Taxi Driver Online

I agree.
The driver has operated, A has permitted this operation.



The driver has operated for profit, therefore the illegal operation is proved, even by your own definition.
"A view to profit" by the permitter is not neccessary to commit an offence. Only the operator need intend to profit.



You draw a distinction between the actions of A, with regard to B and those of a third party booking agent. Could you elaborate? I find no difference, other than A travels with B when any other third party booking agent normally would not.



All legislation is subject to interpretation. Yours, mine, JD's, the police, PF, Sheriff defence councel etc etc. It is all opinion and opinions vary.

_________________

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

You are the antithesis of intelligent JD. The length of time you have been on here has no relevance to that fact. I am not a vindictive man, but anyone with a degree of intellect will note that most of your posts are peppered with childlike insults. I doubt you understand what a logical syllogism is, or the prevalence that it has in legal argument (If A = JD and B = is a tit. It follows as a matter of logic that JD is a tit, you see. It is the same with statutory provisions. If section 23 states that "taxi" in sections 10-22 has the following meaning, the meaning which follows is attributed to every reference to taxi in sections 10-22. How difficult is that. If licensed taxi is not defined in the act, it is not a defined term in section 23 or any other section, how difficult is that. It seems, more difficult to you than most would imagine. Regretfully, your last couple of replies have displayed an the infant's ability to argue and reason. Try answering the questions posed, if you understand them.

Please do not think I am being superior without cause. You have simply failed to display any intellectual rigour and, I have no doubt, feel challenged and threatened by the presence of those with an ability to argue in a reasoned manner.

Indeed, I suspect you have such disdain for others on this board or, indeed, those in the trade, that you are not inclined to think about what you write. You act like the stereotypical taxi driver, the stereotype which taints us all with stupidity and fecklessness, not at all like the people who actually drive taxis in this country in my experience. You are the kind of guy I would like to drive out of this trade, and while I have no power to do so with you, I do have the ability to publicise at every opportunity where your mistakes and ignorance lie.

Indeed, legislation is subject to interpretation, the job is to find the intention of the legislator. It is certainly not about opinion, but rather reasoned interpretation using the cannons of contruction. Any sheriff concluding on the meaning of a section will do so only after having explained the basis for his reasoning, having due regard to established principles of construction of Statutory provisions. At best it could be called reasoned opinion, but using said principles to construct the reasoning.

Unlike A and B, the booking agent would not be a passenger, but rather would be acting with a view to furthering the profit motive of the transaction. A and B simply want to get home. The profit motive is central to the definition of the hire car and it is because the driver, or person giving the permission, seek to profit from the activity without having gone through the procedures which the law proscribes as need to be gone through in order to make profit from that activity, that the offence is deemed necessary. Passengers are not the guilty party here. I do not know what more I can say to you short of there being case authority on the point. I would simply urge you to discuss your view with the next criminal lawyer of note that you have the pleasure of conveying.

The police have a duty to enforce the law. People use unlicensed taxis (PHC Seagulling) all the time. Occassionally the cops will charge a PHC driver of the offence, which will require the passenger to be a witness. The police would be bound to charge the individual if that individual was themselves committing an offence (it is the fiscal's job to determine what, as a matter of policy and sufficiency of evidence, should be prosecuted as opposed to charged).

Again, one of the said canons is that criminal offences created by statute are strictly construed. The construction you suggest is a wide one, which would be contrary to those principles of construction of long standing in Scots law. There is absolutely no possibility that a passenger is subject to this offence. Please, for the sake of our sanity, rather than us continuing to say the same things again and again to one another, ask a professional for their view next time you come across one. You will also be going some way to dispelling the stereotype of the taxi driver which others on this board typify.

Opinion, reasoned interpretation, reasoned opinion, call it what you like. In the end they are all still one man's opinion, based on the facts as they see them.

If I read you correctly, you contend that A cannot commit an offence under s21 because he is a passenger.
Are you then saying that if he did not travel with B, he would have committed the offence?
Following on from there, are you also contending that any 3rd party agent can absolve himself from the offence by travelling with the passenger?

The police do indeed have a duty to enforce the law. That duty is not always carried out. The contributors to this site could give you many examples of police ignoring their duty when it suits them to do so.

Ask six solicitors and you will no doubt get six different answers. All soundly reasoned, yet not the same.
That is why there is a legal process. If all agreed, it would not be needed.

_________________

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

cheeky tw*t

CC

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

I agree, Cheeky tw*t


All this pis*ing up the wall is a good laugh though

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

While I've lost the thread completely regarding the disputed interpretations of the legislation above, here's my take on the issue, for what it's worth.

Please note that I have no in-depth expertise regarding the legislation as a whole or its interpretation, have no particular knowledge regarding its practical application and enforcement, and I'm a taxi driver, not a lawyer, so if some of my terminology and suchlike isn't 100 per cent legally watertight then I apologise and do not invite pedantic responses, although constructive responses would, of course, be welcome.

Anyway, it seems to me that prima facie an unlicensed vehicle would be prosecuted under section 7(1) - "Any person who without reasonable excuse does anything for which a licence is required...without having such a licence shall be guilty of an offence..." - and this would cover both plying for hire and doing pre-booked work.

