Taxi Driver Online

I think page 25-26 of this document explains it better than I could

http://www.ewht.org.uk/Documents/Monito ... rch%202005).pdf

whatever next

Anyword on the appeal yet? *sniggers

_________________
Who's been "Editing" my mailbox then ...lol

Have you seen JT's letter in the Evening News?

Makes absolute sense to me, what do you think? Come on debate something surprise everyone on this forum with your intellect.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lette ... 1712772005
"The Taxi Trade is being slaughtered"

Can't help feel this just isn't going away sometime soon what says you?

i would gladly discuss this with you or anyone else unfortunately you are incapable if forming a valid argument so youre just gonna have to sit in the dark waiting for whats coming

I asked, Is your command of current case law greater than the Sheriff's or do you think that just because she is a Sheriff she automatically has superior knowledge to that of your own?

Case law is an open book and we all have the same opportunity to interpret case law as we find it. It is called opinion. The reason why there are so many successful appeals to the higher court in Scotland is because in most cases the Sheriff has erred in their judgement of the law. I think you might agree on that?

I also think you might agree that on occasion some Sheriff's do get it wrong. When examining the present case I am looking for evidence to see if the Sheriff's reasoning was deficient? In order to do that you have to examine the quality of evidence or lack of it on which she based her decision. It doesn't matter where my sympathies lie, if the law is applied correctly then it will get the praise it deserves, if it is flawed then it needs to be exposed as being flawed. Don't you agree?

I am also looking for evidence that the Sheriff erred in law by putting too much weight on what some might see as incomplete evidence which was absolutely crucial to the determination of the material issues in this case.

I wasn't privy to the hearing but it may appear that the respondent's council did not have the evidence to counter the claim of the council's two pivotal points. I refer to the factually incorrect and misleading evidence of the licensing officers periodical survey reports and the councils assumption that six months was not long enough to process these applications.

The sheriff found that the council had acted in good faith even though they had ample time to process the applications and that the licensing officer's reports were evidence that the council were keeping matters under review.

There is no doubt that the council could and should have given their decision on these license applications within the six-month time frame, however the Sheriff chose not to question their reasoning as to why they didn't. Instead the Sheriff stated that she could offer an extension if it was shown that the council through no fault of their own had been unable to complete their enquiries in the statutory six-month period.

The sheriff tried to justify her reasoning by diminishing the rights of the respondent to a speedy decision and elevating the administrative rights of the appellant. A clear balance should have been struck between both parties and if the scales of justice were to be tipped in any direction it should have been in favour of the respondents. The onus is on the Council to speedily execute the application within the time frame allowed by law. They comprehensively failed to do this even though they had the means in which to do it.

The Sheriff in my opinion was wrong on many counts and I shall highlight the discrepancies in days to come.

Regards

JD

Theres that post again!

Realcabforceforum Wrote:


I sincerely hope and believe that the survey will show no significant unmet demand because, as every sensible cabbie in Edinburgh knows, there is no unmet demand. Apart from which, it should have been realised by now that extra taxi numbers do not solve the problem they actually make it worse.



Why don’t you explain to us all how keeping the Black Taxi feet’s numbers down has increased the work in the last 5 years? Don’t forget to mention how the increase in PHC is not an increase in taxi numbers. This is the same Ph you see plated out on the streets with their nice new MPV’s and their Satellite Navigation, keep in mind the fact that they are topping 800 and increasing between 15-25 a month.



Then we can talk about the falling profits and the increased plate value and why people should want to re-mortgage their homes to get on the owner ship ladder.



Just while you’re at it why don’t you tell the drivers why they can’t have a free plate, but they can have PHC.



The PHC will top a thousand in the next 2-3 years then what; let me guess it didn't happen.



If you don't increase your fleet how do you increase your market share when faced with a more efficient competitor?



I am not surprise that you won't meet up with us or tell us your name anyone who talks as much s**t as you has everything to lose.


Funny how this post keeps popping up but you fail to answer it, how about you Deegang, do you want to answer the points raised?

Realcabforceforum didn't but RealCabforce wrote (so RealCabforce will reply):-


I sincerely hope and believe that the survey will show no significant unmet demand because, as every sensible cabbie in Edinburgh knows, there is no unmet demand. Apart from which, it should have been realised by now that extra taxi numbers do not solve the problem they actually make it worse.


Skull: Why don’t you explain to us all how keeping the Black Taxi feet’s numbers down has increased the work in the last 5 years?
RealCabforce: Who claims it has?

