Skull wrote:
jasbar wrote:
JD wrote:
jasbar wrote:
Had an interesting chat with a legal type at the weekend.
Seems that the fact that the council has issued twice off the IPL, although we know it has no formal legal status, could be construed as an implied agreement and that those who are waiting on the list may have some legal recourse if it is crashed without them getting their licence.
He did say that some research would need to be done.
If that be the case I would be very wary of how this came about. The only thing I can immediately think of is perhaps one or two of the existing licenses became available through revocation or perhaps a death and re-issued? A simple letter to licensing should confirm this.
Regards
JD
Perhaps I should explain this. When I stated that the council had issued twice from the IPL what I meant was that it has issued two tranches of licences from the list. The first was around 100, the second was around 49. The original list was around 250, it's now believed to be 99.
The council has declared its intent, through the bumbling Wiggie, to come up with a survey to disburse the number remaining on the list. This is expected to be within one year of my licence refusal. I suspect it will be conducted during a sufficiently busy period to justify the result.
However, the council are mistaken if they think this will solve their problem. As soon as a licence is issued from the list, notification of that even, it is open house for anyone to apply. They could not be discriminated against in favour of those on the list under the terms of the Act. Indeed I may well apply myself once again.
What does the council then do. It will have to issue licences sequentially according to date of application. Their unmet demand number could be welll satisfied long before the list is disbursed. Where do they draw the line? In court?
The simple fact is that the council can not issue from the list in isolation. End of.
Geee Whizzzz Jim, it looks lie there maybe only one way out for the C.E.C? This could be to de-restrict the trade for a short period of time, then use the forthcoming SUD to put the cap back on?
Just think Jim, if they got the SUD and then intended to issue 99 off the list sequentially, and them someone slapped them with an Interim Interdict, where would they be?
They could be in court for months while other applications come pouring in through the door and all when a “significant unmet demand” has been recognised?
Oh and lets not forget what their position will be if they lose the next court case?
It might not be a good idea for the C.E.C to come-up with a SUD at all?
Oh but then again, this would mean they had no up-to-date demand information to deny licence applications….
It looks like the C.E.C is in deep doo, doo over this…
BTW Edinburgh plate holders, I wouldn't take all of this too seriously, it's only a game after-all
Not as deep doo doo as letting Councillors take the stand to defend the policy?
Wiggie Wiggie what is your name,
Wiggie Wiggie what is your game,
Jacobs is flawed, the interim survey too.
You said it, remember it noo?
Deny deny, that's what Inch told you to decide
Though the info used was a pile of sh*te.
He told you from justice councillors could hide
No witness box for a church leading light.
Sad to say, Inch got it wrong
Not for the first time I may shout.
You'll get your chance to sing your song
Under oath, the truth will out.
Only you in the box, standing alone
I can't wait to see the look on your face.
For your misdeeds you will atone
Recognised as a political disgrace.
Councillors have a public duty
To act reasonably, within the Law.
Your manner was truly just haughty
Arrogantly applying it as you saw.
The policy to restrict you stoically defended
Kinda makes me wonder why?
You prejudiced my case until refusal ended
Any respect for a churchman who would lie.
Here endeth today's lesson ....
Praise be to the Lord.
Login
Register
FAQ
