 23 any reference to the word taxi means a licensed taxi unless otherwise stated.

The clue lies in the opening section 10.1 I suggest you get one of the Scottish cab drivers to explain it to you.



May I respectfully call you "dope" as well as Boring?

Section 21 refers to offences committed by "persons who permit the operation of unlicensed vehicles and unlicensed drivers

Section 23 as I have previously stated describes the permissible legal activity of a licensed taxi.

The two sections are unrelated as I have already explained. I suggest you bite the bullet and stop waffling.



It is sad that you desire not to understand the act of 1982 where it relates to taxis but that is your prerogative. I won't resort to calling you a dim-wit but on your current performance I suggest you take stock of your faculties because I think you might be in need of them in the future.

One more point, Your name wouldn't be STU would it?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

This is where we differ.
The subject of s21 is "anyone". That means anyone, regardless of whether they gain from the activity or not, and the fact that they were conveyed as a passenger matters not.
I do not accept that A has not breached s21 in respect of himself, but if we accept that for the moment, he has certainly breached s21(1)(b) in respect of B. Without A's active participation, B would not have been illegally conveyed.
A has "permitted" the operation of the illegal taxi.
A's actions amount to more than any radio operator or office's part would have been, had one been involved. If A were a barman, club doorman, radio operator or even a "clipboard Johnny", he would be guilty. There is no difference.

_________________

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

Section 23 is self explanatory and interprets the meaning of the use of a hire car, whether it be a taxi or private hire vehicle and for the sake of being boring I will say it again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with section 21 which sets out offences.



('](*,)') The salient point you cannot grasp is the fact that section 21 describes the offence in respect of the "unlawful" operation of a vehicle being used as a taxi in an area of for which it is not licensed. Nothing to do with section 23.



How did I describe a license taxi? Any vehicle that is licensed by a licensing authority for the use as a taxi in the area for which it is licensed? And what is a taxi? A taxi is a hire car used for the purpose of public hire or as the case may be private hire. Don't you think it rather odd that the statute also describes a taxi in exactly the same way I do?



Your assumption is pure fantasy, section 21 describes offences of those who are "unlicensed" the term taxi and that of driver relate to those that are operating "unlicensed". The section refers to vehicles being operated as "unlicensed" taxis and not "licensed" taxis. Obviously you fail to understand that.



Well I can honestly say that this is further evidence of you being a complete buffoon. I suggest you enlist a little help from those people in Scotland who have a greater understanding of the act than you. At least they may have the combination to unlock your blind Intransigence.



I think the only person feeling a plonker right now is you. lol



Brilliant deduction but why state the obvious?



I know you weren't addressing me but it would have been wise to mention the person to whom you were addressing.



An accepted figure of speech in the realms of the taxi trade something which you obviously don't understand, however it is the person who commits the offence as we all know.



Yes I did point that out to you on several occasions and of course the act itself is self explanatory. Considering you pasted section 21 on numerous occasions I cannot see how you failed to understand its meaning.



Ah! This time I mentioned persons committing an offence, it appears therefore that you were aware of my understanding of who commits an offence and yet all the time you pretended not to be? lol Naughty boy.



Far from it, your logic is ill conceived and I hope I have exposed your inadequacies for what they are. Your apology for being incorrect regarding your opening remarks concerning section 21 is welcomed but at the same time it doesn't alter the fact that your command of the statute is sadly lacking. If it wasn't for Gus and I you would still be oblivious to the true meaning of section 21. Your diversion to section 23 is a testament to the fact that you were floundering in the wake of your own misfortune by virtue of your inaccurate opening remarks associated with section 21. The ironic fact is that having introduced section 23 into the debate you miserably failed to understand its true meaning.

Your performance so far has been one of waffle and incorrect interpretation of basic statutory legislation. Holding a cab drivers license is neither here nor there if you don't understand the legislation then keep your fingers away from the keyboard.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Dear, dear JD, you can't attribute everything to me, it's almost like paranoia.

If you seriously think I have the will or the time to read through these screeds of irrelevant debates let alone waste any energy trying to work out what it is actually about you are seriously mistaken.

You flatter yourselves by suggesting that I, or I suspect many other people, pay that much heed to this anymore.

