Taxi Driver Online

It would appear that Fasties, which morphed into ETF, is now set to morph again into the new face of taxi opinion in Edinburgh.

ETF was pulled because of the personal vendettas which destroyed it as a reasonable forum. So what does the bright boy behind this nonsense do. He posts the following taster, picked from TDO.

That well known comedian Jim Taylor is still spouting forth on the dark orifice. I quote a sample here to entertain you while you wait.

Quote:The legal requirement is that a council may refuse a licence application "if, but only, if it is satisfied that there is no significant demand for taxi services in the are which is unmet".

This was referred to in the Dundee case as "tightly drawn" and the use of the present tense means that the council must know what the demand situation is when the licence application "falls to be considered".

Interestingly the council interprets this to mean when the committee considers the application.

But, this is illogical. The wording of the opinion of Lady Cosgrave is in two separate parts - "falls" and "to be" considered. This seems reasonably to suggest that the two are not joined together, else the wording would have been simply "considered".

I suggest that the true interpretation is that the licence falls to be considered when the licence application is made and that consideration, according to the Act, should be made within three months, with a final decision within six months, which was reinforced in the Salteri case.

Now this suggests that the council should have any demand information available when the licence application is made. CEC didn't.

It also suggests that the information should be available certainly within the first three months provided for in the Act for the application being considered. CEC didn't have it either.

The opinion of Lady Cosgrave, based on the Coyle judgement, is that councils should keep themselves updated if the they want to refuse licences based on Section 10 (3). CEC didn't.

By the time the application were made, the council hadn't updated itself for 18 months. Despite the Jacobs 2005 survey recommending the strategy of the Taxi Action Plan to allow the council to do so. The council took no action, because it didn't have any applications before them. In fact, it was only these applications which triggered any action on their part.

In short, CEC took their eye off the ball. And what they then undertook was a complete abuse of the system by Corporate Services, recognising their deficiencies, pulling councillors into their schemes to manipulate the process to deliberately deny licences, probably to buy time.

But this is their Achilles heel. because it's not CS which is held to account, it is the councillors themselves who will have to answer the questions. And the answers have little bearing on reality, just what CS did to protect the policy.

One way or another the truth will out.


His interpretation of legal comments is somewhat unique in that he draws conclusions from fresh air.
He decides what a term means when it is patently obvious it means something totally different.

The court decides what the interpretation of a term is. All I've done is apply some logic and will present that to the court.


When does an application fall to be considered? Surely it falls to be considered when all relevant information relating to or affecting such an application has been collated and a meeting arranged at which it can be considered.

What's described is the licence being considered, nit "falling to be considered". Why would Parliament make a distinction if all the while it really just meant "considered"?


Additionally he omits to say that a council need not have daily surveys as would be required to satisfy him but to have major surveys (3 yearly intervals seem to satisfy other courts and people) and in between to have an official monitor any demand indicators. All this has been done and guess what? it doesn't satisfy the egotist!!

Where in the Taxi Licensing Officer's reports, or any other documents, is there evidence of the Council's ongoing monitoring of the situation? It doesn't exist. They didn' do it. Which is why when applications were made they panicked and hurriedly commissioned the interim survey.

If the council felt that the three year "shelf life" of a survey, why did they commission the interim survey when they could just have denied outright? And why the 2007 survey and all the haphazard attempts to dress it up with their own inhouse puerile nonsense.

What satisfies other courts and councils is irrelevant. All that matters is that the Law is upheld.


Another interesting point must surely be that, if a council is satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand, then logic dictates that it is up to any applicant who declares that there is an unmet demand, to prove it. He demands to know where in law does it say that an applicant has to prove unmet demand; well, I guess It's not specifically in the law, it's just common sense.

The writer seems to think that an applicant should prove demand. Where does it say this in the Act, Isn't this just an obstacle put in place by a council protecting its, and the trade's, vested interest?

The council has to be satisfied there is no significant unmet demand. And in reaching that satisfaction it has to be reasonable. None of the survey material could be deemed reasonable. It was clearly contrived.



He is engaged in a personal vendetta with council officials and it is that alone that drives his manic pursuit of deregulation.

Personal vendetta? No. Campaign for truth, justice and the Jim Taylor way? Sure. Which is what everyone in our alleged democracy has an alleged right to do. Have to say though that if the political process had worked, and the argument engaged properly by politicians, and the control of the trade wasn't organised along the lines of a secret society, and some credence was given to the free market and the 70% of local councils who already operate like this, then all of this extensive, expensive and politically damaging for the council campaign would not have been necessary.


This is the calibre of person who seeks to destroy the Edinburgh taxi trade. A trade which is the envy of many other areas for its high qualities of service provision and vehicle standards.
This item and his pending court case on 5th May will be highlighted when the forum proper starts next week.


Does the high quality of service provision extend to the queues controlled by taxi marshalls? Or the inability to hail a taxi on the streets? Or, by their own admission, the high number of lost jobs by the dynamic duo of taxi companies in Edinburgh?


