Taxi Driver Online

Dear Mr Macleod

(Council Solicitor)

Freedom of Information request.

I write to ask that you supply me with the full details of my request as detailed below in accordance with my rights to this information under Freedom of Information laws. Please note my understanding that any information will be provided without the names of the individuals detailed, in accordance with thier rights under the same laws.

Please provide full details of all instances of disciplinary actions taken against both taxi and private hire owners and drivers over the last three years.

Please include the following:-

1. Source of complain, specifically whether the complaint was recieved directly to the licensing department or from the Cab Inspector on behalf of the Chief Constable.

2. Date of Hearing

3. Specific description of "offence" or relating incident leading to a claim an individual is "not fit and proper", specifically where the complaint emanates from the Cab Inspector which triggered his objection/complaint.

4. Action taken by the committee following the hearing.

Please also include a copy of the standing orders governing the hearing process.

Please also include details of the specific legal or other training given to councillors prior to commencement of their tenure on the Regulatory Committee.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Regards

Jim Taylor

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

Where I'm coming from.

For many years the manner in which the council and the Chief Constable conduct the complaints process for cabbies and private hire has been of great concern.

Drivers are hauled before the Licensing committees in an arbitrary way based on the flimsiest complaints from members of the public and the Chief Constable.

Some typical examples.

Case 1

Driver involved in a fracas. he is charged. The case is not prosecuted, thrown out by the PF. The cab inspector however still makes a complaint and the committee take this man's livelihood away from him. You may remember this tale, it was just before Christmas leaving his family in financial difficulty over the festive period until another job could be got.

The talepiece here is that this driver was deemed to be so not "fit and proper" that they gave him his licence back at the normal renewal time. - effectively he was temporarily suspended.

Question:- Where in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 does it allow licensing authorities to assume the role of judges and issue temporary suspension (Clu:- In a case in Dumfries the Sheriff described such temporary suspensions as being "illogical").

Case 2:

Another driver defends himself in a street fracas. In the usual way the cops, unable to exercise any reasonable degree of detective prowess, charge everyone involved - the PF can sort it out.

In this case the individual is not deemed to have sufficiently seriously to warrant prosecution. he is offered a fixed penalty (Little more than a revenue earner for the system) which, after being told that it wouldn't even be entered on any record, he duly paid to end the matter.

Lo and behold, the cab inspector makes complaint to the council and he is dragged before the committee. I understand he had to engage the services of a solicitor to represent him in the face of his livelihood being taken from him.

While no action was taken, why did the cab inspector make the complaint which caused him undue and unwarranted stress as well as the considerable expense of having to engage counsel?

Case 3

Driver involved in a marital spat. In the heat of the moment wife, at the encouragement of her sister, calls the cops. Driver is charged. Wife later tries to recant the complaint, not allowed to do so. Matter comes to court, circumstances explained, technical breach of the Law, Driver found guilty and admonished.

Cab inspector trots out a complaint, driver is to be dragged before the committee, once again with another expensive legal counsel in tow.

Question:- Given the admonishment, and the fact that the matter is a private one entirely unrelated to any aspect of his job as a taxi driver, why should this matter being brought before the committee?

Case 4

Driver picking up in a new block of flats. He's parked on double yellows awaiting his customer. The concierge appears giving it large about his parking. Concierge assumes a quasi-cop role uttering all sorts of threats about police involvement and appearing to talk into his radio to threaten the driver.

A minor spat brought about by an over-officious individual acting entirely outwith the bounds of his remit.

Complaint made to the cab office, cab inspector complains to the council. Dragged up once again with expensive counsel in tow. Upshot is that the complaint was frivolous and thrown out.

Aspects of the cases.

Human Rights

The entire complaints process is conducted in a way which is incompatible with any vestige of Human Rights. This has never been tested although the council, as a public body charged with protecting Human Rights, has a duty to do so.

Corroboration

Such complaints are invariably uncorroborated or at best such corroboration is not independent - usually a family member or companion who attests to the complainers side of the story.

The process depends on drivers spilling their guts out to provide the corroboration which doesn't hitherto exist.

The watchword is not to say anything until a formal charge is levied and then only respond in the minimal required by Law. This effectively means protect yourself and say nowt. If the cops have a charge to make, then they will do it anyway. Blurting out information your counsel wouldn't advise you to only mitigates against the driver.

Summary

The process is designed to operate like a quasi-judicial system, however it doesn't have any of the protections of a judicial system.

