Taxi Driver Online

The Edinburgh Cab Inspector is a Lothian and Borders Police Inspector. I don't have to agree to an interview with a Police Inspector, and if he's not happy, he can have me arrested and charged. It is my right to have my day in court. The burden of proof lies with the police and the crown to prove my guilt.

Frank knows dam well I've done nothing wrong, and he's got nothing to prove otherwise, but trust him, not a chance.

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

Not fit and proper because he refused an "interview" with the cab inspector? No charges.

I see it now.

Let's hope this is their tack. It will be a police career ender before a Sheriff. How spectacular would that be?

To exercise your powers as a police officer you have to do so reasonably.

How can it be reasonable to take any action over an unfounded, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, malicious and frivolous claim.

Frankie has had either had a rush of blood to the head or he's acted emotionally.

Frankie has overstepped the mark here. He's used the threat of appearing before the council against a taxi driver. Are police offers supposed to be issuing threats like this? Intimidating?

I question what the driving force is here.

Perhaps the answer lies in the man of mystery. The pillock with the feck off 4x4. He's obviously someone with an ego who thinks a mere cabbie should be subservient to him. His indignation caused him to complain, his status got Frank's response.

Well, didn't he pick the wrong one to lord it over. And didnt Frank choose the wrong battlefield to dig us out. We just can't wait for this numpty to be dragged through this process and ridiculed.

Perhaps his disappointment over the Waverley incident clouded Frankie babe's judgement.

Even if he does remain in post, his poor judgement here will be bound to put his career on the back burner.

Quality.



BTW Perhaps Frank's motivation, what caused him to risk his professional neck is pressure being put on him by our Chief Constable in response to the cabbies apparently trying to assassinate members of the public for apparently trivial transgressions.

Oh, by the way, the same Chief Constanle who, when warned that these things would happen because the law does not protect us from scumbags, and the cops are keen to ignore us, ignored taking action and who is therefore responsibl, culpable. and should be held accountable.

He may think he's won a chocolate watch by ignoring the complaint against hin, he was only able to because the system is designed to protect him.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

Perhaps this is designed to be a parting gift for the scumbag Keir?

Help!!! Has anyone got a smiley for rubbing one's hands with glee?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

That has made things more clear........ good luck....

_________________
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 a know that you have a deep disrespect for council officials, police officers etc etc

Cab office has a compaint about you and are asking you to come in and talk about it officially. You say no as it's unfounded and not true

What if a member of the public, neighbour, wronged friend that you've had a problem with turned round to the police and said you were a raping pedophile and the police ask you to come in to an official interview and speak about it, would you not be there in a flash trying to clear your name and have your point to say about the allegation

Fair enough my argument is far fetched but it's the same context. By stubbornly standing up and petulantly saying no your only doing yourself harm

I accept that taking part attract's BANTER

Respect works both way's

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. If someone makes a story up, and you speak to what amounts to nothing more than a malicious allegation. You are giving the story substance. In my response to the Cab Inspector, I told him I would not speak to a frivolous, malicious, unfounded unsubstantiated allegation.

The burden to prove me guilty is his. Until then I am innocent of any such crime. I did nothing wrong, and I know that any complaint about my driving is completely fabricated and made up with malicious intent.

Frank, is not even interested in whether or not this guy is lying. He is only concerned with making the complaint stick, job done.

You don't really think I would trust Frank Smith or the council after what I've witnessed over the last 10 years. These people are scum and out of control.


I'll take my chances through the courts, thank you very much.

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

You should refresh yourself with civil law as opposed to criminal.

Balance of probabilities versus beyond reasonable doubt.

The cab inspector has requested you attend an interview, you have declined.

The cab inspector is apparently in receipt of a complaint about you.

The question is all about the complainee.

The way most LA's look at it is that the complainee has taken the time and trouble to take note of the details of the alleged incident, including a registration number etc, they have then picked up a phone to make a complaint.

The way numerous local authorities work is for that to be enough for at least an interview, indeed if the cab inspector fails to make investigations he would be failing in his duty.

In England the record of a driver is always live, from the day he is first license, this has any complaints, previous appearances etc.

In respect of the burden of proof you should refer to Maidstone vs. Olsen which is somewhere on this site I think.

