Taxi Driver Online

I don't believe this.... but I am of the same opinion.

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

We should remember that there is no legal definition of what a fit and proper person is.

This gives the council huge latitude. My concern is that they have extended that latitude here beyond the bounds of what is legally reasonable. This needs to be challenged in court.


Consider the situation where false allegations are made. The cops make notes. Are we to accept that these notes are permissable to deny someone their livelihood?

Consider where a case does come to court and the defendant is acquitted. Are we to allow this case to be bundled with other spurious notes to deny a man his livelihood?

Consider my recent case where two over officious cops pulled me into their vehicle. Then railled against me, trying to dominate me into submissive behaviour when I had done nothing wrong and they'd stopped me unwarranted.

The two cops threatened me with a referral to the cab office. They threatened me with recognition of my plate number and they "would no doubt see me again". Clear threats.

Now, on investigation these two officers denied all of this. And the investigating inspector - yes the cops investigate the cops - would not accept my version saying he could not hold these two to task because there was no corroboration.

They get off. Except it is recorded on their record. That's where the MOOROV principle comes in.

Anyway, am I to be denied the right to work because of the notes made in these two itinerant officers books?

Oh, I do hope so. I would love the challenge of ripping into the council defending this.

As should the guy in this case defend himself.

The Magistrates got it wrong. Given my own experience of the justice system I'm not surprised. magistrates and Sheriffs are the apprentice level of the justiciary. It takes the appeal process to hone the law into truth and reality. Unfortunately this costs big time.

Then we're back to how this guy can be supported.

Why wait until relicensing time to deal with this alleged miscreant.

If the information was of such importance why was a referral not made directly to the council and he be dealth?

Because the info was NOT relevant.

I suspect this guys defence counsel was incompetent.

while i have little or no time for local authorities and their decision makers we have no other choice other than the legal process we have, and while it may not be perfect its what we must work by.

your friend had the simply chance to display his clean CRB to everyone and sundry and should have put those making the decision agianst him on the back foot to prove him not fit and proper when the CRB are saying in there view he is !!

this then would have been interesting as if they had still gone against him with a clean CRB it would then ask the question what value are they if the courts rule against that evidence !!

but jasbar are you suggesting that we should get rid of the police and have no respect for law and order ?

What clean CRB check?

She told St Albans magistrates that a standard Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check revealed that notes held by Herts Police showed Zaman's name had been mentioned in connection with three separate incidents of violence - two in 2002 and one in October 2006.

2 things about this statement though.
How often do they have a CRB check in this area?
Why was it only a standard CRB check?

I can only assume that the CRB check is carried out at a greater interval than 4 years otherwise it would have been on his previous CRB check. Don't forget that we haven't seen the CRB check either. There are thousands of instances where people have been violent to others without things going to court. Most domestic violence reports never get to court because the complaint is withdrawn because of the hassle of going to court but that doesn't mean that the incidents never took place.

_________________
Grandad,

Let's be quite clear. This guy is not my friend. I don't know him, have never met him nor is he known to anyone I know. he is an anonymous Joe in a news story posted by JD.

You sound as if we have to accept that the law and justice is etched in stone and that we have to accept it, bad though it is not.

Wrong! Because rules exist doesn't mean they should be accepted and we should strive to change them when they are wrong.

In this case they are most definitely wrong. The Magistrates were wrong. They chose to accept the word of authority, the local authority, and they slapped the scrote down by finding against him. How dare he dispute the local authorities control.

I'm sorry but when local authorities resort to these tactics then you must take the matter to the highest echelons of the justice system to get get justice. And, if that fails to bring about real justice, then the law is worthless and individuals take other measures to vent their anger.

As for the CRB, it is a red herring. Whatever is on it is irrelevant. because his licence was denied because of notes taken by police officers, not the content of the CRB. That's what the Magistrates decided on. They deemed the notes of two officers to have legal merit. This is preposterous. Their notes were never tested in court, were never corroborated in court and as such are irrelevant.

That the council used them to dig him out is little more than fascism. And the Magistrates supported this fascism.

He needs to appeal this. But he also needs to get in touch with his MP and ask him what the hell is going on in the legal system. TBH, this is such an important case the matter should be raised in Parliament, because it goes to the very roots of our democracy and the freedoms that democracy insists we have.

I think what's happened here is in effect the rationale for the CRB system - it records evidence of wrongdoing other than that merely from criminal convictions (eg a caution) and also relies on the lower burden of proof that the vetting process works under (ie on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond all reasonable doubt).

Indeed, that's how the civil justice system has always worked, and thus you could be found not guilty of an offence in the criminal courts but be retried for the same act in the civil courts and may have to pay compensation, for example.

In principle I'm not sure I disagree with this. For example, we've all read stories in the papers about serial date rapists who've gotten away with it time and time again, because juries are unsure and don't know his history, thus there's reasonable doubt and they acquit.

In practice there are clearly going to be problems with the application of this principle, for example with regard to corruption or bias.

But I think the principle is effectively broadly accepted.

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

I would have to wonder why he has a criminal record for something he has not been convicted of?

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

In your view it is wrong, but in many people's view it is acceptable, and the reason it is acceptable is because they have weighed the rights and wrongs of this type of decision before it became usable, we all know of the two young girls that were murdered brutally by a school caretaker, the advance disclosure helps to fill in the gaps in information that allowed these two particular young girls to be failed by the system, nobody says the system is perfect, the gentleman in question for his own reasons did not disclose the contents of his CRB.. this obviously created doubts in the mind of the Magistrates'. and also in my mind.

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

No one said he has a criminal record. A CRB check does not just have a record of convictions.

_________________
Grandad,

If they are going to include unfounded allegations and heresay, then that sucks.

So much for human rights

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

If he accepted a caution or two that would appear on his CRB.

But to receive a caution you have to admit to the offence.

_________________
IDFIMH

Then if this is the standard of the law we have to put up with, then solutions will be found outwith the law. They will be justified because of the inherent unfairness of the law.

This has been the driving force of revolutions since time immemorial. Is that what you want Mr T? You want to meet objectors to unfair law at the end of a gun barrel?

I'm sorry. That is not the British way. In Britain we have a record of recognising unfair legal practices and dealing with thim. That is British democratic tradition.

So think long and hard that you are really happy to accept this injustice, just because it doesn't impinge on you. And you don't really care about anyone else do you, as you've continually demonstrated through your posts on this forum?

But, if you accept this, then you can't complain when those who can't accept it stick it so far up you where it will really hurt.

Personally, I prefer measured justice to such actions. But I can't deny its likelihood. And with Labour closing down civil liberties in our nation, I'm not sure I would be surprised.

So think on about the kind of society YOU want to live in. If as I suspect you want a just and fair one, I suspect you start thinking about others before its too late. Try to put yourself in their shoes and use that as the test as to whether the action against them is acceptable.

It is always worth remembering these words:

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Who says they are unfounded? Have you seen this CRB. No you haven't. The people who have seen it have taken this decision. The guy who could have cleared this up chose not to so he has to accept the decision.

_________________
Grandad,