Frank Lay wrote:
Jasbar wrote:
BTW Let's be quite clear about this.
According to the council's own procedures, the Skull didn't breach any of the licensing conditions he is claimed to have.
His licence was taken from him simply because the council claims he had.
Now, given that the council ignored his response, and it has a record putting documents "before" councillors who then ignore the content, what would be the point of arguing this before the committee.
The decision was pre-determined. Indeed it is certain that some specific steps were taken to reach the outcome, rather than that outcome following as a result of procedure.
Quality!
Did the complaint from a member of the public about his behaviour not amount to a beach of licencing conditions?
Of course the complaint was open to challenge, but gary chose not to do that.
As gary is clearly to ashamed to tell even us what he is supposed to have done, we can only presume the complaint was correct.
In Law the incident didn't happen.
Just as in Rab Smith's case there was no legal foundation for the council to take any action.
Indeed its own procedures state clearly that where there is no substantiation the matter would be held on record and no action taken.
But in this case the council tripped over itself to take action. Why?
because it had embarked on a witch-hunt. Now if anyone can tell me where in the CGSA the Act allows itself to be used to conduct a with=hunt then I'll be delighted to know.
Of course this was precisely the reason why the HRA was brought in the first place
No incident, no breach of licence condition.
The council breached its procedures. Lang should have written to Garry and asked his version of events. he didn't.
The matter is put before the cab inspector to see whether the police should be involved. So, the Cab Inspector contacted Garry to establish this, according to the procedures. That being the case Garry has the right to remain silent in the face of a police investigation.
This being a civil matter, and no police intervention required, the matter should have remained within the civil process. It didn't However, Garry clearly did not hinder the cab inspector in his cab inspector duties. No breach of licensing condition here then.
Finally the condition which says that Garry should give his side of events. he wasn't asked to. Procedure breached, no licensing condition breached.
And faced with such wholesale breach of its own procedures, why would anyone want to submit to the Kangaroo Court so that councillors could laugh while breaching his human rights to equality before the law and a fair hearing?
The council is in serious trouble here.
It has to be stopped.
And bet on the fact that this episode, and his conduct, is going to follow Keir until his political career is at an end. He's made a rod for his own back.
Login
Register
FAQ
