Taxi Driver Online

Blah blah blah.....no answer.

You sold a plate, admit it, I thought you didnt give a sh*t ffs

CC

I answered Toots, questions honestly. She's just not asking the right questions.

Blah blah blah.....no answer.

You sold a plate, admit it, I thought you didnt give a sh*t ffs

CC

Firstly, you can't sell a plate which is the property of the City of Edinburgh Council. It's illegal.

Secondly, a plate has no intrinsic value and is non-transferable.

Thirdly, what I sold was access to a plate through the directorship of a Limited Liability Company (LLP) that holds the plate and maybe still does.

Fourthly, if the guy bought anything, it was a job, not a plate.


And last but not least, many hundreds of people have done exactly the same thing. It is not a moral system, but it is one of the councils own making.

I stand corrected. Get off that soap box Skull you have no moral right to be there. If you really believed something to be wrong you wouldn't do it

No soap box Toots, just the truth, the illusion is all yours.

I never claimed to have a moral right. You are confusing the argument of what is the fact, with what is fiction. What you support is the fiction of plate ownership. I am merely pointing out the reality that no one legally owns or sells council property.

No soap box Toots, just the truth, the illusion is all yours.

pmsl....hypocrite.

CC

Illusion? I'm under no illusion that you have double standards and you are a hypocrite of the worse kind. You'll quite happily do something that you believe is wrong and pretend you're doing it to prove a point of how wrong it is, that's just bollox imo

The Scottish Government
Taxi and Private Hire Car Licensing
Best Practice
Licensing Authorities 2007

THE ROLE OF LICENSING; POLICY JUSTIFICATION

7. [b]The aim of local authority licensing of the taxi and PHC trades is to protect the public[/b] and to help ensure that the public have reasonable access to taxi and PHC services, given the part they play in local transport.

8. Licensing requirements which are unduly stringent will tend unreasonably to restrict the supply of taxi and PHC services, by putting up the cost of operation or otherwise restricting entry to the trade. Local licensing authorities should recognise that too stringent an approach may not be in the public interest - and could, indeed, have safety implications.

9. For example, it is clearly important that somebody using a taxi or PHC to go home alone late at night should be confident that the driver does not have a serious criminal record and that the vehicle is safe. But on the other hand, if the supply of taxis or PHCs has been unduly constrained by onerous licensing conditions, then that person's safety might be put at risk by having to wait on late-night streets for a taxi or PHC to arrive; he or she might even be tempted to enter an unlicensed vehicle with an unlicensed driver illegally plying for hire.

So:

a) The council IS responsible to protect public safety.

b) Too stringent restriction DOES have safety implications.

c) Two females unable to hail a cab DID get into unlicensed vehicles and WERE harmed - FACT.

What part of the Scottish Government warned councils, and CEC ignored these warnings twice, do you folks not understand?

It is you, who is the hypocrite, Toots. The system you support is amoral at best and immoral at worst.

Who cares? You must know that any licences which are sold are only done so by the rules.

And last but not least, many hundreds of people have done exactly the same thing. It is not a moral system, but it is one of the councils own making.