Taxi Driver Online

You are spot on with the attitude of the councils and police here.

I can't speak for the rest of Scotland, but I suspect the situation is similar. That does seem to be borne out by some of the posts on here.

I must admit that was extremely intelligent of you but why stop at section 23 when you could have posted all 23 sections and attributed those to your perceived logic.



What is there to be vindictive about, could it be your injured pride?

Don't let a few corrections get you down, we all make mistakes however you seem to have a rare talent for amplifying your mistakes to deafening proportions.



Such as drawing attention to your mistakes?



Seldom does a new subscriber join this forum and instantly commit verbal suicide and at the same time jettison their credibility, however you have single-handedly achieved both without even turning a hair.

I suspect your self inflicted wounds based on your logical interpretation of section 23.1 and 2 will leave you scarred for life, rather amusing considering you were given every opportunity to correct your confused state of mind.

Your reference to syllogisms is laughable because it is patently obvious that you don't understand the first thing about logic.

You pasted part of an act of parliament amounting to interpretations and then proceeded to proclaim that based on your logic the act of parliament was correct. Well if an act of parliament says taxis can ply for public hire then that is what they can do. It is not logic to restate a statutory legislative fact, as you did.

Just for the record, here's how foolish you look. Your brilliant lesson in logic, laid bare. First comes your pasting of the statutory meaning of a licensed taxi.

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".

One thing we know about the above passage is that it is not a premise or an argument, it is a statutory provision in law and therefore a fact. It tells us that a taxi is a hire car that can ply for hire.

Second comes the statutory meaning of hire car, where you pasted the following.

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

Again, one thing we know about the above is that the passage is not a premise or an argument, it is a statutory provision in legislation and therefore a fact. It tells us that a hire car is a motor vehicle with a driver that is available for public hire.

Now we have your remarkable observation dressed up as logic "RESTATING EXACTLY WHAT IS WRITTEN ABOVE NAMELY SUBSECTION 1 AND 2 OF SECTION 23. You gave us this pearl of wisdom.

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).

I don't need to state the obvious as it is plain for all to see but all you did was "replicate" the wording in section 23 and added no logical reasoning whatsoever.

It is a matter of record that your attempt at logic in respect of section 23 does not bear the properties of a syllogism, your so called logic is a mere "replication" of parts 1 and 2 of section 23 therefore logic is absent.



There is no doubting the meaning of section 23 because it defines the activity of a taxi "licensed" under the provisions of sections 10 - 22, however section 21 of those provisions defines offences of those persons acting without a license.

Therefore the distinction between what amounts to being licensed and unlicensed in sections 21 and 23 might appear difficult to you but certainly not to me.



Read my lips. What does this define?

(1) A licence, to be known as a "taxi licence" shall be required for the operation of a vehicle as a taxi.

That to me suggests that all future reference to the word taxi in this part of this act is meant to mean license taxi. Does anyone disagree with that observation apart from Mr Boring?

Amongst other things section 23 describes the way in which a licensed taxi can be used. The presumptive reference to taxi is that the taxi is licensed, this is born out in section 1 of the act. There need not be a continued reference to licensed taxi as the presumption is made by virtue of section 1. The same presumption resides in every other act relating to Taxis, including hackney carriages and private hire. You must be the only person in Scotland who fails to understand that.



I do have difficulty but not with legislation, my difficulty lies in responding to those fools who cannot comprehend basic legislation even when it is portrayed in black and white.



I hope your audacity is not misplaced for I would hate to see someone with an inferior complex burst your brazen bubble.



That is a distinct failing of mine one which I need to revisit however considering you are the one who has continually humbled himself with various bouts of contrition I would suggest therefore that my rigour has perhaps penetrated that thin skin of yours and joined forces with mortis which would in turn make your intellect a little stiff.



If you presented a coherent argument then I missed it and probably so did everyone else, if you ever deliver one then it will be a first and something to celebrate.



I suspect that is your observation after eating a little humble pie and offering your contrition at being made to look a little foolish in the wake of your opening remarks, which you conveniently put down to being under the influence of drink. If drink = (A) and ill found logic = (B) does that make you a pizz artist?



Do I really? lol



I can see you can't take correction too well? Perhaps you are not used to it in your own environment, no doubt you will become accustomed to it in this environment.



I don't know to which country you refer but I suspect it might be Scotland, I can't comment on your experience as you haven't yet provided evidence that you have any.



lol All this from a little put down? My MY, you are thin skinned.



It's a frightening thought a man with a bottle of spirit in one hand and a gavel in the other. Would you like to see all those who point out your mistakes dismembered or is it just me? lol

I hope power has the good sense to pass you by.



