Taxi Driver Online

Right, lets start with some contrition, of a sort, it is indeed possible that the interpretation of the relevant provisions would mean that any vehicle that is available for hire with a view to profit for public conveyance which operated to pick up from the street where it was not doing so with the benefit of a taxi licence for the area in question, would, whatever the vehicle looked like, give rise to an offence under section 21(a) (JD, without wishing to incur your wrath, may I suggest that you guard against using capital (A) when discussing statutory provisions when the provision is in fact (a), as amendments to Statutes often include capitals as a means to distinguish the amended provision from that which was originally enacted: see for example section 27A of the 1982 Act).

If I have fallen into error, it is because of a failure to consider section 23, for which I am both embarrased and sorry, although in my defence it was after a few pints. However, section 23(2) defines "hire car" and there is an argument that the terms and meaning of that subsection may colour the meaning and interpretation of the concepts defined in section 23(1). However, for the time being, I will accept your interpretation as correct.

Secondly, the use of the term "Hackney" was intended as a colloquialism to differentiate the type of licensed vehicle which can pick up from the streets from that licensed vehicle which cannot. It was not with reference to any statutorily defined term (I cannot be arsed to determine whether you are correct or not, but will assume you are). I will myself guard against such loose use of language in the future.

Thirdly, I would hope that any debate in the future could be engaged with a sense of civility and not hostility, although perhaps that ill take some time to cultivate. I am a patient poster.

However, the suggestion that a passenger could, by getting into an unlicensed vehicle, commit either offence in section 21 is simply not in accordance with the rules of statutory interpretation of statutory provisions which create and define criminal offences in Scots law, which require offences to be clearly defined so as to allow persons subject thereto to know what they have to do to avoid committing the offence. Intention is required unless otherwise expressed. Other forms of guilty conduct are recklesness or, in certain cases, carelessness. Negligence may also, in certain statutes, constitute the mental element of crimes in Scots law (which unless strict liability, require an act of the mind and one of the body - mens rea and actus reus)

Section 21 does not relate to vehicles, drivers and others operating in a area where they are not licensed to do so. Section 21 makes it an offence for any person to operate or permit the operation of an unlicensed taxi or taxi with an unlicensed driver. The reference to "others" is unclear, I am sure you will be good enough to explain where it refers to others, expressly or by implication, in the provision?

In order to commit the offence in section 21(a), the "person" must "operate" or "permit the operation of" the unlicensed vehicle operating as a taxi. No reference is made to a person knowingly, recklessly or carelessly using an unlicensed taxi and reference to such would be necessary for a passenger to commit an offence. Such would also place a burden on the passenger to enquire as to the licence status of the vehicle and the driver, which is nowhere stated in the Statute. The section is directed at the person seeking to make profit from the operation of the hire car operating as a taxi in the area without a licence or, indeed, the unlicensed driver or person permitting the operation of the vehicle with the unlicensed driver. However, the operator of the vehicle is obviously under an implied duty to ensure the driver of his vehicle is approriately licensed.

The suggestion by Gusmac that a person can permit themselves to be picked up in an unlicensed private hire car and thus commit the offence in section 21(b) would thus render many persons who unwittingly get into unlicensed vehicles criminals. The section is directed at the culpable individual or individuals, i.e. those who seek to operate or facilitate the use of the vehicle for profit. The suggested interpretation is also tortous of the language used, where the rule is that the plain meaning of the words is to be used in the first instance in order to determine the meaning of the legislators. A person does not "permit" themselves to pick up passengers. The passengers are not the subject of the offence, but rather the object. If Parliament intended passengers to commit an offence, it would have created a provision by which it was an offence to "engage for hire the services of an taxi or private hire vehicle which they know ,or ought to have known, to be unlicensed", which would require proof of their subjective knowledge of the fact that the vehicle is unlicensed or proof of their failure to make appropriate checks". This would require to be proved by corroborated evidence. Happy to discuss why that would be a problem. The passengers are not the villians of the piece here and do not commit offences under section 21 (a) or (b).