The section 21(1) offences refer to "taxis" and "private hire cars", which seems to presuppose that the vehicles in question are already licensed, but the section is perhaps aimed primarily at vehicles operating out of area. The subsequent subsections provide a defence for vehicles doing standard cross border work - an Edinburgh taxi or PHC picking up a telephoned booking in Fife, say - which perhaps lends weight to the section as a whole being targetted at already licensed vehicles, for example, a vehicle licensed in Aberdeenshire doing work in Aberdeen city, which I think was indeed a real life example.

I suppose a PHC plying for hire in its own area would also come within the 21(1) offence, but as I said I don't have much in the way of knowledge regarding the practical application of the legislation - I'm essentiallly just basing my opinion on reading words on a piece of paper.

Anyway, if I'm reading gusmac's hypothetical scenario correctly then if section 7(1) is the relevant provision for prosecuting an unlicensed vehicle then the wording is clearly different - "does anything for which a licence is required" - and to that extent the debate on the term "operates" and "permits the operation of" is largely academic.

In any case, I think it's stretching credulity to conclude that section 21 could be construed as covering the actions of a member of the public (whatever their input with regard to securing the vehicle's services), that that was the mischief the legislators intended to address or that there's any practical likelihood that prosecutors would pursue a member of the public -as we all know it's difficult enough to get them to target members of the trade!!

I think Gusmac would argue that the world is flat ... and his argument if believed.. makes one think... that if you were at home whilst your house was burgled then you to... would be guilty of an offence..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

You probably would be if you phoned the burglar and paid him to do it......though that's maybe normal practice in your neck of the woods.

....as for flat earth, how many guys' rents did you pick up this week while telling them that you do them a favour? .....saving them from the big bad council that wants to inflict the evil of owning their own taxi upon them?

_________________

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

quality

I have to be honest here and say I hadn't really considered s7, thinking that since s10-22 specifically apply to taxis and PHV, the s21 offences would be more appropriate. s7 seemed to me to be more appropriate to other activities which require a licence under the 1982 act. You could well be right though. It is wider ranging and could even be used for licenced vehicles/drivers without the correct licence for what they are doing.



Again, you may be right in assuming s21 applies only to licenced vehicles and their drivers. This is only an assumption however, as the s23 definitions of "taxi" and "hire car" do not specifically state this.

The Aberdeenshire/ Aberdeen City cross border issue is still an on going problem.



I did state several times that I didn't believe any passenger would be prosecuted under s21. Only that I believed that there was an offence being committed.
I also compared A's actions to those of a clipboard Johnny or radio operator, stating I believed his actions were no different, except that he was also a passenger. No one has yet offered an explanation as to why they think A is any different.

Here's another scenario:
X is a man in a hi-vis jacket with a clipboard and a mobile phone. He stands outside a night club taking bookings, and comunicates them to Y and Z with the mobile phone . Y and Z have no taxi or PHV driver's licences and drive unlicenced vehicles. They pick up X's booked hires and take them home for payment, usually from the passengers themselves.
Now s7 clearly does not apply to X, since no licence is required under the 1982 act to take bookings.
Question: Are the actions of X completely lawful? If not, which statutes/laws has he broken?

I would especially appreciate the thoughts of "boring" and "Fae Fife" on this but anyone can offer their thoughts.

_________________

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

Section 7 seems to be in the general provisions which apply to all licensed activities, and that part of the Act deals with the functions and procedures of the licensing authority, thus would be the first port of call for enforcement powers.

The parts of the Act dealing with specific activities seem to detail either no offences at all (in which case section 7 would be relevant) or include offences specific to the activity in question, which is why it's probable that section 21 pertains to cross border activity, which might not be applicable to other activities. And I think the fact section 21 seems to presuppose the vehicles are already licensed (see below) lends support to that view.



Presumbably the logic is that section 10 states that taxis/PHVs and drivers have to be licensed, and referring to section 23 defines these terms. Thus sections 10 and 23 must be read together, therefore the references to taxis and PHVs in 21 refer to taxis and PHVs licensed by virtue of section 10 and defined in section 23.



Perhaps its merely the fundamental difference between offering a service and procuring it?

?

As you say it's a loophole in the CG(S) Act, thus he hasn't breached
the licensing legislation.

Perhaps conspiracy or something like that, as mentioned by 'boring'?

Perhaps some kind of technical common law offence, but of academic/taxi forum interest rather than practical relevance

I must admit that was extremely intelligent of you but why stop at section 23 when you could have posted all 23 sections and attributed those to your perceived logic.



What is there to be vindictive about, could it be your injured pride?

Don't let a few corrections get you down, we all make mistakes however you seem to have a rare talent for amplifying your mistakes to deafening proportions.



Such as drawing attention to your mistakes?



Seldom does a new subscriber join this forum and instantly commit verbal suicide and at the same time jettison their credibility, however you have single-handedly achieved both without even turning a hair.

I suspect your self inflicted wounds based on your logical interpretation of section 23.1 and 2 will leave you scarred for life, rather amusing considering you were given every opportunity to correct your confused state of mind.

