Taxi Driver Online

“Assumption is the mother of all [edited by admin] ups” the Sheriff was protecting the council from the outset. He knew damn well that everyone had a right to a licence. He framed a ruling that granted one licence but couldn't be used as a given for any other bona fide applicant to be granted theirs.

But the sisted applicants will also get their licence, presumably?

The sherrif had no locus in relation to the other applicants if they didn't lodge an appeal.

The system of issuing licenses is inherently unfair. The Donald application was no different from any other licence in that respect. The ruling should have said as much. It was the council that was at fault not the applicants for applying. This wasn't about a dilemma for the council issuing licenses in a fair and reasonable manner. Their refusal was predetermined. They abused applicant rights and broke the law. The sheriff may have granted the Donald licence, but he went out of his way to protect the council.

Sheriff Noble is a disgrace.

But unless you think there are prima facie grounds to think that the sheriff got his legal reasoning wrong, rather than just lumping him in with the unfairness of the system generally then it might be a better idea not to call his judgement into question in this way. He was dealing with one particular aspect of the system on a strictly legal basis rather than looking at the thing in a wider sense and from the moral and political perspective.

As I recall it in a way its not dissimilar to the Dundee case, where the Taxi Cab Company set the ball rolling and applied for 70 licences, but there were a number of other applications as well. The council threw them all out, and DTCC appealed, but the others were scared off at this point and didn't appeal.

Thus DTCC got their plates via the court judgement, but the other applicants got nothing.

Clearly unfair - particularly as DTCC got 70 or so plates while those originally applying for just one plate got nowt - but that was of no concern to the sheriff because only DTCC had appealed.

It's the rest of the thing that stinks rather than the legal system per se.

And I suspect you've got more chance of getting change in taxi legislation and policy rather than taking on the fundamentals of the legal system.

"More chance of getting change in Taxi legislation"

New York New York SKULL

Game Over

The fact of the matter is the allocation system, the council wil tell you's all to feck off as there is no current demand [/quote]

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!

This was a test case through a group action of some seventeen applicants all of whom applied in almost identical circumstances. Donald was the tip of the sword. The Sheriff had unfettered discretion in coming to his decision just like Sheriff Liddle in the Salteri case. He didn't have to draw his ruling so tight that it cut off the air supply to the other applicants.

I was in court with the 3maxblack case and lost the decision through Sheriff Mackay. In identical circumstance Sheriff Liddle then granted in favour of Salteri even though the Salteri case went before him unrepresented. Sheriff Liddle's ruling carried the case all the way to the court of session. On appeal, Sheriff Bowen looked at the case anew and still gave the decision in favour of Salteri. It was without a doubt the Liddle ruling that brought the council down. This was JUSTICE.

The point I am making is that upon knowing the circumstances of the case. Sheriff Noble decided to dispense a ruling in LAW, which favoured the council but failed to deliver JUSTICE, protecting all whose rights were abused by the council.

As Plato said “he doesn't know what justice is, but he knows what justice is not”.

A strong Sheriff like Gordon Liddle would have delivered Justice and not simply a ruling that granted a licence.

Sheriff Noble knew exactly what he was doing, and gave a ruling which protected the establishment.

Dusty, you make a good case for the Sheriff, the establishment and the law but not Justice. Now remind why people take their grievances through the courts? What is it, we are all looking for when our rights have been abused by a powerful public body which is supposed to protect our rights?

If some scumbag rapes child and only gets 18 months jail is that justice? No but it been handles lawfully

If someone who drives over a child whilst on the phone gets 5year ban and 2 years probation is that justice? No but it's handled lawfully!

You and Taylor didnt get what you wanted but it was dealt lawfully

Tough luck!

You are making assertions and jumping to conclusions. There may be mitigating circumstances for the sheriff in coming to his decision.

The person who raped the child might be mentally retarded.

The person on the phone might be answering an emergency call himself, may be his child has been run over.

A simpleton like you, for instance, could always argue mitigation when committing an offence, but they would probably lock you up in a mental asylum for your own safety.

Tell me something Longshanks, you don't have a brother called Dougie, by any chance, that drives a red metro cab?

Oh and Longshanks, no one is claiming that Sheriff Noble's decision is unlawful. This thread is about Justice. The clue is in the title.

What a retard

Skull,

I am getting slightly confused now, if Kenny Donald won the test case and as we know the Sherriff deemed a Grant, the other 16 guys in the legal group action with identical cases should automatically be granted as well, that is my understanding. Why the hell would the group fork out money for Advocates and Solicitors on the understanding that if the Test Case was successful there still MIGHT NOT be a chance that any of the 16 were successful? it does not make any sense to me at this moment in time. I do not think that the Group Action would have went ahead if that were the case. The council has until 3rd June if they want to appeal the Judgement, who knows if they will or they wont, but if they do then IMO it's a Vexatious appeal. Legal Meaning below
(Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.)

_________________
LET THE TRUTH BE TOLD

I believe those in the group action will be granted their licenses if the council chooses not to appeal against the decision. However, if they want to be awkward it might not be as simple as the council unsisting the licence applications and granting the full 27. As I understand it the council doesn't have to unsist the remaining applications. They can sit back and wait until the applicants are forced to do it for themselves. This might mean taking the council back into court, and where it goes from there, only the council knows. It's down to the lawyers to sort it out.

Skull,
appreciate your comments, you and ALI T are normally spot on regarding the legalities and knowledge of the process, I hope common sense prevails in this instance and I hope the council do not force more court cases just for the sake of it as the whole licence application process is now becoming farcical to say the least.

_________________
LET THE TRUTH BE TOLD

If this was about commonsense politicians would cease to exist, and lawyers would disappear up their own [edited by admin]. Could we be that lucky?

Indeed, but again I was arguing on the basis of law rather than justice. I never said the thing was just.

But my essential point was that it's probably better to accept the wider legal constraints you're working under and stick to challenging the licensing legislation, case law and policy rather that taking on the legal system per se, the latter seemingly representing the stance you're taking in this thread.

But it looks like we're just going to have to agree to differ on that

Challenging the taxi licensing law, practice and policies is a big enough challenge without taking on the wider legal Establishment. In fact the latter could well be detrimental to the former.

As usual Gary, the insults come a flying.

Tell me, did you apply for a license? No of course not. You let everyone do the work and hope to jump onto the bandwagon.

If you had the balls to put your money up like your mate Ali T then you'd have had a(nother) plate by now