Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Mon May 04, 2026 6:13 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:47 pm
Posts: 30
Quote:
And your glaring error omits the fact that section 21 does present a defence, of sorts in section 21.6 and 7 albeit of good cause and reasonable excuse but what you should have defined was the section to which I referred namely section 21.1.(a) and (b). I think anyone having read the section would instantly conlcude that there is no defence under section 21.1.(a) and (b) and the example given by me was a mere probability and not definitive.


Had you forgotten what section you were referring to when you made up the defence? You are a pedant, only when it suits you. Also, I think you meant "mere possibility" and not "mere probability", the latter is oxymoronic. In any event, your mere "whatever you meant" of a charge it is not remotely possible, as unless you get a job in the Fiscal's office, there is no such defence of reasonable excuse in relation to 21(1).

You could do with developing a bit of humility. It will get you more respect and mark you out as a mature adult, particularly where the circumstances cry out for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:04 pm
Posts: 2859
Location: SCOTLAND
JD i understood what you were saying.

Also our police have carried out test purchases and it is an ongoing investigation, but i am not holding my breath.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Boring wrote:


Had you forgotten what section you were referring to when you made up the defence?


I was refering to the section you mentioned which was section 21, section 21 has 8 subsections two of which have a defence of sorts by way of showing good cause namely ss 6 or showing reasonable cause ss 7, as I said section 21.1.a and 21.1.b have no defence. When you refer to section 21 be specific as you expect others to be.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:47 pm
Posts: 30
Quote:
I was refering to the section you mentioned which was section 21, section 21 has 8 subsections two of which have a defence of sorts by way of showing good cause namely ss 6 or showing reasonable cause ss 7, as I said section 21.1.a and 21.1.b have no defence. When you refer to section 21 be specific as you expect others to be.


Seriously, are you for real? You use words and sentences that are out of context, you make things up, your conclusions are unsupported by your arguments, which are, in any event, all over the place.

Humilty. A great deal more appealing than ignorance combined with arrogance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:06 am
Posts: 40
Boring wrote:
[/quot

I would not describe your points as the difference between fact and fiction, but rather that they are simply factually incorrect.


fact or fiction ? now we are getting there! its all fiction as far as i can see what do you think petrocelli?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Boring wrote:
1. Your "glaring" error is to suggest that section 21 permits of a defence of "reasonable excuse"


I assume you are referring to section 21.1.a and b, shall we keep it precise or do you prefer informal? By the way, that example does say, ""possibly" might look like this" but if you were to ask me does the section have a defence then naturally like most other people on here I would have said no.

Quote:
which of course is does not.


I'm slightly confused at "is does not" Do you mean, it does not?

Quote:
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".


So which section of the 1982 act allows for the prosecution of an unlicensed Joe Blogs plying for hire in an unlicensed vehicle? Considering you have already discounted section 7.1 what other provisions are available?

Quote:
Section 7 is not applicable to unlicensed taxis, phc and driver offences.


Don't tell me, this is where you resurrect the residual section 7.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Boring wrote:
You are now a seasoned exponent of case law? I think you may have chosen the wrong noun there. Perhaps you meant someone familiar with case law and its uses in determining the law on any particular legal matter or factual/legal dispute.


No, I think seasoned is appropriate at my age but perhaps student may have been more apt.

Quote:
The section 21(1)(b) refers to the activity of picking up passengers, but does so in relation to private hire cars.


and section 21.1.a refers to what?

If any person— (a) 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 or, (b) picks up passengers in, that person shall be guilty of an offence.

What were you saying?

Quote:
Plying for hire is not a legal concept,


I assume you are restricting your comments of plying for hire not being a legal concept, to sections 10-23 of the 1982 act? Or are you suggesting plying for hire is not a legal concept in respect of all Scottish statutes?

Quote:
but is understood in the trade as applying to a vehicle defined as a taxi in section 23(1), i.e. a vehicle that, with a view to profit, picks up hires off the street.


View for profit comes under section 23.2 but I won't hold that against you.

Quote:
Plying for hire is not, therefore, in any sense, legal or or in the trade vernacular, the same as picking up passengers.


Should that be one "OR", or two?

Quote:
There is no reported case reports on section 21(1)(b),


Shouldn’t that be, there“are” no reported case reports? lol How do you know that, can't you find any? Or is it because I said there is none?

Quote:
so how the seasoned exponent of case law could possibly use their experience to translate the term "picking up passengers"


The section actually states picks up passengers in, or permits passengers to be picked up sorry to be pedantic but its catching.

Quote:
(private hire) to mean plying for hire (taxi) is also a mystery.


I suppose when you have been in the taxi game as long as some of these guys on here you will understand that when a section makes it an offence for unlicensed persons operating unlicensed vehicles to pick up passengers off the street or make provision for carrying passengers by other means, then that is what is meant by an offence.

Quote:
But even if there was, anyone who read any Scottish case law on the subject such as to conclude that the concepts are the same would be, with respect, blind or incapable of understanding English


I assume the above comment is directed at your failure to understand the statute.

Quote:
A Scottish court will, of course, never be presented with the concept of "plying for hire" or using a vehicle for "hire and reward", as the appeal court deals with questions of law and neither are legal concepts.


I assume once again you are referring to the 1982 act as plying for hire is already well established in Scottish law as you probably know.

Quote:
I would not describe your points as the difference between fact and fiction, but rather that they are simply factually incorrect.


lol "fact and fiction" seems like I've heard that phrase before. Perhaps I'll change it to "fact and science fiction"?