Your reference to syllogisms is laughable because it is patently obvious that you don't understand the first thing about logic.

You pasted part of an act of parliament amounting to interpretations and then proceeded to proclaim that based on your logic the act of parliament was correct. Well if an act of parliament says taxis can ply for public hire then that is what they can do. It is not logic to restate a statutory legislative fact, as you did.

Just for the record, here's how foolish you look. Your brilliant lesson in logic, laid bare. First comes your pasting of the statutory meaning of a licensed taxi.

1. Section 23(1) defines a "taxi" as:

"a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then".

One thing we know about the above passage is that it is not a premise or an argument, it is a statutory provision in law and therefore a fact. It tells us that a taxi is a hire car that can ply for hire.

Second comes the statutory meaning of hire car, where you pasted the following.

2. Section 23(2) defines a "hire car" as:

"a motor vehicle with a driver (other than a vehicle being a public service vehicle within the meaning of section 1(1)(a) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981) which is, with a view to profit, available for hire by the public for personal conveyance

Again, one thing we know about the above is that the passage is not a premise or an argument, it is a statutory provision in legislation and therefore a fact. It tells us that a hire car is a motor vehicle with a driver that is available for public hire.

Now we have your remarkable observation dressed up as logic "RESTATING EXACTLY WHAT IS WRITTEN ABOVE NAMELY SUBSECTION 1 AND 2 OF SECTION 23. You gave us this pearl of wisdom.

3. It follows, as a matter of logic, from these defined terms that any motor vehicle with a driver which is, with a view to profit, available for hire by the public for personal conveyance which is engaged by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then, is acting as a "taxi" within the defined meaning in section 23(1).

I don't need to state the obvious as it is plain for all to see but all you did was "replicate" the wording in section 23 and added no logical reasoning whatsoever.

It is a matter of record that your attempt at logic in respect of section 23 does not bear the properties of a syllogism, your so called logic is a mere "replication" of parts 1 and 2 of section 23 therefore logic is absent.



There is no doubting the meaning of section 23 because it defines the activity of a taxi "licensed" under the provisions of sections 10 - 22, however section 21 of those provisions defines offences of those persons acting without a license.

Therefore the distinction between what amounts to being licensed and unlicensed in sections 21 and 23 might appear difficult to you but certainly not to me.



Read my lips. What does this define?

(1) A licence, to be known as a "taxi licence" shall be required for the operation of a vehicle as a taxi.

That to me suggests that all future reference to the word taxi in this part of this act is meant to mean license taxi. Does anyone disagree with that observation apart from Mr Boring?

Amongst other things section 23 describes the way in which a licensed taxi can be used. The presumptive reference to taxi is that the taxi is licensed, this is born out in section 1 of the act. There need not be a continued reference to licensed taxi as the presumption is made by virtue of section 1. The same presumption resides in every other act relating to Taxis, including hackney carriages and private hire. You must be the only person in Scotland who fails to understand that.



I do have difficulty but not with legislation, my difficulty lies in responding to those fools who cannot comprehend basic legislation even when it is portrayed in black and white.



I hope your audacity is not misplaced for I would hate to see someone with an inferior complex burst your brazen bubble.



That is a distinct failing of mine one which I need to revisit however considering you are the one who has continually humbled himself with various bouts of contrition I would suggest therefore that my rigour has perhaps penetrated that thin skin of yours and joined forces with mortis which would in turn make your intellect a little stiff.



If you presented a coherent argument then I missed it and probably so did everyone else, if you ever deliver one then it will be a first and something to celebrate.



I suspect that is your observation after eating a little humble pie and offering your contrition at being made to look a little foolish in the wake of your opening remarks, which you conveniently put down to being under the influence of drink. If drink = (A) and ill found logic = (B) does that make you a pizz artist?



Do I really? lol



I can see you can't take correction too well? Perhaps you are not used to it in your own environment, no doubt you will become accustomed to it in this environment.



I don't know to which country you refer but I suspect it might be Scotland, I can't comment on your experience as you haven't yet provided evidence that you have any.



lol All this from a little put down? My MY, you are thin skinned.



It's a frightening thought a man with a bottle of spirit in one hand and a gavel in the other. Would you like to see all those who point out your mistakes dismembered or is it just me? lol

I hope power has the good sense to pass you by.



That’s very good, I like checks and balances you have however handicapped yourself with your first drunken post, in which you stated a lot of nonsense that in turn resulted in your protracted apology. One thing in your favour is that you have several thousand posts of mine in which to fulfil your goal.

I look forward to any meaningful contribution you might make to 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.

The whole of section 21 seems straight forward to me, I can't see what the problem is. Admittedly it could have been worded better but complicated no.

The problem if there is one lies in the fact that there appears to be no Scottish case law relating to illegal plying for hire, which suggests to me that the authorities aren't too concerned about the illegal activity of those unlawfully plying for hire.

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.

You are spot on with the attitude of the councils and police here.

I can't speak for the rest of Scotland, but I suspect the situation is similar. That does seem to be borne out by some of the posts on here.

_________________

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