There are no standards adopted, no benchmarks, no precedent to ensure fair treatment in accordance with other similar cases.

By claiming that each case is decided on its own merits, the council is allowed to make it up as they go along. If your face doesn't fit, as in case 1 above, then they have the inherent right under the process to exact a most hideous and draconian sanction on a license holder. They will not be held to account for this, they are not subject to any normal rules of decency - and the councillors, who receive NO specialist training in dealing with such matters and are therefore not fit and proper to do it, know all of this.

In this process the defender does not even have the opportunity to face his complainer. This allows frivolous complaints to be made by the public, which a council determined to exercise autocratic control, seizes upon. Experience suggests this happens in most cases.

Complaints made against individuals are made on the basis that they are not "fit and proper" to hold a licence. There is no definition of what a fit and proper person is, it is like shifting sands defined at the behest and mood of the council and the disciplinary process.

Proof of this was given in the case of Daniel Wencker who served 6 months in jail for resetting stolen alcohol worth thousands of pounds.

Wencker's card up his sleeve was his friendship with local councillors - he was defended by leading councillor Eric Milligan who held the highest chain of office at one time - well connected then.

Milligan's efforts meant that Wencker didn't lose his licence while he was in jail and his licences was renewed when he was released.

This proves that licensing regulation is at the whim of the council, and friends of the council are given favourable treatment.

So remember Wencker when you read of instances where the committee has taken away livelihoods.

In short, what is happening is that drivers' rights are being breached by being dragged before an incompetent kangaroo court, used as an instrument of control to beat down a bewildered herd. The process depends on compliance and you only get a fair hearing if your face fits.


No longer should we have to put up with councillors of the poor quality as Colin Keir lording it unfairly over us. When Keir stated to Gordon MacDonald before refusing his licence, "We are not here to discuss your employment status" it was game over for any level of decency in this council.

Time for change. Hence the FOI request as a first step.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

Your off your head

_________________
Glasgow's Finest

Why is the cab inspector bringing in drivers that have had complaints against them?

Pretty simple it seems. He wants to bring them in and judge for himself if they arefm "fit and proper" to be working with the public


If a taxi driver under his jurisdiction is involved in a police matter, then he probably want to get a further investigation of the matter under his own terms and not the prosecutar fiscals terms.


And the case of the cabbie being arrested on a unrealated to taxi driving. It doesn't make a difference really. If I was to be arrested on suspected on serious bodily harm and then proven I wasn't involved I'm sure the cab inspector would want a closer look at the details to judge for himself. I you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about

the cab inspector woulnt make a complaint just forthe sake of it!

The only problem here is the aspect of suspension,

To suspend a driver prior to the case being dealt with by either a court or committee must only be used in the most serious cases.

Then the Skull is right. This post proves that the bewildered herd will protect the system even when it is ramming them.

The point you miss is that a cabby dealt with by the courts is dealt with. To drag him before a kangaroo court to punish him again is contrary to natural justice and a breach of human rights.

Or do you believe that multiple punishments are ok?

But this is the peach longshanksED, and I can't believe you said it.

[b"If a taxi driver under his jurisdiction is involved in a police matter, then he probably want to get a further investigation of the matter under his own terms and not the prosecutar fiscals terms." [/b]

What you are saying is that the independent justice system is irrelevant. What really matters is what those controlling the police state think.

The millions who died in 20th Century conflicts clearly gave their lives for nothing then, eh? Ypu've just negated any point in fighting for our alleged democratic system. You've just surrendered our basic right to a fair hearing to the cops.

Dearie me. Chomsky was right to describe you and your ilk as bewildered.

One crime. One punishment end of. That's what's gonna be put before the Justice Secretary. We can't wait to see how he explains this in terms of Human Rights.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

One crime one punishment?

To an extent yes, but can you see a convicted child sex offender being passed as a taxi driver

Can inspector has the right to decide who he thinks is fit and proper, as if in the future, a person who was involved in a violent arguement and charged and punished for it, is allowed to return to work with the public then in a few weeks,months,years later is involved in another violent encounter with the member of the public whilst driving his taxi, any blame will fall mostly on the can inspectors shoulders on why the individual was allowed to drive a vehicle that serves the public in the 1st plce with a violent history already


That why the cab inspector can/will bring up his own complaints, also to cover him/herself

we are not talking about violent crimes are we.

in fact we are not even talking about any conviction at all in most cases.

i should know after being suspended for the crime of a parking ticket,yeh i was a real danger to the public,right enough.

have you ever had a parking ticket,and if you have, do you think its right that you should lose your job for it,especially after you've already been punished according to the law.
perhaps i and others should be put in the stocks in the high street.

btw i wasn't really suspended for the ticket,it was because i wouldn't comply with the authorities,cant get you for one crime we'll get you for another,thats corruption in my book.