Perhaps the administrator of this new heap of crap shouldn't bother with his NEW forum. He's started the ball rolling in such a way as to ensure that this new offering will go the same route as fasties and ETF. So, why bother?

This forum is no better than the previous rubbish.

It does show though Jim that you cant stay away from it doesn't it.
You will post on it you know you will,you can't help yourself.
I don't know what name you will use only you know that but one things for certain you will post on it under a different name and make it look like another driver agreeing with your mindless drivel.
Gary will do the same,the two of you don't like the views of all the taxi drivers in Edinburgh,it goes against your argument.
"Personal vendettas",we all know who has them don't we.
Think back a few years Jim when everything was ok for you.
A couple of things don't go your way so you start your little crusade against everything taxi and council related.
So where has the new forum creator said anything that was not true?
Everyone that posted on the last forum said what they thought and felt regarding anything in our trade,what you and Gary didn't like was the fact everyone had and still have a very strong dislike for you and know you have no basis for your argument.
Don't make yourself out to be a victim here Jim,we all know how low you can go,we all know the comments you have made in the past.We know the levels you are prepared to go to show your venomous hatred of the trade and it's regulations.You are a bitter little man who is near his end Jim,it's just a shame you choose to spend what little time you have left on this planet to do the things you do.

Will we on TDO get a break from all this point scoring now

I very much doubt it

aww come on now every forum needs its entertainment on here the clowns are provided by the edinburgh fringe

But good clowns know when to stop!!

Dont be to hard on them, their protected under the DDA, mental impairment of some sort I believe, very sad to witness Jims deterioration over the last few years though.

I can't wait to see if he wins his case, not that I care one jot whether he does or not, it's just that I find their writing changes dramatically depending which polar their bi is situated.

Your nearly right edders23,if you contact the fringe organisers they will send you a free copy of the new programme,you should see the front cover,Jim and Gary, or should i call him by the name he thinks strikes fear into eveybody that has the displeasure of meeting him "the skull".
They are the star act this year,a guaranteed laugh.
Wait until you hear thier stuff about de-regulation and corruption,it's side splitting.
Word on the street is that Jimmy Carr and the rest of the commedians are going to give it a miss because the dynamic duds have sold out.
Apparently "skull" grabs an ageing gentleman from the crowd and punches him straight in the face then Jim comes in and starts telling everybody that he's right and to stop calling him names or he will tell the cab office.For some things in life theres mastercard,for everything else theres Jim and Gary........priceless.

Unfortunately these two don't Cabbyman.

Stu, we both know that it is us who are wrong,your mental and im just plain dillusional ,we both know that they are bi,but i think it might be another kind of bi.
They might get a plate but they won't get what they really want and thats full de-restriction.
Just think of the fun all the taxi drivers in Edinburgh can have with Jim driving his own taxi.I could be wrong here but i think he might be in the garrage more times than he's out,what with all the damage that might happen.You never know about this trade ,i hear there a lot of unsavoury charactors driving taxi's nowadays.

Saf, they are all bottle merchants, I've spent the last 3 years desperate to meet one of them.

You live in a fantasy world my auld son, they are all about as gutless as you - oh and what's more, they know that the 50k plate vale is a lot of nonsense.



You are spouting the wrong argument Saf . . . your little illusion is going under the hammer . . . .

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

I would hope that nobody would act outside of the law really,all joking aside, there is no need to go down that route, it just escalates and exacerbates every problem.

I am pretty ambivalent about it , if the Law says he gets his Licence, he gets his Licence, I'll not be losing any sleep over it, but it wont be the total derestriction of the taxi trade.

Me, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the ride, what will be will be.

You know Stu, I have such little regard for your average cabbie I don't like them breathing my air.


Oh btw, this won't stop Stu, if these plates are granted by the courts more will follow.

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

Well it is interesting that you should mention Air because that is one of the issues we have in Edinburgh, there is to much Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010 is looming.

I just cannot see how a massive increase in the taxi fleet with the effect on pollution levels that would cause can be justified.

It would possibly be made worse by the older vehicles being used coupled with the constant cruising because of a lack of rank space.

I freely admit to being concerned about this because I have to live and work in this city, thats why I'm going the Euro IV route.

Not all bad though, I was reading the other week that one car from thirty years ago was responsible for the same amount of pollution as thirty of todays cars and there are a couple of pollutants they don't check for now, like lead for instance.

I just don't see it happening anytime soon though, infact I doubt it ever will until they deal with the basics first, I would guess that's one of the reasons for the trams, no on street pollution.

I suppose we will just have to wait and see how it goes over the next few years.

Perhaps it's a case of rosy retrospection but life sure seemed simpler before you had to think about things like Nitrogen Dioxide.

I'm not sure the situation in Edinburgh will ever lead to a 'meeting of minds'.

But I look forward to seeing the new forum in Edinburgh coming back to life, and then seeing Mr Peeper fail yet again.

_________________
IDFIMH