Taxi Driver Online

To say you are delusional would be an understatement!

Listen up folks, the legal fraternity know nothing about the law. The council know nothing about local government. If you thought Jedward were funny, meet jasbar and skull who are about to demonstrate the art of being real [edited by admin]!

ABOUT TO

Well you have the right to remain silent, which by all accounts you've chosen to do (well at least to them), it's a shame you can't do it on here too

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

Judging by the lateness of his letter, he is looking for them to postpone to a later date.
Rather than put forward any sane argument.

It's only a pity the council can't insist on a psychiatric assesment for taxi drivers, as it might prove useful in this case.

At least they are trying to fight the system rather than standing back and being shafted by politicians who know little on what they are adjudicating on.I say good luck to Skull .Why should someone lose their livelihood without legal proof. These people know it costs money to defend oneself on appeal so they take the view that you wont go to a magistrait,s court .

At the end of the day it is politicians who decide if you are Fit and proper to hold a badge and to me they are the last breed of people i would want to have judgement over me. Go for it Skull, the Human Rights Act should deal with it and councils will have to take this into consideration when thinking of taking away someones badge and livelihood.

It's not the politicians who decide if a person is 'fit and proper', it's the system initially with it's 'criteria'. After that it's the councillors, who are elected people just like you and I and then there are judges, who can override councillors decisions. I don't think anybody should lose their licence over a petty arguement with a customer or anybody for that matter, but, I fail to see how Skulls human rights have been affected so far. He has a right to remain silent, which has chosen to do and he has the right to a fair hearing, which he has chosen not to attend because he doesn't think it'll be a fair hearing. It is obvious to me that there is a clash of personalities here and perhaps the hearing should be heard by another council in Scotland but I'm not sure that's an option

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

Toots When you speak withe the police you have the right to remain silient as you are aware

when skull did this he was then threatened with the r.c. forcing him to speak or loose his liecence

the hearing was to be held in private

now cant see now

Was he threatened or advised what the next step will be? Do you think that if a person refuses to speak the matter should be dropped?

Personally I've never seen the need for a private hearing unless there are very personal matters to be discussed

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

ok toots since tthe matter has been looked at by the police, it is now criminal and he has the right to remain silent

after remaing silent the cab inspector said right your infront of the r.c. where if skull does nae speak they will no doubt take his licence

If this matter was not criminal is should never have been looked at by the police

hope this helps

You have no right to a private hearing in Court except where the judge decides.

Here privacy is a matter of course, which protects the councillors decisions because we can't see what they're up to, we can't understand the quality or consistence of their decisions, we can't determine whether they according each accused their right to equality before the Law.

Toots, this isn't just a petulant "I'm not going to appear before these bozos" response. What's been done here is a root and branch review of how the council conducts itself.

They've got two options.

They take away the licence for the alleged breach of regulations, the matter goes to Court and the root and branch review is conducted by Judicial Review.

Or they don't take away the licence and the regulations become unenforceable.

Garry will get legal aid to judicially examine the Human Rights aspects. The public purse has just as big a pocket as the council, so they can't use their usual tactic of beating down opposition with legal costs.

And that judicial examination will be forensic, and merciless.

But then, the council is going to buy time, defer the matter, procrastinate and ruminate. Which is what it always does.

toots said

Do you think that if a person refuses to speak the matter should be dropped?

they should be charged or relesed end of

A taxi driver can be completely out of order but not comit a criminal offence.

If a driver greets every passenger by saying " sit down you fat cow, where the hell are you going? I'd rather stay on the rank than transport smelly cows like you around"

Do you think that's fine?

The driver would be unlikely to be charged with anything, so in your world it should just be forgotten about.

No witnesses, so it doesn't matter as far as gary goes.

There are things that don't amount to a criminal offence, that in the case of a taxi driver, need to be dealt with.

In those cases it falls to the council to deal with the matter.

In the instance I mention, I would consider that driver not to be a fit and proper person to drive a taxi and deal with members of the public.

To say that if no charges are brought by the police it should be forgotten about is absolute nonsence.

That would be anarchy.
If the public start to think the behaviour of drivers is not being dealt with they will quickly start to use other methods of transport.

Frank

the council past the matter to the cab inspector

the cab inspector passsed it to the police officer who could only be looking at it as a criminal offence

at this point frank


what would you do

Before you start believing gary and jimmy boys nonsence, just bear in mind that although at the moment they are trying to put forward that they are acting in the good of the trade, they are not.

They are two bitter little men stuck in jobs that they hate.
They detest the whole taxi business and are out to cause as much trouble as they can, just for their own enjoyment.

They have said openly in the past that they would like to bring the taxi trade down.

gary can't even bring himself to call himself a taxi driver, he hates his job and himself so much.

If you fall for their rubbish it just shows how stupid you are.

sunset, from my experience, having had complaints over the years even involving the police.

I found the cab inspector and the licencing committee to be more than fair to taxi drivers.

But then I was not out to cause trouble.