2 key things here
convicted, a proper conviction through our courts,not the quasi judicial system of the police and council.
and the cab inspector doesn't have the right to decide anything,his job is to submit a report to the council,of anyone he feels is a risk to the public,the councils job is to decide if that complaint is warranted.

the police should only be able to submit a complaint if,and only if the case has been through the courts and a conviction secured.
anything less than that due process, is fascism.
that then means that you can be accused of anything by the police and it has an immediate impact on your life and mine,without the charge ever having had any base in facts.never mind going through our legal system which affords us all with basic rights I:E innocent until proven guilty

if you believe otherwise then quite frankly you are incredibly ignorant or naive.

nothing surprising about your attitude but it does make me sick to see it written down.

sorry just looking back the posts and read this .

your a complete moron.

You have nothing to fear then you have nothing to hide ergo nothing to worry about

so evidence is no longer required,a proper court case is no longer required,a conviction is no longer required.
jeez......you really need to educate yourself a bit.

scrub that,you need deprogrammed.

You just don't get this do you? The cab inspector has NO right to decide who is fit and proper.

And that's the problem. He is citing people who shouldn't be. But he gets away with it because he doesn't have to work to any decent standard. he is given no acceptable guidelines. he is a maverick who does what he does because he can.

And this cab inspector, lide Audrey before him, has come on board trying to make the big impression.

Frank Smith is clearly unhappy in his post. he doesn't want to be in it. The post has traditionally been used to farm out those who are about to retire, or those who passed the inspector's exams yonks ago and have been given this job until a better post comes along.

Frank still thinks he is a real cop rather than the garage attendant that he is' That's the reality of the situation.

No man with any shred of decency would possibly refer anyone to the council as being not fit and proper based on uncorroborated evidence.

Or has the professionalism of our police force descended to the level where innuendo is all that is required to stiff someone?

Frank did this because we let him. We do not insist, until now, that some semblance of real corroboration is required, as in Law.

Remember, the cops are currently off on one, stopping drivers for little or no reason just so they can get the notch on their belt that proves they are doing their job. Another statistic gleaned.

All this kind of policing does is noise folks up. And we're sick of it.

Cops should be like referees. They are doing their job when you don't see them.

This Chief Constable is making sure that we all know that the cops are there. There are down our throats at every turn.

He might think this is good policing. I think it is fascism.

So longshanks, you gotta decide what kind of society you want.

And you have to get away from the vire that because you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to fear. Because someday some cop is going to get in your face and you're gonna find yourself on the wrong end of a Frank Smith referral to the council for a petty matter. Then you're gonna taste the sharp end. Then you're gonna shell out 5oo big ones for a lawyer to plead for mercy before the kangaroo court because you know that the job Frank and the council is taking away from you is essential to you and your family's well being.

Think hard and long on this Longshanks. Think long and hard.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

The collective opinion of all within our Trade is that there is a higher than normal level of heavy handedness against the Trade, we are professional drivers and should no better!!! How many times have we heard that one, ARGH!!!

WHY? (Jim) that is the question?

This though is the kind of fight Jim, Skull and whoever should be fighting, the Trade should be pulling together, singing from the same hym sheet but as long as certain individuals within our Trade keep HOUNDING the council concerning de-limitation, extra plates ect, well S-IT works both way's.

Jim i know it looks like i'm having a dig but on other matters outwith de-limitation YOU could be good for our trade, i'm thinking though on the de-limitation issue alone you must have killed a few TREES I would never say your OFF your TREE but i'm sure someone will

The old saying what goes around comes around is at work here so maybe it's time you re-assess your strategy

The time is not right just now and in my opinion we should just live with Survey's of demand, let if it goes ahead the planned merger tackle the problem of private hire, times of un-met demand ect, lets see how it goes, if it works the street cars will benefit and hey maybe more plates will come on eventually.

The one thing though is we need to get the hassle from the Police, Council of our back and the only way to do that is be more Professional

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!

so in the face of fascism we should become more subservient and call it professionalism.

since when has it become our fault that such practices exist.

in fact scrub that, it is our fault, or more precisely your fault for allowing it to creep in because your so afraid of losing your silly little status that they gave you.