Taxi Driver Online

I might be wrong, but as I understand it,

He spoke on the phone with John Blain from the cab office but refused to discus the complaint itself.
Mr Blain is a police employee but not an officer.

He was then asked to come in and see Frank Smith, but refused.
Mr Smith is the cab inspector and as such is a police officer. (not the same as having uniformed officers knocking at your door).

He was then asked to see the licensing committee. But is now refusing to talk to the licensing committee as well.

The complaint could very well have been done and dusted by talking to John Blain at the start.

You do have to wonder who you have to be for gary to see fit to talk to you?

It is a case of mountains from molehills.

He is FORCING the complaint to go higher and higher for fun.

And this method could be forced upon anyone of us in a more serious allegation denying us all the right to remain silent or loose our livihoods

It is quite normal for a complaint to move from the cab inspector onto the licencing committee, as it is them and not him that has the power to suspend or revoke a licence.
So I would not get hung up on the fact that it moved from police to civil.

According to council procedure thats not the way it should be happing and at the end o the day he was questioned by a police officer

at this point he need not say anything

he should be then charged or the matter ends untill the poilce have any proof

they dont have so he is summoned up to the R.C where if he answears there is possible criminal charges waiting and if he doesnt he could loose his liecence

this is an atempt to coerce him


the matter should have stayed within the civil proedeure until such a time there was proof that the matter was criminal

There is a right to remain silent in police matters, but since 1994 if you do so and later say something in court, the court can infer that you were hiding something and simply made up a story at a later date.

At one time you could remain silent and nothing could be read into that, but it is no longer the case.

I done a quick google, it is English law I read about, but I would assume that with such a major thing the same applies in Scotland.

Ho hum!

You don't give 2 hoots about the customers. You use the customers as an argument in your quest to destroy the taxi trade in Edinburgh.

If you cared about the customers then you would still be out at 3-4am in the morning, especially at a time when vultures are circling the prey, instead of sitting at home at 2am bumping the keyboard keys

`

Have you been on the sherberts again or are you just stupid.

I decide what hours I work, not you nor anyone else.

If I choose to finish at whatever time, then that is my right.

If there are then insufficient cars on the street, that's not my problem, but the trade who restricts them.

Grow up.

Interesting point, but I wonder what the Convention would say about this. If the Law changed in 1994, then the Human Rights Act came in 1998, hmmmmmm ....

Anyway, it would be a stretch to claim guilt because you were exercising your right to remain silent. There would still have to be corroboration.

or does corroboration not count in your fantasy world?

The elements of the incident here are irrelevant. What matters is the process.

And the council have been found wanting, even by their own procedures.

But there is the benefit that if you are driving then you can't put your drivel on this forum.

Isn't that part of the formal caution, given by a police officer when investigating a criminal complaint?

Was Gary ever read this caution?

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Very true. But without the "drivel", who would you fear?

Doesn't matter. The fact is that without a caution you don't say anything to this cab inspector. He can't be trusted.

Under caution, don't speak without a lawyer present. If you can't afford one then assert your right to have one appointed for you.

This council, and this cab inspector have shown how they have abused their own procedures and ignored human rights.

The council should go back to the drawing board and do what it should already have done and consider every aspect of its complaints process in line with HR, and Frank Smith should be sent back to Tuliallan for retraining, peferably after being busted back to the ranks.

B ill they

Sorry frank

i Was getting a little confused about who was who

john blain (cab officer) not police calls skull

Skull says allegation not true( at this point its still civil)

He is then passed on to Frank smith (cab inspector) but also a police officer, Skulls says allegation not true and remains silent(now criminal)

He is then told that since he wont speak he will report him to the R,C
( back to civil) with the now added weight of a criminal charge, its this part here i can see may be an attempt to coerce

from what i understand i could be wrong



anyhows its not reli my prob, but the outcome will affect all of us
so i will watch and wish him luck

How can a person say an allegation isnt true and remain silent at the same time?

Does Garry do that trick whilst drinking a glass of water?

CC

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

ha ha good point

says no more