Also Leeds vs Hussain is of interest concening hearsay evidence;

LEEDS CITY COUNCIL v HUSSAIN

McCool vs Rushcliffe is also of interest as the following quoted from in respect of Olsen;

Burden of Proof

20. The relevant proviso to section 51 of the 1976 Act, which we have already referred to, is expressed to show that it is for the applicant to establish that he is a fit and proper person to hold a driver's licence. It is, as has been said, accepted that he would in this case discharge that burden, if the local authority is not permitted to call the complainant to give evidence. It follows that the evidential burden shifts to the local authority. It should not, however, be overlooked that what they are seeking to do is to rebut his case that he is a fit and proper person. They are not seeking to prosecute him a second time."

21. The court went on to deal with the standard of proof and, after reference to a number of cases, said at page 14F:

"We return to the proviso to section 51 of the 1976 Act which, in our view, indicates that the local authority is not to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a driver's licence. The onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that he is a fit and proper person is on the applicant. These are not criminal proceedings but proceedings relating to the grant of a taxi licence. We are of the view that in licensing proceedings generally the civil standard of proof applies and it has not been suggested otherwise before us. We do not see that, in seeking to rebut the applicant's contention that he is a fit and proper person, the onus on the local authority is to do this to other than a civil standard of proof, even if the substance of what they seek to prove amounts to a criminal offence. We do not think that Parliament intended that local authorities had to refuse licences under this head only if they were sure than an applicant alleged to have committed a relevant criminal offence had indeed committed it. The balance of public interest to see that those who drive taxis are fit and proper persons to do so does not argue for a criminal standard of proof here. In our view, the law as stated in Hornal v Neuberger Products applies, so that the local authority have to establish what they seek to prove to a civil standard of proof commensurate with the occasion and proportionate to the subject matter."


CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

All well and good CC.

Except we've moved on. Every Act of Parliament now has to be read in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, which enshrines the right to a fair hearing.

The council is ducking Human Rights, none of its procedures have been tested for compliance.

Councils are still living in the dark ages thinking that Human Rights doesn't exist and they can do as they've always done - make it up as they go along in the belief that no one will challenge them.

In a recent correspondence council solicitor wrote that parliamenrt"meant" short periods of suspension to be used as "punishment"

No where in the CGSA is the word punishment used, no periods of suspension for any indiscretions were specified, no benchmarks or standards set, no provision for precedent.

Yet our council solicitor is stating that Parliament "meant" short terms suspensions to be used to punish people. How the feck would he know this? Who the feck do these people think they are?

The status quo here exists because no one has hitherto challenged them.

Well we're now challenging them and our hapless Cab Inspector has given us the perfect battleground to do it. And, now everyone knows about it, he's gonna look a complete idiot to the whole trade if he fails to follow through. And if he does go with it, he's gonna have dumped a loser on the council and compromised every vestige of its cosy wee kangaroo court.

And that is the quality you get with a stupid cop overstepping the mark and behaving like a fascist.

BTW When John Blain handed the fone to Frank, who was between calls, wanna bet Blainey knew exactly what he was doing and what the outcome would be?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

In so far I was aware the councils obligations under the Act was to ensure that there is a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.

The applicant has the right of appeal.

Sounds to me like your solicitor will get paid win, lose or draw.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Garry we will all miss you on the Haymarket Rank!!!!!!!
Hope all goes well.

About time someone stood up to the bullying tatics uesd by the cab inspector, and the great [edited by admin]*r that is Keir

Lets hope this is a victory for all cabbies who are filled with fear when they get a phone call re complaints from the public, then dragged into murrayburn to answear then when the complaint is denied and with no evidence are STILL giving a warning from the inspector.

Victory to the Skull

The Council has produced service planning guidance that ensures equalities, diversity and human rights issues are referenced. The specific section on these matters instructs departments to confirm what are the primary equalities, diversity and human rights actions to be referenced within their service plans.

When a report is signed off by a Chief Official they must be assured that the relevance score is accurate and that appropriate action has been taken. A Chief Official’s signature will therefore imply that the equalities, diversity and human rights dimensions have been accounted for and appropriate action has been taken.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin