Taxi Driver Online

I agree with you on that.

However the way to create new laws is via your parliament, not via council meetings.

Some in the national trade down here are suggesting fixed penalties for minor offences, and even the Minister mentioned them at the Transport Select Committee.

I'm not a massive fan of them, but at least the penalties would be created by a parliament.

_________________
IDFIMH

but its OK for the council to be UN-accountable.

because they are, unless you have very big pockets.

they don't even adhere to there own policies.

there job is to protect the public,that includes me and you btw
it is not to punish the driver for unfounded allegations thats not allowed for under our laws.that is a job for the courts.
and we all know it.


minor incidents in taxis can and will escalate into major incidents because we cannot trust this system.
would you trust in the system to give you a fair whack i know i wouldnt its corrupt from top to bottom(its foundations unfortunately lie with us)

i cant believe anyone would agree with the current way councils operate.

remember the airport years ago.
i and other got called into crt offices and met the guys with the funny handshakes who had friends out at the airport,i was told then that i was not allowed to go anywhere near the airport or the car would be booted from the company,and so where a few others.
it didn't stop me.
the principal is the same
corrupt kangaroo courts

Who said the allegation was unfounded?

Garry! No one else. Just because he says it's unfounded it must be true?

His claim the allegation was unfounded is unfounded because he can't/won't prove otherwise

You seem to have forgotten something.
In our society, we are not required to prove our innocence.
The burden of proof lies with our accusers.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Not innocent until proven cabby

_________________

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

Ali,

There has to be, at some point, a procedeure where drivers can be held to account for their behaviour.

For instance, take a driver who welcomes all women passengers by saying " Just sit down you silly cow, where have I got to take you, you stink"
There is nothing there that would interest the police and courts, he is just excessively rude.
But I would say that some action needs to be taken to curb his behaviour.

A radio company could "have a word" but as they are a supplier to the driver and not an employer, they should have no teeth.

If complaints reach the cab inspector, he could call in the driver for a word.
He has no powers of enforcement, so all he can legally do is pass it onto the licencing committee.
I don't know this inspector, but I do know that in the past others have taken their own dubious paths at this point, like asking fellow lodge members to kick people out of radio companies or have quiet words (threats) in back offices at Gilmore Pl.
At least this guy is following the correct procedure, and you know where you stand.

So we are now before the licencing committee and the driver still refuses to be polite to the punters.
What now? let him off and send him on his way?
There has to be a sanction at some point.

I agree with you that suspension does not make sense, it needs to be something else, but to say what is not easy. perhaps a system of warnings and written warnings like you would get from an emplloyer.

So, the cab inspector HAS followed the correct path and bumped it up to the committee, unlike some of his predecessors for them to deal with.

If you don't like the licencing committee, that's fine. But if it is not them there needs to be an alternative.
The only possible alternative is VOSA, the agency that deals with trucks and buses. a bigger bunch of pen pushing beaurocrats you have never met.

Back in the real world, gary's mistake is not to speak up for himself.
Without speaking up for yourself they will just ride rough shod right over you.
He has a fixation with HRA, it's not just this subject but nearly every thing he has mentioned recently is all about human rights and compensation.
I think he has made a wrong move by keeping his mouth shut. but he says he doesn't care and because he is just driver on a rental I am inclined to believe him.

Phew, who knew I could type so many words in one go.

Al,
I've got to go now, but when I get time to post it carefully I will tell you of a situation, involving me, from years ago where the licencing committee system worked better than the court system for a driver.

But the problem with this is that the cab inspector is NOT part of the civil complaints procedure.

The council solicitor has advised me that no guidelines are given to the cab inspector in respect of complaints under the CGSA.

The duties of the cab inspector are not outlined in the Licensing Conditions. It is NOT defined. (How can you obstruct this guy in the performance of his duties when you don't know what his duties are and what his authority is?.)

All complaints about taxi drivers are to be made direct to the licensing officer, a civilian in the council - NOT the cab inspector. One of Frank Smith's responsibilities is to ensure that the sign to state this is sited in every car his team inspects.

