Dear Sue,

By temporarily suspending licence holders, the council, of which you are now Chief Executive, has deliberately abused the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

Consider this Sue, then YOU tell us where we've got this wrong.

According to the CGSA 1982 the council has only one sanction against licence holders - whether the licence holder is fit and proper to hold the licence. If unfit, the licence may be withdrawn.

The system allows the Chief Constable to make formal complaint that any licence holder he deems is unfit to hold the licence. Experience is that Chief Constables, via Cab Inspectors, exercise such complaints with impunity. It gives them their control over licence holders. Ordinarily, licence holders are programmed to fear such intervention from the Police.

At the recent meeting of CEC's Kangaroo Court, posing as the "Regulatory Committee", 11 complaints against taxi licence holders came before councillors on the committee. These councillors take their legal "guidance" from Corporate Services.

9 cases were dismissed, no action taken.

2 drivers were deemed to be "not fit and proper" and were "suspended" for one week.

Sue, the Act allows this where precisely? Where does it say that temporary suspensions may be used as a punishment? And how does this licence holder become "fit and proper" again after one week?

In item 8 of the agenda the councillors actually took a vote on the matter. It was tied at 3-3. The casting vote was Cllr Keir's. He voted to suspend the individual for one week. Cllr Keir personally cost this guy a week's wages - when the Law does not allow him to. Unless YOU can show us differently Sue?

In a case in Dumfries the Sheriff went on record to state that such temporary suspensions were "illogical".

Now Sue, you are charged to ensure that the council operates within the Law. The current Corporate Services Director, Jim Inch. has been making it up as he went along for years. He's been running his deprtment as his own personal fiefdom - arrogantly lording it over all and sundry, squandering licence payers' money to do so.

But what has passed here is little short of criminal. Inch and Keir know that given a short suspension, although illegal, these licence holders are going to swallow it rather than incur the considerable cost of a deserved but expensive legal challenge. Isn't this a complete abrogation of the Law, a disgrace.

Is this how you intend to run our council, Sue?

So, the challenge is to tell us where we're wrong, then tell us all what you personally are going to do right this wrong.

And, to redress this wrong, will you instruct that the council reimburse the drivers for the criminal loss of income they've incurred by this committee wrongly amd illegally advised by Jim Inch's incompetent and devious Corporate Services Department?

Over to you Sue.


Jim Taylor

Dougie, the flaw for you though is that as long as the council ensures that there are less taxis on the street than there could be it lays itself open to the charge that they are causing the public unncessary danger.

Simple as.

Only when the council has taken the action to encourage taxis onto the street is the council off the hook.

As things stand under restriction, the council is a law suit just waiting to happen.

I intend this to happen next time.

As I said, busy time coming up. Strange folks are abroad. Bad weather, heavy demand, restricted taxis. It's a potent mix.

Let's hope I'm wrong, eh?



BTW We should remember that City Cabs and Central have both objected to every licence application. Yet their proposal, persisted with by Central, was for an expensive party tariff to encourage drivers to work the peak weekend periods and meet the demand they claim doesn't exist.

This trade is rotten to the core. This council, protecting owners' and its own vested transport interest is morally corrupt and rotten to the core also.

You Dougie, by supporting this, YOU are also rotten to the core.

A veritable band of brigands indeed.

I supported the Party Tariff As it would encourage more Taxi's to stay out at times of high demand but Take Taxi's off the road during times of un-met demand, it works at Hogmany, it would work at the weekend.

My point is i'm against an increase for 168 hours a week but feel a rise for 10 hours at the weekend is justified for the crap we have to put up with, Fri-sat can be as bad as it is when it's snowing, Risk and reward, there is no reward on a fri-sat for risking all sorts of trouble.

A higher tariff works in other area's and would work in Edinburgh, a Partty tariff is one way of meeting demand rather than de-restriction which trust me is not going to Happen