If it wasn't for the instant outpouring of Schadenfreude displayed by some of the contributors to this site I wouldn't even be wasting my time on it anyway, although they may have been a little premature in their assertions, time will tell.

Have A Nice Day, Mateys , enjoy sailing on your ship of fools, the de-restricted one of course.

I should have written Dearie, dearie me JD, you may have confused that with a term of endearment, which it wasn't and isn't meant to be.

Have A Nice Day.

Taking water with the pills makes it easier.

Hasn't your doctor told you this?

Just a step too far there I'm afraid Jim, see you later.

I see no argument for a contrary position in this reply, but lots of appeal to other viewers for your intellectual superiority through nothing short of abusive comments. I did think intially that you may have somethinig about you, but increasingly I get the sense that this must mean that you 1) are simply not blessed with sufficient intellect to follow a logical and reasoned argument or 2) you really are an angry man who cares little for argument and just wish to use this facility as a means to spout adjective after adjective in offensive tone. This, in my view, would make you part of the problem for all in the trade: a man with ill-thought out opinion, but more than ready to offer same to any with aural faculties. I suspect many passengers leave your taxi in despair as to the quality of human being that can be allowed to operate in public service.

As an observation, your style reminds me of that one used to encounter at primary school: completely bereft of structure and reasoned conclusion.

I am not even sure if you realise that you now look a bit stupid and incapable of having a reasoned debate, but this would explain your replies. Ignorant as well as stupid; a dangerous combination.

Gusmac,

Honestly and in good faith, it is not appropriate to change the words in a statutory provision when considering its meaning. The subject is "any person...who operates, or permits the operation of etc." The fact of gain is also important, as it is the fact that they are operating the vehicle with a view to profit (hire car) which makes their activity offensive. To make profit in this manner legally, everyone else requires to apply for and obtain a licence, with all the attendanto obligatins and cost of doing so . The profit motive is a central aspect to the definition of the offence. If a person operates a vehicle without a view to profit (section 23(2)), it is not a hire car and cannot therefore be operating as an unlicensed taxi or indeed private hire car.

A has not permitted anyone to be illegally conveyed. A did not permit, in the sense of giving B a permission to get into the car. B does so voluntarily. It is not within A's gift to permit B to get into the car, but rather the driver or other person who permits, such as the third party booking agent (not one in yoiur scenario of course), the car to pick up passengers. A does not permit, he simply makes the arrangement and making the arrangement is not the proscribed behaviour, although again in doing so A may be guilty of a common law crime.

You do show an ability to consider the words in a statute and reason for their meaning, which is heartening. You also appear able to conduct a debate civil tones, which is appreciated. Nevertheless, the section creates a criminal offence and its meaning and scope will be strictly construed by the Sheriff as a result. It is this principle which means that attempts to widen the meaning to bring passengers within the subject matter of the offence would not be an appropriate interpretation of the section.

I am tempted to pull out case authority on interpretation of criminal offences in Statute, but I am not sure I care that much about the point anymore.

I hope not.

You don't seem to understand that I have an intense dislike of you. I despise you and what you stand for.

I think the only person made to look a little stupid in this mater is the person who recently joined this forum with the condescening attitude of superiority. I honestly don't know if you are capable of reasoned debate because you display an attitude that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You set your marker with your initial post when you opened up with an "incorrect" but emphatic statement that was no doubt meant to display your ability to accurately interpret legislation. Subsequent exchanges have exposed the flaws in your makeup and accordingly your ability to interpret the legislation in question has been found wanting.

I suggested you stop digging but you continued to bury yourself in bullchit by posting segments of section 23 while at the same time adding absolutely nothing by way of opinion.

You added insult to injury by infering logic was part of your critical thinking in assesing the impact of section 23, when in fact all you did was continually repeat parts of section 23 and offered nothing by way of opinion. How are we to evaluate your opinion if opinion is absent? Likewise we cannot make sense of your argument without being able make sense of the language, substance, and rational of what is being communicated in the first place?

I don't know where you go from here but I will tell you this, you will never get away with substituting fiction for fact on this forum.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Oh I understand alright, I'll see you later.