JD notes that taxis can only ply for hire in the area for which they are licensed. This, of course, is not correct, as the purpose of section 21(a) informs us. Any vehicle can operate as a "Taxi" by being operated as a hire car with a view to profit for public conveyance by making an arragement in a public place with the passenger to convey them to their desitination for a journey commencing there and then (section 23(1)). This is the point you make in your first paragraph. You then proceed to suggest otherwise in your fourth paragraph, although why this is put in inverted commas escapes me, perhaps it is a quote from somewhere and you have cut and pasted this? Of course, a "licensed taxi" can only ply for hire in the area for which it is licensed; one may wish to be sure one's "elementary basic facts" before chastising others for their suggested misunderstandings of said basic facts (albeit my negligence perhaps invited same).

Further JD, section 21 makes no reference to "operating licence conditions" although you do? Rather, section 21 refers simply to the operation or permission to operate of a taxi without a licence or licensed taxi without a licensed driver, or indeed picking up passengers or permitting passengers to be picked up by, a private hire vehicle not licensed for that purpose, or driver licensed for that purpose, in the relevant area. Such is, of course, a condition of any licence, but no other licence conditions are engaged by the section.

Further still, a taxi does not commit an offence in terms of the section as you suggest in the second sentence of your fourth paragraph. Perhaps you are aware of a little known "taxi jail" full of TXIIs doing bird? It is of course, a "person" who commits the offence or offences. The reference to "person" would include a legal person, such as corporate body or partnership. Again, basic facts I would hope you agree with.

Good talking to you.

What a breath of fresh air !!!!

Well, that narrows it down a bit Ross. Your alter ego is definitely not Bob Dewar.

It's not a breath of fresh air Ross, it's simply a pi**ing competition over legislation.

No offence Boring. But the Justice system works on commercial market norms, and that means it's all about money - truth and justice take a back seat.

I take it you're some taxi driver doing his law degree?

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

No, boring is .... just ..... boring!!!

For an offense under 21(a) the vehicle and it's driver must have acted as a taxi (as defined in 23(1) ) with either or both not having the correct licence for that area.

You seem to have gone to a lot of trouble crafting a tediously worded and long winded reply and still you completely missed the mark.

Let me further help you.


The highlighted text means, in simple terms, that any vehicle which takes an immediate unbooked hire from a public place is a taxi by definition. (the words Hackney Carriage do not exist in the 1982 act)

It is an offense under section 21(1)(a) for any driver to act as a taxi unless both he and his vehicle are properly licenced in the area where he accepted the hire.
This leaves 21(1)(b) as the act of picking up a pre booked hire, i.e. acting as a PHC (as also defined in 23(1), not 23(2) as you state.) without a PHC licence for vehicle and it's driver which allow it.

It is also an offense under 21(1) for anyone else to permit these offenses.
Granted a passenger may be unaware of the offense but is ignorance a defence?
Either way if the driver or vehicle is known to the hirer as not being correctly licenced, then they have clearly committed this offense.

As skull has pointed out, this is turning into a pi$$ing contest.
I have no intention of indulging in this any farther beyond offering this advice:
Study the act, instead of putting so much effort into sounding pompus.
You might learn something.
You certainly won't baffle us with your waffle as easily as you can elsewhere.

_________________

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

I think you should have stopped there because your remorse is tainted by the trivial nonsense in the rest of your post.

For instance, after explaining to you the legislation, you come out with this rubbish.



Does it really need six irrelevant sentences to apologise for substituting fiction for fact?



Obviously it didn't cross your mind that the capitals were used intentionally to give emphasis to the point in question. If you want to start a thread on the "numbering of divisions in UK legislation" then by all means do so but references to inconsequential typing styles will not deflect criticism from your proven failure to understand the basic provisions found in section 21.



I think you fell into error because you simply don't understand Scottish Taxi legislation regardless of which sections you misinterpret.



