Saltmarket wrote:
Again, lots more commentary but no real point. Something goes to the heart of the argument but you can't seem to get over what your argument is.
You are being semantic and you're jumping around all over the place. I'll recap my points just so you understand. Of course if you forget to read them or don't comprehend properly that's not something I can fix:
So first you said:
Their only duty is to ensure those who are issued licences meet and adhere to the standards and conditions set out in them. But when I made my initial point you changed this to include:
...and maintain the link between licence numbers and demand.You also can't seem to make up your mind about the lottery. First you said:
No one gets shafted. Instead business gets done.Then you described it as "profoundly unfair".
When confronted by arguments about fairness you went off on a tangent about "fair value", which has nothing to do with fairness per se.
Now you accuse me of "jumping all over the place".
Quote:
1. The Council have no business worrying about what a plate is worth after they issue it. They might well be the ones who created the market because they limit taxi numbers but limiting taxi numbers is a sensible strategy. Their function is to issue the licences, assure adherence to the licenced terms and maintain the link between licence numbers and demand.
That's all subjective stuff and open to individual value judgements, but you make it sound like some kind of legal imperative.
For example, a council's function isn't necessarily to maintain the link between licence numbers and demand. If by that you mean restricting numbers then most councils DON'T, and it's merely an option under the legislation.
As for councils having "no business" worrying about plate values, again that's merely your opinion. It's surely a legitimate concern that excess profits are being earned on a publicly issued licence?
Indeed, I think a lot more people would be making it their business if the facts were known about this issue, and indeed I think your position is born of the fact that many in the trade would prefer to keep the matter under wraps.
In fact I suspect there's some signficant factor about your own position that you're not telling us that might shed some light on your stance
Quote:
2. If someone gets a plate and they wish to sell it on if someone buys it then between buyer and seller a fair price has been established. What you consider to be a fair price or what you would pay is immaterial because, in this scenario, you're neither a buyer nor a seller.
Again you seem to be ignoring the difference between the broad concept of fairness and the narrower idea of fair price/value.
Indeed, you said the lottery was "profoundly unfair", yet if a plate thus acquired is sold on then by implication you clearly consider the sales proceeds to be a fair price.
My initial and fundamental point isn't about whether it's a fair price in the narrow sense but whether the system is fair in a broader sense, and clearly even you have misgivings about the latter.
Quote:
3. I think the lottery system of issuing the plates is profoundly unfair. This gives a late-entrant chancer the same opportunity as someone who has expressed an interest early on in owning a newly issued plate. Perhaps a fairer way to do it would be to maintain a Council-approved waiting list and insist that those at the top of said list are offered first-refusal on any plates being transferred.
So a chancer at the top of the waiting list wins what is still essentially a lottery?
How long does it take to get to the top of the list in Glasgow?
Quote:
There, is that clear enough for you?
No
Login
Register
FAQ