Skull:Don’t forget to mention how the increase in PHC is not an increase in taxi numbers. This is the same Ph you see plated out on the streets with their nice new MPV’s and their Satellite Navigation, keep in mind the fact that they are topping 800 and increasing between 15-25 a month.
RealCabforce: I have neither the time nor inclination to go back further than 2 years (despite the fact that at least 150 PHC are airport based and therefore distort the figures).
However over the last 2 years there have been 529 applications for PHC operators licences. Despite this, the number of PHC has risen by 115, equating to less than 5 vehicles per month. Nobody suggests that PHC=Taxi. We all know they are inferior in standard to taxis. Apart from their new vehicles there are many more old phc out there as well.

Skull: Then we can talk about the falling profits and the increased plate value and why people should want to re-mortgage their homes to get on the owner ship ladder.
RealCabforce: Instead of destroying the taxi trade with extra vehicles, it would be more appropriate to regulate the PH market properly. Quantitive controls and quality are inextricably linked. As for plate values, that will remain as it is until drivers & operators stop using the gruesome twosome at ITS.

Skull: Just while you’re at it why don’t you tell the drivers why they can’t have a free plate, but they can have PHC.
RealCabforce: Because there are already, as you well know, too many taxis on the street. The fact that the Police and council fail to enforce the existing legislation is more cause for concern


Skull: The PHC will top a thousand in the next 2-3 years then what; let me guess it didn't happen.
RealCabforce: Your guesses so far have been wrong.

Skull: If you don't increase your fleet how do you increase your market share when faced with a more efficient competitor?
RealCabforce: Become more efficient and realise that the world doesn't owe you a living.

Skull: I am not surprise that you won't meet up with us or tell us your name anyone who talks as much s**t as you has everything to lose.
RealCabforce: I got nothing to lose, since I only use my plate to EARN money (like a cheap rental). At this juncture, I am not concerned with its monetary value - unlike you.

Skull: Funny how this post keeps popping up but you fail to answer it, how about you Deegang, do you want to answer the points raised?
RealCabforce: The reality is that you haven't even raised one valid debatable point.

Remember also you have pubicly stated on this forum that you are now chasing full removal of numeric controls. You cannot claim to care about making the trade viable, your only concern now is to win a fight regardless of the consequences. Kinda defeats every point you try to make, does it not???

'quote' from RealCabforce: I got nothing to lose, since I only use my plate to EARN money (like a cheap rental). At this juncture, I am not concerned with its monetary value - unlike you. this I feel hits the nail on the head,finishing off the debate for the majority of edinburgh taxi DRIVERS

I'm not sure what all this WHS stuff achieves, other than to deflect the argument from the real issues.

My point was that you were trying to make a comparison between qualitative and quantitative controls to bolster your case re the latter on taxis, but I pointed out that the former controls were of a fundamentally different character, thus they provide nothing to bolster the restricted taxi numbers case.

You then provide a great spiel about WHS stuff and planning, which you tried to spin as being an argument against me, whereas in fact it just underlined what I was saying about environmental controls etc.

Of course, planning controls can often in effect amount to quantitative controls, but that is not the rationale. Indeed planning controls could be used as a smokescreen to implement arbitrary numerical controls, as per taxis, but to that extent I think the process is being abused, and is thus hardly related to the efficacy of restricted taxi numbers.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Why do we not organise a ballot on this, it would be interesting to see the results? and maybe give the majority a proper mandate to carry on with their agenda with the knowledge that the majority of the trade are behind them.

Would it be so hard to do?

Once you have an idea of how the people on the ground feel about the issues, it perhaps would not be so divisive.

I am inclined towards a democratic solution, sometimes the legal solutions are to narrow and do not take account of the bigger picture.

So you're neither a driver nor an owner then?

So would you care to be a bit more specific about your interest?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I was talking about Ali's comparison between taxi numerical controls and other forms of Licensing, it is a fact of life in a world heritage site that there are other considerations to be taken into account, I was not concerning myself with Taxi numbers , only Ali's post where he claimed that you would not be refused a License to run some other kind of business, I did state in the post that I knew what Ali meant , he was talking about there being no restrictions on the number of business's operating in a given area, or at least that that would not be a significant factor in determining the outcome of an application, I was merely pointing out that in a World Heritage site that is not always the case.

No I am a driver, but could you define what a vested interest actually is?

What is arbitrary about quantitative restrictions? They are based on supply and demand and the resultant limits are in place to ensure the service provided can, and does, meet the qualitative, safety, environmental etc restrictions.
It is not only "vested interests" who support restricted taxi numbers. It would be more correct to say that only those who fail to grasp the reasoning behind the restriction oppose it.
Many opponents are from the PH sector which (in Scotland, at least) only operate their "taxi" services through a loophole in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which, when implemented, allowed them 2- way communication equipment in their vehicles supposedly for safety reasons.
Prior to that act, theoretically, PH had to operate from premises and return there after each journey. This is now a grey area.