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:47 pm
Posts: 30
JD wrote:
Boring wrote:
You are now a seasoned exponent of case law? I think you may have chosen the wrong noun there. Perhaps you meant someone familiar with case law and its uses in determining the law on any particular legal matter or factual/legal dispute.


No, I think seasoned is appropriate at my age but perhaps student may have been more apt.

Quote:
The section 21(1)(b) refers to the activity of picking up passengers, but does so in relation to private hire cars.


and section 21.1.a refers to what?

If any person— (a) 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 or, (b) picks up passengers in, that person shall be guilty of an offence.

What were you saying?

Quote:
Plying for hire is not a legal concept,


I assume you are restricting your comments of plying for hire not being a legal concept, to sections 10-23 of the 1982 act? Or are you suggesting plying for hire is not a legal concept in respect of all Scottish statutes?

Quote:
but is understood in the trade as applying to a vehicle defined as a taxi in section 23(1), i.e. a vehicle that, with a view to profit, picks up hires off the street.


View for profit comes under section 23.2 but I won't hold that against you.

Quote:
Plying for hire is not, therefore, in any sense, legal or or in the trade vernacular, the same as picking up passengers.


Should that be one "OR", or two?

Quote:
There is no reported case reports on section 21(1)(b),


Shouldn’t that be, there“are” no reported case reports? lol How do you know that, can't you find any? Or is it because I said there is none?

Quote:
so how the seasoned exponent of case law could possibly use their experience to translate the term "picking up passengers"


The section actually states picks up passengers in, or permits passengers to be picked up sorry to be pedantic but its catching.

Quote:
(private hire) to mean plying for hire (taxi) is also a mystery.


I suppose when you have been in the taxi game as long as some of these guys on here you will understand that when a section makes it an offence for unlicensed persons operating unlicensed vehicles to pick up passengers off the street or make provision for carrying passengers by other means, then that is what is meant by an offence.

Quote:
But even if there was, anyone who read any Scottish case law on the subject such as to conclude that the concepts are the same would be, with respect, blind or incapable of understanding English


I assume the above comment is directed at your failure to understand the statute.

Quote:
A Scottish court will, of course, never be presented with the concept of "plying for hire" or using a vehicle for "hire and reward", as the appeal court deals with questions of law and neither are legal concepts.


I assume once again you are referring to the 1982 act as plying for hire is already well established in Scottish law as you probably know.

Quote:
I would not describe your points as the difference between fact and fiction, but rather that they are simply factually incorrect.


lol "fact and fiction" seems like I've heard that phrase before. Perhaps I'll change it to "fact and science fiction"?

Regards

JD


I am bored with you now. I will no longer waste my time on this. Although I do wonder what you are doing on the Scottish board seeking to tell Scottish posters what the position is in Scotland, when you appear to be domiciled and operating in an entirely different jurisdiction? Perhaps you need the responses for your self-esteem, which would be really quite nerdy and, indeed, a sad indictment of your psychological state. Hope your not cracking one off.

The point, JD, is well and truly made. Now, on you go, have the last word (just like my kids).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Boring wrote:

Although I do wonder what you are doing on the Scottish board



the english board appears to have been invaded by scots :wink:

CC

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57359
Location: 1066 Country
Boring wrote:
Although I do wonder what you are doing on the Scottish board seeking to tell Scottish posters what the position is in Scotland, when you appear to be domiciled and operating in an entirely different jurisdiction?

Folks only ever say things like that when they are wrong, cos if you was spot on you wouldn't give a toss who posted on this section. [-X

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 2372
Location: edinburgh
captain cab wrote:
Boring wrote:

Although I do wonder what you are doing on the Scottish board



the english board appears to have been invaded by scots :wink:

CC

wouldnae be the first time. :lol:
youve a funny attitude towards scots especially considering youre location,high probability you are one,even worse isnt youre alter ego named the riever.???
or did they stop printing that rubbish :?: :?:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
ALI T wrote:
wouldnae be the first time. :lol:
youve a funny attitude towards scots especially considering youre location,high probability you are one,even worse isnt youre alter ego named the riever.???
or did they stop printing that rubbish :?: :?:


I'm quite English I assure you.

CC

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:47 pm
Posts: 30
Sussex wrote:
Boring wrote:
Although I do wonder what you are doing on the Scottish board seeking to tell Scottish posters what the position is in Scotland, when you appear to be domiciled and operating in an entirely different jurisdiction?

Folks only ever say things like that when they are wrong, cos if you was spot on you wouldn't give a toss who posted on this section. [-X


Yeh, man.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 10460
Boring wrote:
Sussex wrote:
Boring wrote:
Although I do wonder what you are doing on the Scottish board seeking to tell Scottish posters what the position is in Scotland, when you appear to be domiciled and operating in an entirely different jurisdiction?

Folks only ever say things like that when they are wrong, cos if you was spot on you wouldn't give a toss who posted on this section. [-X


Yeh, man.



Yeh, man and you come from where exactly? And your real name is?

If you come from Edinburgh then at least have the balls to tell us who you really are?


Know this, I wouldn't pi*h on guys like you :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

What the feck is it with this town ?:roll: Wannabe clever [edited by admin]*s 10 to a penny . . . .

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 10460
Oh and before you start Boring, every gutless bas*ard seems to appear on this forum at sometime or another. . . you being the latest. :roll:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 679 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group