The complaints procedures clearly state that the cab inspector is specifically contacted to determine whether the police should be involved. If he deems the police should be, then it is under criminal procedure not civil procedure. Therefore no one should be interviewed by the cab inspector without caution, else he has a right to remain silent.

BTW Frank Smith is a Police Inspector, he's SUPPOSED to know all this. You can't tell me that it's an accident that he doesn't properly follow police procedure.

Now, in Skull's case, Frank Smith had no business even contacting the Skull when he did. Sure, he could have interviewed the complainer, which he did. But there being NO corroboration of the complainer's poorly crafted tale, the matter should have been at an end for Frank Smith. His Police involvement should have ended.

But it didn't, because Frank Smith, knowing that Skull was allegedly involved, behaved like the Christmas Turkey he is and saw a chance to get the Skull. He's a turkey because he was too stupid to realise that this is NOT what cops are supposed to do. And that's why Frank Smith is not fit for purpose and should be replaced. He is an embarrassment to Lothian and Borders Police.

So, in the Skull's case.

1. Civil while in charge of a taxi?

No corroboration, no proof, legally the incident never happened. The licensing condition was therefore NOT breached. There was no legal basis for Frank Smith to make the report he did to the council.

The Skull's licence was removed illegally and his rights breached.

2. Obstructing the duties of an authorised officer?

Oh I know we're all supposed to know what Smith can do, but legally no one has told us. And in civil procedure, he's not even authorised.

No licence condition breached, no reason for removal of licence, council acted illegally.

3. Comply with all instructions of an authorised officer?

(And if he instructs you to jump off a bridge? )

When we don't know that in respect of civil complaints he is an authorised officer. Yes he's authorised to inspect vehicles. But civil complaints? Authorised? Who says? Not the licensing conditions. We're all just assumed to know. legally we don't. No breach here then, licence removed, once again, illegally.

Give all information reasonably required in his duties as an authorised officer? In civil matters? Not proven, we don't know what his duties are in civil matters. And, remember the council have given him NO guidelines. He doesn't have any, nor do licence holders.

Any information Frank required as a Police Officer was dealt with, the Skull refused to speak to unsubstantiated etc allegations. That was the end of the matter as a police one. Had it not been, Frank could have pursued it as such. He didn't - end of that then.

And, in the absence of anyone knowing Smith's remit under civil procedure, any request by him was unreasonable, therefore NO breach of licensing conditions, licence removed by the committee illegally.

Now, council solicitors should know all this. But they don't. Or at least they didn't. They were too busy rearranging their procedures to ensure that they could dig the Skull out that they lost sight of legality.

Which shows, and it will to the judge, that there is something verging on a conspiracy here.

Now, we don't blame the council for trying to stiff a political opponent. That's what they can and do do. We'd do it ourselves when necessary. We respect them for trying.

But they lost sight of what they are allowed to do under the Law, and made massive mistakes here.

The laughing boy councillors simply proved they are a disgrace, because they are supposed to be the checks and balances in our local authority control system. They should have smelt a rat and refused to play along.

But they're so used to just playing along they've now become part of the problem, because they allowed the council solicitors to play a disgraceful game.

Skull's document was alegedly before councillors questioning Human Rights breaches. They didn't even consider it. They dismissed it entirely. I'd bet they didn't even read it.

They sow, the Skull reaps.

Ok Al here goes,

A taxi driver gets in the way of a couple of car loads of boy racers having a race on regent road.
Further down the road the two cars stop in front of and behind the taxi forcing it to a stop.
An argument and a bit of pushing and shoving ensues.

The police, who are passing, stop and the boy racers say that the taxi driver forced them to a stop and treatened them with a huge spanner and slapped one of them.
Even though the boy racers cars are still in position blocking the taxi from moving. and although no spanner was found after a search of the taxi, driver, and area.

There were passengers in the taxi but they did not want to get involved, so there were no independent witnesses.
Only the taxi driver and around eight boy racers. By weight of numbers only, the word of the boy racers is taken and the taxi driver charged with assault and breach of the peace.