That’s very good, I like checks and balances you have however handicapped yourself with your first drunken post, in which you stated a lot of nonsense that in turn resulted in your protracted apology. One thing in your favour is that you have several thousand posts of mine in which to fulfil your goal.

I look forward to any meaningful contribution you might make to this forum.

Regards

JD

I started to answer this in detail, but found little other than abuse from the mild to the more offensive to respond to. Playground stuff.

The argument is made in previous posts, nothing more to add.

You are spot on with the attitude of the councils and police here.

I can't speak for the rest of Scotland, but I suspect the situation is similar. That does seem to be borne out by some of the posts on here.

Anyway, it seems to me that prima facie an unlicensed vehicle would be prosecuted under section 7(1) - "Any person who without reasonable excuse does anything for which a licence is required...without having such a licence shall be guilty of an offence..." - and this would cover both plying for hire and doing pre-booked work.

Nothing wrong with that but to clear up section 7 it would appear any person contravening this section is guilty of an offence regardless of which unlicensed activity is carried out. However if a person was prosecuted they would only be prosecuted for not having a license and the contravention would probably read something like this.

contravention of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 s.7 persuant to s.10.1, s10.1.a, s10.1.b. of the aformentioned act

or in more detail like this.

“On 25 March 2009 at approximately 2200 hrs in Regent Street, Edinburgh, you did without reasonable excuse carry on the activity of a taxi driver trading in terms of s10 of the after-mentioned Act, an activity for which a licence is required under Part II of the after-mentioned Act, without having such a licence, and did convey fare paying passengers for the purpose of hire or reward contrary to s 7 (1) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982”.

Any further charges would have to come persuant to other sections of the act namely section 21. Which to me encompasses all vehicles and drivers operating unlicensed. Section 21 carries its own provisions for prosecution which are made out as offences under that section. Therefore section 7 need not be applied but like I said, the failing is having no case law to reference.

How the charge might possibly look if prosecuted under section 21?

On 25 March 2009 at approximately 2200 hrs in Regent Street, Edinburgh, you did without reasonable excuse and without holding the necessary license for such use drive and operate a motor vehicle for hire or reward in contravention of secs 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982

It is a real pity that there is no case law on section 21, perhaps its about time there was?

Regards

JD

I wondered how long it would take, not long it seems.

You said:

"On 25 March 2009 at approximately 2200 hrs in Regent Street, Edinburgh, you did without reasonable excuse and without holding the necessary license for such use drive and operate a motor vehicle for hire or reward in contravention of secs 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 "

1. Your "glaring" error is to suggest that section 21 permits of a defence of "reasonable excuse", which of course is does not.

Your second mistake, which, given that it has been pointed out to you in previous posts and you persist, must now take on "glaring" status, is to suggest that anyone can be prosecuted for not having a "license".

Your third mistake is the reference to the term "hire or reward". Where is that in the Act? There is no offence of operating a vehicle for hire or reward in section 21 or anywhere else in the Act.

A citation, on which the charge is required to be stated, requires to be relevant, i.e. it must in its description disclose an offence known to the law of Scotland. The wording of the offence in the statute requires to be followed carefully by the prosecutor.

On a lighter note,

2. Section 7 is not applicable to unlicensed taxis, phc and driver offences. It is a residual provision which, on general principles, makes way for more specific provisions regulating the offending behaviour being prosecuted.

Prosecution under section 7 would not be relevant (see below). Section 21(1) covers all unlicensed taxi/phc and unlicensed driver offences. It is found within a section headed up "Offences", which section is within a part of the Act headed up "Licensing and regulation of taxis and private hire cars". Section 7 is a fall back position where no more specific offences are included.

Why would you wish more case law under section 21, when you are convinced that it covers all unlicensed taxi/phc/driver activity (with which I agree) and you have previously said it is very clear to you beats me. If it is clear to you, what use would further case law do you.

" Perhaps you can uncover what I can't, that would be most helpful."

JD i have been searching for the last few weeks with no luck but i am going to continue searching.

To be quite honest stationtone I wouldn't waste your time, I have case law dating back before the 1982 act but I'm quite sure that if there was case law out there then I would have it.

It might be better emailing every Scottish licensing authority asking them if they have ever prosecuted anyone for illegally plying for hire under the 1982 act.

Regards

JD

Once again, no such thing as a license. Perhaps you will spot the point, eventually.

Deary me JD, licensing authorities do not prosecute, only the Crown Office, incorporating the procurator fiscal service, prosecutes in Scotland.

1. Your "glaring" error is to suggest that section 21 permits of a defence of "reasonable excuse", which of course is does not.