Taxi Driver Online

Yes Frank, but the question here is proof. The council believes it can base its decision on tittle tattle, works of fiction.

Where there is no corroboration, any member of the public can create any story, sprinkle in a few expletives and the council salivate to deal with the alleged miscreant.

And, even if the tittle tattle is not used on thnis occasion, the council stores it away to be used at some future date - a record built up of unsubstantiated tittle tattle, half truths and downright lies.

This is akin to cabbies walking about with a target on their back so that any member of the public who takes a huff can inflict real damage to a guy's livelihood, just because he's a numpty.

This patently nonsense. And it breaches every tenet of Human Rights.

we have a right to no punishment without Law. The CGSA accords the council no power to do most of what they do.

We have a right to equality before the Law. There is no possibility that this is happening here, because as we know, the council makes it up as it goes along.

There is no possibility of getting a fair hearing because the political opponent is also the prosecution, judge and jury.

The system exists because its never been challenged. No account of Human Rights Act has been taken. It should be.

This may a failure of Parliament, which would rather debate plastic shopping bags, smoking bans and alcohol pricing, none of which work and none of which are the real imperative.

Parliament could have been modernising our local authority structure, making it leaner more efficient, making it accountable, forcing it to recognise Human Rights in every aspect of its work.

Perhaps that's why the duty here has to fall on the court.

This afternoon could be a milestone. It's in the council's hands.

Taking away a livelihood just makes that individual dependent on the state. Just makes legal aid a certainty. Just makes possible the closest scrutiny of how CEC conducts itself. And lays open all sorts of compo possibilities. £25K for slopping out? What price taking away a man's livelihood unfairly?

You don't have to be the brain of britain to see where we want this to go.

Frank this not going to feck the taxi trade tho

frank you have views i dont agree with but if this was you id be on your side

what your saying about skull is almost fascist

he has some views you dont agree with so feck him on this to

even tho you know he is right

gary thinks he should be answerable to no-one.
this is wrong.

I feel confident he will be dealt with fairly, after his behaviour is taken into account.

He is no innocent little guy, he is a trouble maker who has already shown that he is willing to assault people who disagree with him.

His views don't matter, his behaviour DOES.

jimmy boy,

By it's very nature where the driver can be alone with one person, many complaints can be on a one to one basis.

Do you not think that you would be better, if you really had the good of the trade in mind, pushing for cameras in all taxis.

This would stop a lot of complaints in their tracks.

Most complaints have a little truth to them, but are then exageratted beyond belief.
Cameras would show the truth in many cases.

If you were doing something like this then I might have some respect for you, but all this trouble making court nonsense is simply for your amusement and nothing else.

Frank thats a statement i cant cant comment on as i know nothing about it

But again your pre judging the sitution

This where it all falls down

Totally agree with you on the cameras

so how about it jasbar?

I've had three complaints in total through passengers from the Public Carriage Office.

I've given them a written response with the correct versions on three occasions.

I've never had a request to come up for an interview / licensing panel yet.

This occupation can / will attract complaints from people, thats life, you have to answer them, thats the system we have in GB.

Whether you are a sparkie, a builder, a cop, a doctor, everyone has a watchdog which policies their respective industry.

The problem here is the fact its been started as a criminal investigation

Nice to talk to you sunset, it makes a change to talk forcefully over a few post without the other person decending into simply saying "feck off".

I first met gary many years ago, I have no doubt that at that point in time that, although he was mouthy, he did have the good of the trade in mind. I actually quite liked him.

Since then though, he has become disillusioned and worse got into the company of jimmy boy.

His actions now are motivated by spite and hatred. Together they have decided that they are very important people, egging each other on they now concentrate on causing trouble for the fun of it. If it could lead to a bad outcome for their collegues, all the better.

Many complaints start as being made to the police and are then passed to the cab inspector.

gary is making out that there is some criminal investigation. Have uniformed police come knocking on his door?. No.

It has only ever been a simple cab office complaint, but by his refusal to talk to them, it has been pushed elsewhere.

Had he gone in and spoken to them in a reasonable manner, I suspect from experience, this would have been long forgotten.

You don't get it do you?

The cab inspector is a uniformed officer.

And the council didn't treat this allegation as it does others. It should have written to Garry for an explanation. That's what its procedures say. It didn't. It immediately, immediately mind you, cranked this up into a police investigation. Equality before the Law?

This is a witch-hunt. Nothing less.

And had there been any substantiation to the allegation, Garry would have responded. But not to a cop for a civil matter. No way. Not ever.

There is no independence here.

Frank Cheeers

if you read his reply he states that he was interviewd by a police officer after he said to the cab inspector on the phone the allegation was not true

he was not sent a letter notifying him of the complaint before hand as per the councils own procedures

he stayed silent as per his right

and is now subject to a report to the r.c.

its crossed over criminal to civil

simply because he used his right

You seem still to be under some misapprehension.

Let me say it clearly.

I am not doing anything, nor will I ever, for the good of the trade as you put it. because this taxi trade in Edinburgh is founded on vested interest and greed.

What we do may well benefit drivers, but that's as far as it goes. I hope this trade burns, because that's what it deserves.

I've already tried to establish an aroganisation to protect us. It failed, because the vested interests kyboshed it. I won't ever be trying that again.

Get it now Frank? I don't care about you, and I don't care about the trade.

I do care about drivers and I do care about customers.

Which puts YOU on the dark side and me in the higher moral position.

you have to bear in mind

At the R.C metting the police will be present and could use any thing skull says

to instgate criminal charges against him

this is wrong

and of course he will not have the right to question his accusser who has also said that he will attend