Your belated plea of mitigation will probably fall on deaf ears as most will judge your emphatic, inaccurate, opening comments as nothing more than a failed attempt at trying to register an impression on forum subscribers.



I honestly don't know why you continue to dig when the hole you are in is already of mammoth proportions? The above statement only serves to highlight your ignorance of the 1982 act. You fail to grasp the fact that it is not my interpretation of section 21 that requires acceptance it is you who needs to reconcile your failure to understand the legislation as it is written. I’m afraid that is a fault of your own making and not the fault of me or the legislature. What seems bizarre is that having failed to understand section 21 you are now showing your ignorance of section 23. Why you introduced section 23 which has nothing whatsoever to do with section 21 is a mystery? We are all waiting to read how your confused mind draws the conclusion that section 23.2 colours the meaning of section 23.1.



Mr bored, when you make emphatic statements regarding statutory interpretations you should be accurate. There is no excuse in this particular case because the interpretation of the Act is clear from its opening words to its final paragraph.



But it was in reference to a statutory defined term, only the statutory defined term belongs to legislation governing England and Wales. You said this,

Relevant section is, of course, 21(1)(b), as 21(1)(a) applies to taxis, which are statutorily defined as hackneys with the right to ply the streets for hire.

Quite an emphatic statement considering it was grossly incorrect. I don’t see any margin for mitigation do you?



I would hope that anyone who wrongfully corrects another subscriber like you did, would first get their facts right. I don’t know if your intervention was an attempt at making an impression but if it was then you certainly did make an impression but for all the wrong reasons. The jury is still out on your knowledge of Scottish taxi legislation so I suggest you learn to walk before you run.



I suppose when the legislation states If **any** person operates, or permits the operation of, a taxi within an area in respect of which its operation requires to be but is not **licensed** or the **DRIVER** requires to be but is not licensed that person shall be guilty of an offence.

I know you have already demonstrated that you are unfamiliar with Scottish Taxi legislation and in particular section 21 of the 1982 act but when the act states **any person** I take it to mean any and all persons including drivers. When the act refers to unlicensed drivers being guilty of an offence then I take it to mean all unlicensed drivers, when section 21 refers to unlicensed taxis committing an offence then I take that to mean any vehicle that is not licensed.

I think your name was well chosen because at this point your drivel is getting a trifle “boring”. It is obvious you don’t understand the legislation so why torture yourself with your own proclamations of stupidity?



Believe it or not you unsuspectingly answered the “others” question in your opening sentence. The legislation states **any** person, **ANY** encompasses all so **any** OTHER persons means all persons.



You forgot to insert the word *ANY* before “person” but I’m glad you now understand that part of the legislation.



Before you go any further with this, the legislation specifically states operates or permits the operation of a taxi. I’m not remotely interested in how others interpret the word operate. If you wish to argue about the word operate in relation to anyone hiring an unlicensed vehicle then I’m sure GUS will give you a good argument on that score. If you are addressing me then stick to what I’ve said.



Now we have confirmation that you really are a lunatic. If you have one, I suggest you take your Edinburgh licensed cab with your Edinburgh taxi driver license and transport yourself to Glasgow and go and stand and ply for hire on one of their taxi ranks and tell them your name is “boring” and you are entitled to stand and ply for hire on any taxi rank in Scotland.



Section 21 says nothing of the sort, why the intentional lie?



You really are a clown! Section 23 defines the operation of a “licensed taxi” read my lips **licensed** taxi. Section 21 describes the offence of an **unlicensed** taxi. Section 23 has nothing whatsoever to do with section 21. Do you understand that?



I suggest you stick to the facts of what I said and don’t substitute your own misguided assumptions for my facts. Obviously you not only don’t understand Scottish taxi legislation but when you are made to look a complete imbecile you resort to untruths.

For you information my fist paragraph stated the following.

Before someone with a less tolerant disposition points out your two glaring mistakes I should inform you that the statutory description in Scotland for a vehicle that ply's for public hire is "TAXI". Don't confuse Scottish Taxi legislation with hackney carriage legislation that applies to other parts of the United Kingdom.