Taxi driver informs the cab office in person, they thank him for being honest and bringing it to their attention. He is told to let them know after it has been to court.

It goes to court, taxi driver convicted on weight of numbers. But the sherrif is clearly none too impressed and gives out very small fines for the offences.
If taxi licence problems had been only in the hands of the courts, that would have been the end of the matter, licence lost.

Taxi driver then lets the cab office know, and is told he can carry on until he will need to appear in front of the licence committee.

Driver goes to the committee with solicitor, and very early in the hearing a member of the committee (who is also a sherriff) notices the small fines given out and informs everyone else that the sherriff had given out fines that were so low that he legally could not go any lower, and suggests that the sherriff was making a point. That although he had to find the driver guilty, on weight of numbers, he didn't believe a word of it.

Result was that no action was taken and the driver told to be more careful in future.

----------

The points I am trying to make are that if simply what went on in court was pivotal that licence would have been lost.

Also, the fact that the licencing committee were not working under rules that were so rigid, they could use a bit of common sense and the driver (me) kept his licence.

Garys dislike for the term "not fit and proper" is not justified.
It allows for a bit of common sense to be used. And for each case to be judged on its merits.
And is widely used elsewhere.

I consider that the system worked well on that occasion.

**** BREAKING NEWS ****

Frank Lay, doyen of taxi forums, has been outed. His identity can now be revealed.

Frank Lay is none other than GARY REID.

Onlookers of the Taxi Driver Online Forum, widely recognised as the leader in its field, have received the news of Lay's real alter ego.

Jasbar, leading voice of reason on the forum told us, "I'm not surprised. It is inconceivable that there are two literary geniuses in Edinburgh capable of crafting such fantastic tales as Frank Lay and Gary Reid. Logic demands that they are one and the same person."

We tried to interview both parties.

Lay refuses to speak to us lest his identity being revealed will bring unwanted criticism to him and his family. Pressed to speak, Lay said, "They would then be able to pin everythung Ive said on the forums to me. No chance. No way."

Mr Reid was unavailable for comment, his Range Rover last seen scurrying up Drumsheugh Gardens at the breathtaking pace of 5 MPH, clearly distracted by something other than his driving. As we go to press, this journal is checking Mr Reid's mobile fone records. We are also checking Mr Reid's employment and family connections to understand how his complaint was formulated so quickly.

Asked to comment, Cllr Keir - Convener of the committee that removed the Skull's licence, was quoted as saying, "We got the bar sterd. Next time he comes before such an important person as I, the Council's top bus driver, he'll show respect. That showed him. Right?"

Frank Smith, the Chief Constable's representative in the taxi garage said, "I can't comment on what Lay, I mean Reid, said to me. It's a Police matter and is subjudice. That's right, I'm not going to say anything further about that.

But I did investigate the matter fully, I asked searching questions. That's what Inspectors like me do. We ask searching questions. There's nothing about this case I don't know or understand.

Whew! I got away with that one".

He added, "Look I'm an experienced cop, an Inspector even".

"And I didn't confirm Lay is Reid, did I?" "Right. Interview ended. "

Readers can form their own opinion.

But this journal considers Reid knows too much about the taxi trade and the complaints procedure.

Look out for our next report .... coming to a forum near YOU!!!!

oh james,they'r coming to take you away,

_________________
oh no jimbo no the lub agian

I wish they would hurry up.

_________________
Grandad,

Jasbar you really should consider becoming a novelist

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

The phrases "not fit and proper" and "bringing into disrepute" by their very nature and to work in an effective manner, are never tied down with an exact meaning.
They are common in nearly all employment contracts.
One of the reasons they are there is to stop people taking the [edited by admin] by reading the rules and behaving intentionally bad all around them.

The can also give benefit the other way by protecting an employee or driver, by looking at the FULL circumstances around a complaint.

I can't honestly remember if in my case above it was "not fit and proper", but it would be fair to guess that it was.