Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun May 03, 2026 9:16 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
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 If unfit, the licence may be withdrawn.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

_________________
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?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:38 pm
Posts: 1975
Location: Edinburgh
Jasbar wrote:
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. Thes 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?

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

It'll get worse :wink:

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
How so?

_________________
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?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:38 pm
Posts: 1975
Location: Edinburgh
Jasbar wrote:
Jasbar wrote:
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

Jim everytime you hound anyone on the council they just look for an alternative to your opinion, i've told many a man who ask's about you that the way to feck your point of view is not to argue your points but come up with an alternative view :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
"I've slept on the idea of leading a fresh quorum, i'm blinded by my own passion if i think i'm the guy to lead such an attempt to overturn the original vote. City Cabs and who am i to question the fact that City Cabs followed the letter of the law every step of the way throughout the original quorum.

Taking in to account the information from "BORED" i'm saying i'm not the guy to take this forward, i do value my position within City Cabs and my stats show that my loyalties lie not only with City Cabs but also my enjoyment of serving the customer.

I can take the fact that through my passion for the trade i thought i could take a fresh quorum on, but hands up it's out of my league, sorry to the guy's who pledged to sign a fresh quorum and i know you will see where i'm coming from."


Says it all really.

:lol:

_________________
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?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:38 pm
Posts: 1975
Location: Edinburgh
Jasbar wrote:
"I've slept on the idea of leading a fresh quorum, i'm blinded by my own passion if i think i'm the guy to lead such an attempt to overturn the original vote. City Cabs and who am i to question the fact that City Cabs followed the letter of the law every step of the way throughout the original quorum.

Taking in to account the information from "BORED" i'm saying i'm not the guy to take this forward, i do value my position within City Cabs and my stats show that my loyalties lie not only with City Cabs but also my enjoyment of serving the customer.

I can take the fact that through my passion for the trade i thought i could take a fresh quorum on, but hands up it's out of my league, sorry to the guy's who pledged to sign a fresh quorum and i know you will see where i'm coming from."


Says it all really.

:lol:

Aye Jim :wink:
At least i can hold my hands up and walk away un-scathed :)

You should recognise what i'm saying :wink:

It was out of my league :wink: As you are out of your League :wink: But hey you are in it up to your neck, no going back eh Jim :wink:

Take my advice, get out now :wink:

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
Thing is Dougie, if I were to accept your advice, I would be the first one ever to do so.

But you are right about one thing, there is no going back. No giving up.

Busy time coming up. Derestriction or culpable homicide?

No council can claim to have done everything it could to protect public safety unless and until it has done everything it could to protect public safety.

Restricting the availability of taxis falls below this simple standard.



Mull it over.

:roll:

_________________
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?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:38 pm
Posts: 1975
Location: Edinburgh
Jasbar wrote:
Thing is Dougie, if I were to accept your advice, I would be the first one ever to do so.

But you are right about one thing, there is no going back. No giving up.

Busy time coming up. Derestriction or culpable homicide?

No council can claim to have done everything it could to protect public safety unless and until it has done everything it could to protect public safety.

Restricting the availability of taxis falls below this simple standard.



Mull it over.

:roll:

LONDON!!! How many Taxi's?

Who was that cabbie who drugged all those women?

No amount of de-restriction can cover the work at major times of high demand, London being the example, but you know this Jim, but you could say you are playing with the weak minded in another way!!! :sad:

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
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?

:sad:

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.

_________________
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?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:38 pm
Posts: 1975
Location: Edinburgh
Jasbar wrote:
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?

:sad:

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 :)

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
so, you agree that a demand exists that the trade is not meeting Dougie?

_________________
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?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:38 pm
Posts: 1975
Location: Edinburgh
Jasbar wrote:
so, you agree that a demand exists that the trade is not meeting Dougie?

Would that be the occasional 10 hours at the weekend Jim :?

Your shouting de-restrict 168 hours a week :?

So the answer is NO :)

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 10460
Private Reggie wrote:
Jasbar wrote:
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?

:sad:

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 :)


Dougie, de-restriction will happen simply because, restriction is well passed its sell by date. And has been for sometime. It's not if, but when, de-restriction will arrive, that's up for debate.

The worst case scenario for us, is that we drag the council back into court next year and force their hand even further.

Look at it this way Dougie, the C. E. C. knows that pulling the plug is inevitable at some point, and what better time than the present. The country is bare arsed, with not a pot to [edited by admin] in, but you expect to be protected like some sort of endangered species.

You will never retire on the money from selling your plate Dougie, that much I can guarantee. :-|

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:38 pm
Posts: 1975
Location: Edinburgh
Skull wrote:
Private Reggie wrote:
Jasbar wrote:
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?

:sad:

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 :)


Dougie, de-restriction will happen simply because, restriction is well passed its sell by date. And has been for sometime. It's not if, but when, de-restriction will arrive, that's up for debate.

The worst case scenario for us, is that we drag the council back into court next year and force their hand even further.

Look at it this way Dougie, the C. E. C. knows that pulling the plug is inevitable at some point, and what better time than the present. The country is bare arsed, with not a pot to [edited by admin] in, but you expect to be protected like some sort of endangered species.

You will never retire on the money from selling your plate Dougie, that much I can guarantee. :-|

I never said i would retire on my plate value but a little helps and if in the event of any medical misfortune a little will help in the short term, same with the value of my position, and i don't mean sell on i mean getting a couple of drivers.

Skull i'm for restriction but i'm about getting the balance correct between radio and street cars, if that means extra plates through survey's of demand then so be it.

If we get the balance correct as above we can service the occasional high demand (10 hours) better, i'm for balance and increase's through restriction, you and taylor want the flood gates to open, flooding the market, Skull your moaning your face off the now on how hard it is to make a living so is taylor, lets just trust the survey's of demand and other forms of public transport such as extra bus services at times of high demand to find A BALANCE :wink:

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 2372
Location: edinburgh
you having a muldoon moment dougie :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

more buses ffs


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 868 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