Now that was my first paragraph.



People are now seeing the riddles you have woven and the complete disarray of the structure of your apologetic diatribe. The above passage has no relevance to anything I wrote in response to your incorrect statement on the subject of section 21.

My fourth paragraph stated,

Section 21 is a provision that sets out the offence of both “taxis and private hire vehicles” and their drivers and other persons, who contravene operating license conditions in an area where they are "unlicensed." Therefore as the section states, any taxi that operates in an area where it is unlicensed commits an offence. Subject to the provisions set out in subsection 2 and 3 of section 21.

I take it you don’t understand subsections 2 and 3, hence your stupid comments about any vehicle can operate as a taxi and section 23.



lol are you getting ever more confused? A moment ago you suggested a taxi can ply for hire anywhere it chooses. Are you forgetting these words?

JD notes that taxis can only ply for hire in the area for which they are licensed. This, of course, is not correct,




Oh it certainly did and it would appear you are back for a second helping. Is Masochism an enjoyable activity?



Conditions of license require license holders not to breach statutory licensing law you wouldn’t know that otherwise you wouldn’t have made the ridiculous statement. Just for the record here is what I said.

Section 21 is a provision that sets out the offence of both “taxis and private hire vehicles” and their drivers and other persons, who contravene operating license conditions in an area where they are "unlicensed."



Having had all that explained to you I’m pleased to see it has finally sunk in.



Well here is what I stated in the second sentence of my fourth paragraph.

Therefore as the section states, any taxi that operates in an area where it is unlicensed commits an offence. Subject to the provisions set out in subsection 2 and 3 of section 21.

It has already been established that it is the person who commits the offence but a person cannot commit an offence unless there is a vehicle to commit an offence in. I really can’t stomach anymore of your adolescent behaviour, if you can’t grasp the basic fact that a person operating or driving an unlicensed vehicle regardless of its status commits an offence if they breach any provisions found in section 21 then you are nothing more than a fool.

Keep on believing that persons do not commit an offence under section 21 as described by me, you will soon end up without a license.



I don’t share your enthusiasm.

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 doubt you have ever encouraged anyone in your life and certainly not me, rather you try to discourage because you're a discouraging, disparaging person.

Gusmac

It would be of greater help if you pointed out what it is in my first paragraph that leads you to believe that we are not talking about the same thing? Pay particular attention to the reference to section 21(a), which clearly shows that the offence being discussed in relation to a vehicle operating as a taxi, whatever the type of vehicle is being used for that purpose.

Please read my first paragraph again. You will perhaps see that we are at one on this point. It is regretful that you see the reply as tedious, although I am heartened that it was not sufficiently tedious for you to have stopped reading.

As to your second point, you are reading words into the Statute which do not exist. The references in section 21(a) and (b) are firstly to "operate" and "picks up". This clearly refers to any person who operates or picks up. I would hope that you agree that a passenger does not do either. The next references are to "permitting to operate" and "permits passengers to be picked up by" A passenger does not permit someone to drive around plying for hire, neither do they start to permit the vehicle being so operated by sticking their hand out when the taxi sign comes along the road. They assume that it is licensed and it is precisely because of that assumption that the offence is deemed necessary, as the public will unwittingly use what appears to be a taxi in their area, as I am sure you agree. There is no positive obligation on a passenger to validate the licensed status of the driver or vehicle when engaging in the contract for hire. They do not permit the operation of the unlicensed taxi. Neither do they allow themselves to be picked up. I say once again, the passengers are the object of the sentence and not the subject. I know it is back to grammar, but defining these offences is determined by a process of interpretation, which means looking at the plain meaning of the words used in their context.

