Taxi Driver Online

Cabbie has a domestic. The wife calls in the sister. They decide to make a report to the cops.

Cabbie charged.

Reconciliation, the wife seeks to recant. Cops don't let her.

Case comes to court. Cabbie admonished.

Frank Smith, our erstwhile cab inspector, lodges formal complaint, on behalf of the chief cop, that cabbie is not a fit and proper person to be a cabbie. Smith is seeking to remove this guys livelihood. Nice one Frank. In a recession too. But then that's no concern of yours, or der Feuhrer Keir's.

Thing is though, that Lothian and Borders not so finest has officers operating in its force with criminal records much more heinous than a minor spat with the wife and admonishment.

So, if the cabbie is not fit and proper, how come the scumbag cops on the force are deemed fit and proper?

And we're expected to allow these cops ID cards? -and a "shiny" new database to file all of the poison they want to hold on us?

BTW, Frank reckons the cabbie is not "fit and proper"? perhaps he'd like to come on this forum and explain what a fit and proper person is. What is the definition? Or der Feuhrer? Before he takes away this guy's livelihood, will he define fit and proper for us?

And, if they can't, or won't, how can they possibly know when someone is NOT fit and proper?

_________________
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?"

Interesting thing is that a formal complaint about the Chief Constable, his Force's interpretation of the law of theft, and a formal request under freedom of information for information relating to discussion between the Force and the Fical's office about relating process- which was ignored - was all dealt with by .... yup, Frank Smith, the cab inspector.

A bit like me complaining about Gordon Brown and it being dealt with by his secretary.

BTW The standard form is to ignore the complaint and respond in the way which suits them. Presumably because they know they are untouchable, they will never be held to account.

_________________
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?"

This is for Frank. Did you ever consider what it might be like not to be a Tulliallan, number cruncher? Hell Frank, why don't you get a dirty magazine and go find a toilet somewhere? “not a fit and proper person” who would have though, get a fecking life, spring to mind you thick yokel. Don't tell me Frank, you always wanted to be a cop. Well, feck me Frank, I don't know how you cope with the excitement.

I know why don't you take away a guy's livelihood, you sad [edited by admin].


The above post is for the attention of Frank Smith, Edinburgh City Counsels complete er*e.

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

You would think that to be a police officer your conduct would need to be much much better than that needed to be a cab driver.

Knowing quite a few police officers,

I would suggest that if police officers were required to be up to the standards that Frank (cab inspector and not me) thinks is needed to be a cab driver, then there would be quite a shortage of police officers in Edinburgh.

Assaulting your wife is common among police officers, but for them it is just stress and they need help, and not the loss of their job.

Quality Frank. This is about police terrorism and control.

Frank Smith has lost it, just like Auders did before.

This isn't a cop doing his job, its about cops operating as fascists.

Give them ID cards and databases to monitor us. I don't think so.

Don't we all know what they would do with it. They see their job as being our oppressors. Every time the step on someone they think of it as no more than jo0b done.

_________________
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?"

If this guy does get stiffed by the council deeming him not to be a fit and proper person to drive a taxi, and he is punished for the second time - a clear breach of his human rights - then at least he can take refuge in the knowledge that he canapply to be one of Lothian and Borders "finest"

_________________
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?"

To take away this guys livelyhood would not only be punishing him, but as they are still together, it would be punishing his wife also!

Great point.

Perhaps the issue here is that the cops and the council, in a quasi-judicial role, are acting beyond even the powers of a court. How is that a subordinate "!legal "entity is allowed to operate without the safeguards of the superior legal entity.

For example the council, and I've asked them, operate to no benchmarks, detailed standards and wholly ignore precedent. Worse still is that the councillors making the decisions have no legal training or necessarily any developed skill in understanding such legal argument and decision taking. They are forced to rely on the council's legal advice where it can be shown such advice has been exercised in the past on a wholly arbitrary basis to use the process as an instrument to control and suppress those brought before it.

The cases of abuse on cabbies and other licence holders is well documented.

The temptation is for us to believe it will never affect us. We're good boys and will never have to come before this committee and our rights breached.

Anyone can be dragged before this kangaroo court, at anytime and for any petty excuse.

Don't forget this.

_________________
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?"

It should be added that the council will tell you that each case is decided on its own merits. This is the catch all that gets them off the hook. It means that they can do what they like, to whomsoever they like, whenever they like.

The only recourse to challenging their arbitrary, and often personal decisions, is through prohibitively expensive legal process.

What this does is give councils inordinate power, well in excess of what is reasonable.

Problem is, even if someone can afford due legal process, it is likely the case that the courts will favour the council as being part of the same establishment. This was amply demonstrated in the 3maxblack appeals where Sheriff Mackie gave the decision to the council. She was proved wrong when Sheriff Gordon Liddell gave verdict in favour of Turnbull and he ultimately won his licence after the council's appeal was thrown out.

Problem is that when a judge gets it wrong, unless you have shedloads more cash to prove it, you lose. The justice system doesn't ever put its hand up and say sorry that it got it wrong and volunteer the steps to make redress. Withput cash there is no real justice in Civil Law.

In the case of Smith the council took away his licence just before Christmas, placing his family in serious financial jeopardy, based on a charge which was never brought before the court. His loss of licence was entirely a personal decision.

Interestingly Smith did get his licence back. Which shows that the council used his licence revoking as a punishment, not provided for in the ACT. The Act only allows licences to be rescinded on the basis of not being a fit and proper person (with no criteria established for what a fit and proper person is). The council gets away with this because of the technicality that licences are renewed every 3 years. They claim they are not suspending an individual. The custom and practice however that because an individual holds a licence continuously, then revoking a licence and then granting another is effectively a suspension.

This process has never been considered for full compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998.

_________________
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?"