Taxi Driver Online

Yest Stu, the council reaffirmed their policy to restrict taxis.

Problem is, this was a political reaffirmation. Which they are entitled to do.

But the Law says that to do so they must have up to date information of demand when the licence falls to be considered. Whci means that unless they are continually ensuring that they are aware of demand then the policy lapses in a legal sense. By going out to get demand information, all the council is seeking to do is is reinstate its policy.

Up till now they've been allowed to get away with this. Now they're challenged.

Anyway, £50 grand is quite a sum to shell out for something that is worth nothing. That's where your screw became loose.

MR T There is nothing to stop GA, or anyone from reducing the fares during the week, or at any time, as the tariff sheet is the maximum your free to charge anything below that, he could even save on licence fees by getting his licence from Berwick

Thats a hell of a lot of betting coming from a man who is financially embarrassed.Is this the same eleventh hour as the last case or the case before that.

Another refugee from the defunct Edinburgh taxi forum.

Once again you just prove you know nothing saf.

I hope the council does see these cases going into court. The opportunity to get answers from these scumbags is what drives the campaign.

Imagine, councillors having to justify their decisions. I hope they are well schooled. Well briefed.

And just think what the council could ultimately give up by failing here. The courts will write chpater and verse how the licensing process should be conducted. Council latitude to screw about with applicants will be lost forever.

Then there's the legal suit, the resignations, the careers finished ... and all because of council skulduggery.

No saf, as I've said before, all of those who think they're entitled to the restrictive practice of licence restriction, at the expense of the travelling public and drivers, should write to the council and implore them to go into court.

I implore you to do so. In fact I think I will do it myself.

Unlike you Jim i don't claim to know it all,what i do know is that it's the same old rubbish coming out you and Gary's mouths,"we're going to do this,we're going to do that",your like a couple of old women that think they know it all.You have no evidence what so ever on an unmet demand,if you did i'm sure you would let us all see it, yet you go on telling everyone that will listen that the public are being let down.We all see you driving about, like us, with your light on,so where is all this unmet demand Jim?.If this unmet demand existed i'm sure Gary would'nt be in the financial mess that he finds himself.The only people that are being let down are the ones that think you and heed the baw have got the benefit of the average driver at heart.You are doing this for one reason and for one reason only and that is your own personal greed.We know what will happen if you where to succeed,granted licence one day,then want the trade restricted again so that you could sell your plate.Don't believe that, well just look at some of your brain dead side kicks posts.At least he admits he just wants to see people who have paid for a plate suffer, where as you make out you want to help everybody who drives for someone.Remember the article in the Edinburgh Evening News a couple of years back Jim,where you are quoted as saying,"Edinburgh does not need any more taxi's on it's streets,it would be the end of the trade as we know it".Now funny that it's all changed because you want a plate of your own and you don't want to do what everybody else thats got one has done and that is buy one.
Everyone sees you for what you are Jim and thats a sad insignificant little man that wants to see his name up in lights and does'nt care how he gets there.

But thats where your wrong Jim, they do have a value and they allow you to trade, the inland revenue know that,the courts know that, accountants know that and yes Jim, business men who own them know this it would appear it is only you that seems to be having trouble with this concept.

Or you and the rest of your pestiferous vexatious bitches who will do anything to pauchle a plate of the council and then tell me you done it for me and others like me.

Somehow you equate your having or getting a plate for nothing as being of benefit to me or others like me! Whereas every normal person realises by now that it is only for your own personal gain.

I don't have a problem with that but don't tell everyone your doing it for them, especially when nobody else I have ever spoken to even agrees with you.

I think you are trying to justify your actions by portraying yourself as the good guy, the caring sharing trade grandee concerned about equality and equal rights and now the Human rights as well.

You and I both know that it's just drivel.

I'll leave you with your other pals, your too far gone now, maybe see you on the 5th of May, do you want me to bring the humble pie or will you be supplying your own.

No he will bring the brown sauce

It's worth pointing out here that an applicant for a plate doesn't need to prove anything, it is for the council that refuses an application to prove there is no demand.

_________________
IDFIMH

Now now Sussex... I am sure you do not really mean to be misleading.... but does it not actually say that the council must know that there is no unmet demand.... I don't remember reading anywhere that it has to prove there is no unmet demand.. and I don't remember reading that council has to have a survey.... although I can remember it being recommend as best practice to have a survey........ but then the best practice guidelines, are simply guidelines, and not the law.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Well you are reading the wrong stuff then, sort of.

If a council refuses an application the onus is on that council to prove there is no un-met demand.

How they do that is down to them, but prove it they must.

_________________
IDFIMH

wrong section

No Sussex.... the onus is on the council to justify its decision, although a survey is a tool that the court can recognise easily ....

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Oh deary me Saf, all that fear, you must be shi*ing it big time. You should learn to hide your emotions, it only goes to expose your weakness. As for being “financially embarrassed“ think, one man and his working son without any debt. You would love to have my overheads Saf? No matter how bad it gets for me it can only be hell of a lot worse for you. I’m only glad I don’t have your money worries, now that’s what really brought you to this forum, isn’t it Saf?

What will the council do?

Are they prepared to perjure themselves in court to protect the likes of Saf?

I wouldn’t put it past them but somehow I doubt it.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in life, is that, everything is relative. Unless you have a life style that allows you to live in a rarefied atmosphere - where time takes on a different meaning - you are just another rat.

You see Saf, I refuse to play by societies rules and quite frankly, I don’t see you or your kind as anything more than vermin. You should be thankful there are laws in this county that protect scum like you. The system obviously has a use for you that I don’t - another mindless unit of production perhaps?


Hold on tight to that illusion Saf, I wouldn't have it any other way

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"