There is nothing to suggest that a passenger would commit an offence under section 21 by "knowingly" entering an unlicensed phc or taxi. As an aside, for criminal liability to attach, the crime must be sufficiently well defined to allow the parties against whom it directed can know the behaviour that they must avoid: see Smith v Donnelly 2001, a decision of a 5 bench Scottish Criminal Appeal Court in respect of breach of the peace, which discussed the requirements of criminal definition in the context of the obligations on the State under the ECHR.

I repeat, there is absolutely no way on this earth that these offences can be committed by a passenger; they are directed at the person operating or permitting the operation of an unlicensed vehicle or licensed vehicle with an unlicensed driver. The statute does not make any provision for passengers knowing the status of the unlicensed vehicle or driver, the reason being that the offence is not directed at any such person.

And for completeness, a proper and careful study of the Act would inform you that there is no such thing as an "offense" contained within it. That term is more appropriate for sporting tactics. The appropriate term is "offence", to act contrary to the criminal laws of the land. This is synonymous with a "crime", although statutes refer to offences and the common law is more familiar with definition using this term, such as the crime of murder (thankfully there is no such crime as murdering the English language, eh?).

I'm going to ignore your references to the English language since they are irrelevant to any serious debate.

Scenario:

Passenger A and Passenger B want a taxi home. Having called several companies without success and spent 20 minutes attempting to hail one in the street, passenger A phones someone he knows to run an unlicenced taxi and has no taxi driver's licence. Passenger A is fully aware that what his aquantance does is illegal. He asks his aquantance to pick them up and take them home.
His aquantance gives him a price and they agree the fare.
At the end of the journey passengers A pays the fare.

So, in your opinion, who has broken which part(s) of the act?

Please try be brief as my patience isn't great at the end of a night shift.
Also please forgive my obvious desecration of your beloved English language

_________________

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

Gusmac,

Please forgive my sarcasm, I would rather have such debates in a civil manner. The pettiness which we can all engage in from time to time adds little to that.

The answer to the question can be broken into who has committed the offence under section 21 and who may have committed another crime known to the law of Scotland.

A - Under section 21

The driver of the vehicle commits the offence under section 21(b) as the vehicle in this arrangement is operating as an unlicensed private hire (the arrangement is not for a journey to start there and then and arguably is not made in a public place, as the contracting parties (A and the driver) were not at the public place, but perhaps two separate public places or a public and private place, therefore it cannot be a taxi - section 23). There are no facts in your scenario to suggest any third party involvement, such as a booking agent or office, so only the driver commits the offence under section 21.

B - Common law offences?

Passenger A may, in theory, be guilty of incitement, as by his positive action, he may have intended that the driver commit the offence in section 21. He may try to argue that he was unaware that what he was arranging was a criminal offence, but it is extremely rare for ignorance of provisions in publicly published statutes to be accepted as militating against the party having the necessary criminal intent.

There may also be elements of a criminal consipracy (including A, B and/or the driver) to commit the offence under section 21, but there are insufficient facts to conclude on that.

As a matter of prosecutorial policy, the Fiscal would not proceed againist A or B, as the offensive and dangerous behaviour committed in this scenario is the scourge of unlicensed vehicles operating as PHC, not people breaking the law in order to get transport home.

There are a number of comments that could be made in response, but I think the most pertinent is in relation to the section 23 and 21 relationship. I shall do it in logical numbered paragraphs for you, as this may make it easier to digest:

1. Section 23(1) defines a "taxi" as:

"a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then".

What then is "hire car"?

2. Section 23(2) defines a "hire car" as:

"a motor vehicle with a driver (other than a vehicle being a public service vehicle within the meaning of section 1(1)(a) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981) which is, with a view to profit, available for hire by the public for personal conveyance

3. It follows, as a matter of logic, from these defined terms that any motor vehicle with a driver which is, with a view to profit, available for hire by the public for personal conveyance which is engaged by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then, is acting as a "taxi" within the defined meaning in section 23(1).

This is the point which Gusmac has made.

Nowhere is the term "licensed taxi" defined in the Act.

