Taxi Driver Online

if that were truly a representation of me then surely i would have kept the plates rented them out at an exorbitant rate, joined the radio companies,joined the hire car licensing group,sucked up to the council and supported restriction.

i know who the villains are,don't you.

im not fecking any one and you know it

if they want to lay down and be fecked by the council then thats up to them.

the only way im more deserving of a plate is that ive actually applied for one.
thats a requirement of being an applicant you know
anyone can do the same thing. and be equally if not more so desreving than me

but you can hardly call them thats not applied victims, and me the villain
simply because i applied and they didnt
your making them out to be victims because ...erm there victims.
they have some input into there choices you know....as do i

You're the one making it up as you go along, Dusy.

This particular “cartel” is a consequence of council policy and not direct price fixing by agreement between parties providing a similar product or services. All the council collects is the licence fee. They would make far more money from De-restricting the market. It's a political decision to protect the vested interests of plate holders.

Oh and Dusty, you've got an unhealthy fixation with Ali making money. It's clouding your judgment.

did you notice that to

you should cut me lose

lets just set the record straight gary , jim and myself dont meet in some secret location to plot blowing up council hq
perhaps we should but we dont

in fact we may share the same ideals when it comes to taxi licensing but we don't have any regular contact,in fact i haven't seen gary for years,all i do is drop the money at the secret place under the plant pot and the scam continues

what i dont get is whats in it for the council in restricting numbers.

its not really the councillors(or is it)they seem to under the impression that they are required to restrict numbers,not that just the opposite is true.
they certainly never seem to question the why

so whats in it for them at corporate services.
their not ignorant of the facts are they,mcleod knows fine and well,indeed he said it was untenable in Aberdeen.
so whom in corporate services has an interest in continuing with this policy.
buggered if i can get a straight answer of them.

There seems to be a lack of political will to confront the issue, the council executive to back it, and the public to demand more taxis. The drivers within the trade could tip the balance but either lack the knowledge to understand the argument, are too frightened to rock the boat or simply do not care. That's not to say that, de-restriction is faraway, in today's political climate anything can happen, especially after years of in fighting. It's not unusual for politicians to allow things to calm down and then seize the initiative and make it look like it was always on the table and their idea in the first place. Maybe they are simply looking for Ph, to run the trade into the ground so the problem, for the most part, goes away. I suspect it's a combination of all the above, and for that reason the trade is finished as an industry you would want to buy into or work in. As I said before, it's now a low-paid industry where you work for scumbag politicians picking up the dregs of society, and I can't see it changing anytime soon.

Here's an idea to bring about de-restriction once and for all.

A group of individuals get together with the intention of making a single licence plate application. They go to a Human Rights Lawyer and pay for a detailed written submission to be put before the Council RC, on their behalf. The council of course refuses the licence application on the pretense they considered the Human Rights argument along with section 10.3 of the act, and special circumstances.

You then rewrite the submission into a writ of appeal and place it before a Sheriff, with a taxi driver (the applicant) presenting the case as his.

The Sheriff would be forced to consider the council's refusal under Human Rights from the outset, and if, the ruling went in the appellants favour, the council would then have to appeal against the decision all the way to the Court of Session. The applicant would simply be holding the coats, waiting for the outcome.

The fundamental principles on which the case is based would not change throughout the process. You would simply be repeating the same argument over and over.

It would be another Salteri et al situation for the council.

Just heard on the News about the possible benefits, to folk who suffer from depression, “Magic Mushrooms”.... You were the first person I thought of Gary. However, people are advised to be careful if they are taking other forms of medication, so watch what yer’ doin’ mate.

Where have I got it wrong? I think it's a good idea and can't see where it would fail if you managed to get over the first hurdle of wining at appeal. Once the Human Rights argument makes it into court, I think it's all over.

Say 5 guys one licence that's £300 plus the cost of the written HR, submission and lodging the writ. It would cost less than a grand each and remember, you would get most of the licence fee back. It might take a while but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a plate.

You think the first hurdle would be, "Winning at appeal ?"....Hmm... Dinnae' think so.

Here's the nub John, as an individual you can argue how your rights were breached. You don't need a HR, Lawyer to do it for you. The HR, submission made before the council RC, would be your case on appeal. The council would have to show how they protected your rights when coming to their decision to deny the licence. As I said before, the fundamental principles on which the case was based would remain throughout. Inequality, exploitation and discrimination, are all breaches of Human Rights, it's all there.

As a layman you would have serious latitude to make your case by the Sheriff. Remember John, I've been in court made the argument and quoted Human Rights. I've seen the impact it can have on a Judge.

The hard part would be getting an HR, Lawyer to write your submission, but if what I am told is correct, all you need is money, and they will do anything.

The key to getting the submission into court is the RC, meeting to deny the licence.

Remind me again, what was going to be the, "First hurdle" ?.

Well, assuming everything is in place, wining at appeal. It would be then down to the council to appeal, the appeal.

You stood in front of a, “Judge,” mentioned, “H.R,” and seen, “The impact it's had on the Judge" ?. WTF ?
I’ll tell you what Gary, you’ve got a high opinion of yourself.... You’re nuts. You really are !.

Remember, the case with CRT, when they paid us eight grand. Without Human Rights, we wouldn't have been able to spin it out, costing CRT a fortune in the process, 48K if I remember correctly.