Taxi Driver Online

The proposal has been finalised, seriously looking for seconder.

Any takers?

The current situation can't be allowed to continue.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

I have made my case, the LA already had the power previously to the 2006 act........they have subsequently shown themselves unworthy of such power (the b*stards).

CC

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

I'll put my best frock on and accompany if you like

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Thatll be a trouser suit then

CC

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

I can pretty frocks if I had to

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

With flowers

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

Yeah I can do flowers. Flowers on my dress, flowers in my hair, flowers in my button hole but not on my drawers

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Beg to differ CC, they had (and have) the power to take a driver to Court using this Section 222 (1) 1972 Act. This DOES NOT let them suspend a driver with immediate effect and SOMETIMES this is needed.

(As this thread is about a particular driver I feel no guilt in using his initials.) RD offended (or not - as he remains innocent until proved guilty) as a PH driver. He can't get on an office so becomes a Hack. The local paper report this. My (Hack) trade suffers as a result, because the travelling public know that he is NOT PH - but he might be the driver of next Hack they get into.

He bounces from Court to Court, and always he gets bail WITH NO CONDITIONS. His Solicitor (rightly) insists that he has an interpreter - case put on pause - no bail conditions.

He goes to the LA Licensing Committee (who as you know have no access to section 52 as we have the 1975 Act not the '76) and guess what - no interpreter - hold over until the next Committee, nearly a month.

Previously in the thread I posted the outcome of that fiasco.

So now we await his next Court date.

Meanwhile my trade suffers, PH have a field day.

I'll be buying you a drink in the far flung North East CC, but on this subject we are going to disagree.

I don't think that Section 52 will be repealed unless it is replaced. Do you? Therefore we need rules for the proper application of Section 52. The NTA have a role to play - at the highest level possible we need to get some sense injected.

In Plymouth we don't have Section 52 and many of us want it. But we want it sensibly.

The biggest joke of Sutton in Ashfield situation - a driver is A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC FOR A MONTH and then they are "cured" - absolute tosh.

But a real danger to the public in (insert town near you) continues to be a danger until imprisoned.

You (but not me) are stuck with Section 52 - you should surely then wish to see that it is never abused.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

But will you second?

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

I mentioned in Eastbourne that guidance was needed, I mentioned it in a national taxi magazine, I have sent evidence to the DFT, in between all of that I try to drive a cab and feed ungrateful b*stards.

Now the sh*t hits the fan in Ashfield and Sutton and other places the trade flaps around.

They crucified Jesus.

CC

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

I agree with your points at Eastbourne on guidance required.

I applaud your stance in the press.

I cheer you forwarding evidence to DfT.

I also drive a Cab and for this reason I have the same ambition as you to get it right.

Ashfield and Tunbridge Wells show it going wrong and provide evidence which no doubt DfT and certain Local Councillors are well aware of.

And finally - Jesus beat them all by rising again!

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

I'll have to read exactly what it is you want me to second first

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Proposition.

a. That the power granted for Immediate Suspension of Taxi Drivers using Section 52 of the Road Traffic Act 2006 is confined to Elected Councillors appointed to serve on Quasi-Judicial Licensing Committees and not delegated to Licensing Inspectors.

b. That the DFT be requested to produce (Binding) guidelines on the use of immediate suspensions.

c. That the Home Office be requested to encourage the use of Bail Conditions to protect the Public, negating the need for Local Authorities to resort to immediate suspension.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

a) You have great faith in Councillors. Won't the delegated licensing inspectors just tell the councillors what they should do?

b) If you can get 'binding guidelines' definately

c) I think I follow the reasoning behind this and if I do then it makes sense to me

Seems ok tho

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

a. I have faith that Councillors (note the plural) will debate each case and I hope that part of their decision making process will include hearing from the accused or his/her representitive.

b. Binding is in brackets - I want binding but will settle for Guidlines. (can see the funnies coming from a selective quote.)

c. If this was to be effective - a and b become redundant as does Section 52 in total.

So will you second?

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related