4. Section 10(1) provides that a licence, to be known as a "taxi licence", shall be required for the operation of a taxi. It is equally clear from section 10 that the "licensing authority" is the party which grants the taxi licence".

5. the "licensing authority" is, by operation of section 2 of the Act, the local authority for the area within which the activity requiring a licence is to be carried on. (The Local Government legislation, in particular section 56 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, allows the local authority determine to what body the task is delegated, i.e. to a committee such as the Regulatory Committee.

Hopefully you are still with me JD. I know it is jumping about a bit, but that is the nature of reading a statute and understanding its provisions, but given your knowledge, you probably know that.

Let's summarise in order to assist others not blessed with your breadth of understanding: a "taxi licence", issued by the "licensing authority", being the local authority in which the taxi is to operate, is required to operate a "taxi" in the area of that "licensing authority" and a "taxi" is a "hire car" (i.e. a motor vehicle with a driver which is, with a view to profit, available for hire by the public for personal conveyance) which is engaged by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then.

6. Section 23 does not, therefore, define a "licensed taxi". If it did, the reference in section 21 to "taxi", which is of course defined in section 23, would, in your interpretation, mean any person operating, or permitting the operation of, a licensed taxi would commit an offence if they operated (or permitted the operation) in an area for which a licence was required but it did not have a licence. A licensed taxi cannot be used by any person to commit the offence in section 21(a), as by definition, if any person operates or permits the operation of a taxi in an area in which it is not licensed, and thereby commits the offence, he or she or it (remember a person can be a company etc) operates or permits the operation of an unlicensed taxi.

Confused? I suspect not, but just in case. the use of the term "taxi" in sections 10-22 is defined in section 23(1), therefore every reference to "taxi" in those sections has the meaning ascribed to it by section 23(1). "taxi" is used in section 21(1)(a) and therefore has the meaning ascribed to it by section 23 (1) (hope you can see the relationship now JD). If section 23 defined a licensed taxi as you suggest, and not simply a taxi as the clear words of the Statute provide, section 21(1)(a) would read accordingly:

s.21(1) If any person -

(a) operates, or permits the operation of, a (licensed) taxi within an area in respect of which its operation requires to be but is not licensed...that person shall be guilty of an offence.. (irrelevant wording omitted).

Pretty easy to see the problem with your interpretation now I suspect.

Now, just in case you have forgotten, turning to what you said:

"You really are a clown! Section 23 defines the operation of a “licensed taxi” read my lips **licensed** taxi. Section 21 describes the offence of an **unlicensed** taxi. Section 23 has nothing whatsoever to do with section 21. Do you understand that? "

Hopefully you now understand the error you have fallen into. Yes, you would be right to feel a bit of a plonker given the terse nature of your uneccessarily abusive comments.

You also said:

"lol are you getting ever more confused? A moment ago you suggested a taxi can ply for hire anywhere it chooses. Are you forgetting these words?"

As you will now understand, any person operating or permitting the operation of a vehicle plying for hire on the streets in any licensing authority's area in Scotland is operating as a "taxi", although that person will be doing so illegally unless the taxi is licensed by the licensing authority for the area of operation.

So yes, any vehicle can operate as a taxi, but needs a licence to do so legally.

You also said:

"Before you go any further with this, the legislation specifically states operates or permits the operation of a taxi. I’m not remotely interested in how others interpret the word operate. If you wish to argue about the word operate in relation to anyone hiring an unlicensed vehicle then I’m sure GUS will give you a good argument on that score. If you are addressing me then stick to what I’ve said."

Of course, I was not addressing you in this post, but rather the somewhat more civil and considered comments of Gusmac. Your unfortunate rush to judgment has impeded your ability to notice that you were mentioned specifically in relation to the points which I addressed to you.

You said:

"Therefore as the section states, any taxi that operates in an area where it is unlicensed commits an offence. Subject to the provisions set out in subsection 2 and 3 of section 21."

