jasbar wrote:
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.
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.
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!!
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.
He is engaged in a personal vendetta with council officials and it is that alone that drives his manic pursuit of deregulation.
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.
Perhaps the administrator of this new heap of crap shouldn't bother. 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.
He 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.
Finally what satisfies other courts and councils is irrelevant. All that matters is that the Law is upheld. And 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.
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.
Er, no I won't be posting on it. And because of that the teapots will work themselves into a frenzy, they'll use it as means to attack me and inthe process it will demonstrate yet again the poor quality of some individuals working in edinburgh's taxi trade.
So, anyone who disagrees with any of the tripe written by saf and the other mental pygmies will be accused of being me. So predictable.
Login
Register
FAQ
