Taxi Driver Online

We in the taxi trade are well used to being subjected to kangaroo courts.

Today I received my annual licence renewal. It took two and a half months to process, and arrived one month after the expiry of the old one. I'll go through the same palaver next year too. Because councils make the rules and there is no burden on them to be in any way efficient.

In the accompanying letter I am exhorted to read the council's licensing conditions, although no copy of these is included. The letter says,' I would urge you to study these in detail as any failure to comply at a future date may result in the council taking steps to suspend your licence.'

Is there any better way for the council to remind me that I am its serf?

Doesn't this suggest that this council is just looking for an excuse to suspend my licence?

This is the reason why I renew annually and not every three years as the other serfs do.

Anyway, the council would bring me before their Kangaroo Court, and I would face legally incompetent councillors who would make their decision to the lax criteria of what they believe; what they want to believe. And we all know what that would be.

Skull refused to play their game. I may, or I may not. Because we both have always known there is no honour in the parcel of rogues who call themselves a Regulatory Committee.

John Terry is just the latest example of how civil procedure is manifestly unjust. Found NOT guilty by a court of law, the FA, using the lesser burden of probability, have just found him guilty and fined him £220,000 and banned him for 4 games.

Not only is the verdict unfair, because a court couldn't prove the allegations, but the sentence is draconian. If we're all supposed to be equal before the law, would a player in the lower leagues found guilty of the same offence be fined such a large sum of money?

But there is no pretence at fairness in any of these civil proceedings. Once again, like our council's Kangaroo Court, there is no burden of precedent to encumber decision making? Councillors can, and do,just make it up. They don't like you, you are a thorn in their side, you disrespect them and their actions, and they will punish you big time. This is what we allow them to get away with through our servility and acceptance of their abuse of their power.

The Kangaroo Court, on deciding you are guilty of whatever offence, will suspend your licence; in effect take away your livelihood and punish your innocent family as well, for they will suffer the fallout of the council's arbitrary decision taking.

This wasn't always the case. There was a time when the council took it upon itself to suspend licences for fixed period. A month for swearing perhaps. 3 months for noising up a customer. A week for forgetting to touch your forelocks to the committee. They paid no heed to precedent and simply made it up. The meetings being held in secret allowing them to do whatever they wanted and get away with it.

There was no provision for any of this in the Act. They were just making it up. Like they do with the way they conduct their business in respect of licensing.

Recognising this, and to their credit, councillors have since desisted from this abuse of the legislation. But they have replaced it with the more draconian punishment of suspension of licence outright, effectively until renewal. So, in order to punish anyone, that punishment isn't determined by the severity of the alleged offence, but by how long you happen to have left on your licence. Equality before the law?

So, why would anyone want to renew their licence for three years rather than just the one?

I've long been at the stage where it wouldn't matter whether I have a licence or not. I have long lost respect for the trade and those who work in it.

To lose the licence would be temporarily uncomfortable, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. It might just force me to take actions I should be taking anyway. And this position would bring much latitude when addressing the Kangaroo Court. In fact I would welcome the opportunity, and I would require it be held in public, so councillor's conduct would be there for all to witness. Wouldn't that be interesting?

When I am finally finished with the trade, irrespective of what happens until then, it will be with a sense of disappointment that the men and women of the council, and those who work in the trade, are even capable of conducting themselves as they do, far less than that they actually do.

And, particularly given there is not one politician in the council who could persuade anything like even 1 in 5 of their electorate to vote for them. Shouldn't such a tenuous hold on office be tempered with humility and an ambition to serve?

In John Terry's case, the establishment who have just abused him, is simply composed of "politicians" who once again amass some power, and abuse it to do others down.

I guess the maxim is:

Beware of leading politicians to water, they'll just spit in your face.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"