Again JD, a "taxi" cannot commit the offence, it is an inanimate object. As yet only human beings and legal persons such as companies are subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts. It is "any person that operates or permits the operation of..." that commits the offence. It is, of course, in the Act JD, the Act that you profess to know in some detail.

You said:

"Keep on believing that persons do not commit an offence under section 21 as described by me, you will soon end up without a license."

The above sets out my view in a logical manner properly referenced to the words of the various provisions of the Statute which are relevant. I do hold a taxi driver's licence and a taxi licence is held in the name of a company in respect of which I am the sole shareholder and director. I do not, however, hold any form of license.

You said in response to my statement "Good talking to you":

I don’t share your enthusiasm.

but neverthless, you took significant time to reply (although perhaps not enough) and also sent me your:

Regards

How sweet.

Agreed. A little civility costs nothing.



I agree completely regarding the driver.
I don't agree regarding A.
He has, as per section 21, knowing that to do so would be illegal, permitted the driver to break the terms of 21(1)(b). If he had not called the driver, agreed the fare and paid it, the offence would not be committed.
The same would still be true if if B travelled alone and paid the fare.

Having said that, if the same circumstances applied and the hire had been arranged in a public place for an immediate journey, the offences committed would have been under 21(1)(a).



Possibly true.



Again possible



Agree that A and B are very unlikely to be prosecuted for anything.
That doesn't mean they aren't guilty, just that the authorities couldn't be bothered with the paperwork.
In Aberdeen they wouldn't even bother prosecuting the driver

_________________

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

I see you have exchanged your shovel for a mechanical digger.



So far everything you have uttered has been decidedly illogical so this should be extremely entertaining?



Bloody brilliant the man can copy and paste part of section 23.

I suppose we should be impressed with "Boring's" ability to paste, if nothing else? I wonder if it would assist boring to know that we posted the whole of the 1982 act on TDO some four years ago.



We already know what a hire car is but do you? lol by all means paste away.



Can you get to the point before I fall asleep?



So far, you have demonstrated that you are bereft of logic but lets see down which blind alley your logic leads?



You mean section 23 of course.



Well you have just repeated the words in section 23, which you took great pride in pasting previously. Not surprisingly the words do not belong to you and if you look up you will see there is nothing written above by your hand that originated from your brain. Therefore where is the logic in that?

From all the nonsense above we can attribute these six words and the numbers 23.1 to you,"within the defined meaning in section 23.1."

I take it that is the extent of your great logic?

I'm not entirely surprised that it took a lot of repeat pasting of section 23 to arrive at your six word illogical conclusion. I wonder if anyone other than you has the brains to decipher your somewhat warped logic.

The question we are all wondering is why the hell you posted a large segment of section 23 only to state the obvious and add nothing to it?

The sad part of all this is that you think you can waffle your way to a position of credibility. To put it in a nutshell you have demonstrated a distinct lack of credibility and it is plain for all to see that the more you waffle on about things you know very little about the more your credibility is diluted.

You bored us stiff with section 23 because you added nothing to it. You didn't even offer an explanation as to why you subjected us to an item of legislation that is self explanatory and which everyone is aware and understands.

On this forum repeating legislation parrot fashion won't win you any awards. If you wish to be taken seriously then you better wise up and add some substance to the points you wish to make.

Now then, just what was your point in respect of section 23 because I would has at a guess that we all missed it?

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.

At this moment in time I'm not interested in what points gus has made, the only points that require addressing as far as I'm concerned are the points raised by you and I.



What do you think section 23 is describing a tuc tuc? What do the opening words of the act state?

Licensing and regulations of private hire vehicles.

And what does the very first sentence say?

A license to be known as a "TAXI LICENSE" shall be required for the operation of a vehicle as a TAXI.

The legislation defines in the very first section exactly what a taxi is. It is any vehicle licensed by a body with the powers to license taxis. Therefore any further reference to "taxi" in this act refers to a vehicle that is "licensed" as such. Section 23 defines the legal framework of the operation of a taxi.

Rather simple but as per usual not so simple to you eh?

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.