Taxi Driver Online

Eh?

Well you both claimed to know a bit about HC law, so I was using GA's logic to posit that you were both failed lawyers who disgraced their profession.

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

Ah, so you were just making it up - I'll bear that in mind for the future

However, I wouldn't be so sure that you can't be in the pooh for saying what you like about an unnamed person - after all, if you libelled the Times newspaper then because the Times has a reputation to consider then chances all you'd be brought to book over it.




I'll remember that one as well - but how do we know when you're trying to put a substantive argument across and when you're just intending to irritate?




But if a real person is associated with an online persona then I doubt if you can just say what you want about the persona with impunity. For example, a guy called Theodore Dalrymple writes a colum in the Times, but that's not his real name - I doubt if you could impugn his character without justification and expect legal impunity?



But that's the difference between fact and fiction - I agree that a lot of what you post is the latter, but some of us try to stick to the former

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

I aint claimed anything

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

But when I posted the following quotation above:

Wayne Casey and Trevor Hines knowledge of Hackney Carriage law is second to none.

...you added your endorsement.

And even assuming that you disagreed with the statement, it doesn't detract from the view of the author, thus to that extent you must be a failed lawyer who was disgraced out of the profession.

That is, of course, unless the author merely said that to irritate (it's maybe a Gateshead thing) and your knowledge of HC law is in fact second to everyone.

Irritating, innit

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

Well I claim I do, and I'm proud of it.

I would much rather know as much about the trade I work in.

And most certainly wouldn't be ashamed of it.

_________________
IDFIMH

Thats better

and somebody else said it

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Who said anything about being ashamed?.......modesty is a virtue though

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I think it's plain to see you obviously don't know the law. The law was explained in another thread some time ago and obviously you and Captain Cab were asleep at the time.

I suggest you do some research.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I think that quote is quite apt for you. It's Ironic that you have been trying to change the level playing field in Gateshead to suit yourself for quite some time.

The sad point is that TDO and Dusty have always advocated a level playing field and still do, yet you on the other hand do not. Your accusation as always is unfounded and intentionally meant to discredit TDO.

Just for your information the official position of TDO is that a level playing field should exist for all and that includes you.



Again this statement applies more to you than TDO but being single minded about a level playing field is perhaps infinitely more ethical than being single minded about excluding qualified persons from obtaining a proprietor license.



It is obvious you subscribe to the theory that councilors owe you a living, therefore you must be pretty pizzed off at the fact that Gateshead councilors are of the opinion they don't owe you a living.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Isn't this the clown who said the case of R v BLACKPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL, EX PARTE RED CAB TAXIS LTD applied to Carlisle? And also tried to make out that in law positive discrimination was a valid reason for excluding over half of Carlisle hackney carriages from the busiest rank in Town?

Remarkable! No wonder he turned tail and ran when asked to explain his reasoning on the red cab issue, especially when it was pointed out to him that he hadn't got a clue what type of case it was? He still hasn't got a clue now.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

buts thats because I'm a fooking taxi driver and not some failed lawyer who was disgraced out of his profession ...............

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

_________________
ALS

I'll make this simple because you fail to understand the point I'm making regarding my posts and the possible slander implications.

JD is not a real person, in so far as he or she cannot be personally identified BY ANYONE. You are a fictitious character as long as you remain anonymous.

I would suggest that, of the prominent posters on this website, no-one knows your true identity so we have a situation where nothing written could effect your reputation either personally or professionally and therefore have any effect on your life.

On the other hand, although I post under an alias, the majority (if not all) of the prominent posters on this (and other) sites are aware of my true identity .................... so comments made about me personally could have an effect on both my personal and professional reputation and so could be considered slanderous.

Furthermore should we appear in court there is no way that you could prove that you wrote the posts in the first place as you would have to rely on the testimonies of two other anonymous people.

I can PM my address if you wish to take me to court ............... but I fear that your attempt will suffer the same fate as your last effort.

B. Lucky

BTW I would also suggest you look up "forum abuse" within your recent legal library and then review some of your own personal attacks against me.

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

I'm obviously a thousand miles behind everyone else on this subject but I feel obliged to put in a pen'orth or two. It seems Newcastle City seeks to attain the opposite of what the Government seeks to attain, namely cheaper fares and better vehicles by allowing more competition.

(From the Web @:: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/taxi ... erepor3782



THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO THE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE’S REPORT ON THE REGULATION OF TAXIS AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE SERVICES IN THE UK INTRODUCTION
1. The Government welcomes the interest that the Committee has shown in taking evidence and producing two reports on the Office of Fair Trading (OFT)’s study into the regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles in the UK.
2. The Government believes that where markets operate effectively competition can be expected to provide strong incentives for good performance – encouraging firms to improve productivity, to reduce prices and to innovate; whilst rewarding consumers with lower prices, higher quality, and wider choice.The OFT has been empowered to advise where laws and regulations may be preventing markets from operating in the interests of consumers. The Government strongly supports the role of the OFT in conducting analyses of this kind.
3. The Government considers that taxis and private hire vehicles are an integral part of local transport. The Government also considers that it is detrimental to those seeking entry to a market (in this case would-be taxi licence holders) if it is restricted without justification that is apparent to all. Consumers should therefore enjoy the benefits of competition in the taxi and private hire markets.
END EXTRACT.)

Response:
I confess to knowing little about this so I won't comment on the interaction between the forum members. We are all entitled to a view on everything but......!
For the above extracts to be meaningful they do depend on certain anomalies being excluded from the equations.
1) encouraging firms to improve productivity, to reduce prices and to innovate; whilst rewarding consumers with lower prices, higher quality, and wider choice.
1a) Improve the productivity? How? Yep, drive faster. Oops, speeding, speeding, speeding .. driving ban? Accident? Death? Cool, this paves the way for an unrestricted service for sure. the more dead the better!
1b) "...whilst rewarding consumers with lower prices..." Lower Prices? okay, this means longer hours then. Longer hours = less sleep = more chance of falling asleep = more chance of having an accident = more chance of death = cool, this paves the way for an unrestricted service for sure. Unless, I missed the bit that says you will get some money from the Government to pay your bills? Missed that so I have?

2) The Government also considers that it is detrimental to those seeking entry to a market (in this case would-be taxi licence holders) if it is restricted without justification that is apparent to all. Consumers should therefore enjoy the benefits of competition in the taxi and private hire markets.
2a) I am old I readily admit, but I want to get older, I don't want to be picked up by a driver so near to sleep that I run the risk of dying or being damaged thank you.
AND..., are the benefits of competition so great when it is driver-v-driver trying to stay awake and work longer because he or she has to pay a bill that was budgeted for at the appropriate rate?? I, for one, believe not.

So, my humble input to this debate is that safety is a, possibly the, major issue. Longer hours because of cheaper fares increase the risk of accident to driver and passenger (you have to match, at least, income to expenditure in order to exist). Cheaper fares can only be acceptable in the framework of a cheaper cost of living. Giving the increases in my area I don't believe any argument re cheaper living costs can be sustained by anyone.
So, Newcastle and North Tyneside, go for it and find a form of words worthy of Dan Smith and justify Restrictive Numbers on the Grounds of good old safety.

And, for Berwick upon Tweed, surely a town such as your self should only licence to suit the needs of the town. Think lives, Think safety. Think families trying to make ends meet put at risk by your thoughtless lack of policy.

I think we've been here before and it is only in recent years that lots of areas have allowed a rate for drivers to afford better vehicles with higher safety standards while maintaining some standards of living for his or her family, forward is the way to go, not back!

_________________
The Seventh Saint