Taxi Driver Online

News has come to me of yet another case where an incident in a cabby's private life has intruded on his professional life.

This time the cabby was on a night out, just trying to get home, when he challenged the cabby who fell below the standard of knowing where he was going.

One thing led to another, insults were hurled between the two and in the verbal melee a reference was made about the country of the driver's origin and the fact that he was a vaginal orifice; not nice perhaps, but a sincerely held view nevertheless given the circumstances no doubt.

Yes, not nice, but the Court, unchallenged by the driver's brief, accepted this as a racial slur. Notwithstanding this, it could be argued that the elements of the slur were a simple statement of fact, and a legitimately held opinion, rather than a naked racial slur.

(It seems to me that continued application of the Law to deal with these matters in this way is certain to make the warnings in Enoch Powell's famous "Rivers of blood" speech happen rather than the mistaken political view we like to think it is. The authorities seem to be just plain getting the temperature wrong.)

Anyway, this driver's difficulty was exacerbated by the fact his brief did a deal, All other charges would be dropped if he pleaded guilty to the racial abuse. Big mistake! The brief gets his fee, the PF gets his conviction rate boosted by another notch on his belt, the Court gets satisfaction of its job done and the cabby gets handed down a fine; shafted.

Except, for the cabby it doesn't end there. Unlike other members of the public, this cabby is immediately shown that the equality before the Law we're all supposed to enjoy doesn't apply to him. Because he's destined to be hauled before his council's licensing committee to be sentenced for a second time. And it could mean him losing his licence and his livelihood. How is this fair? To be punished twice for an incident that was not even of his making.

Two things should be pointed out. But keep in mind that I abhor any form of racism, or the unequal treatment of anyone.

First, ethnic minorities in our nation play the race card. They do it knowing that authorities tripping over themselves to pander to them to maintain "racial harmony" will accord them the benefit of the doubt whenever an incident occurs. And that the authorities will accept their word whether true or not. Which means that the rest of us are placed in peril by authorities' actions to do us down. We're now second class citizens in our nation whenever the race card is played.

Second, and this should serve as a warning to us all. Lawyers are not about truth, justice and the best outcome for the client. They are simply about making money in a commercial market.

The brief in this case had no concern for the outcome for this driver. Else he would not have allowed a situation to prevail where the cabby would be compromised in his dealings with his licensing authority. And any half decent brief would have realised the negative potential his deal with the Court on his client's behalf would have had on him. It's not rocket science.

The deal with the PF in this case ticked everyone's box, apart from the cabby. Now, we already know the score, and perhaps this cabby should have, but his brief certainly should have. Were I in this cabby's position now I would be contacting the Law Society to make formal complaint about this brief's poor service and professional misconduct in not dealing with the cabby's full legal needs in this matter.

But ultimately where this leads is that we are long overdue for disciplinary matters to be removed from licensing authorities. Their job should be to simply administer the licences, set tariffs etc., with a separate body, comprised of individuals - who have legal experience and understand the laws pertaining to Licensing Law, Theft, Road Traffic laws etc as well as the rules of evidence and equal Human Rights - to independently assess each case and to deliberate and make proper and fair decision, without grace, favour political bias or competing vested interest.

The way council Kangaroo courts currently operate is a disgrace, a sop to the rights of the individual and testament to the fact that we live in a nation that is riddled with the cancer of institutional fascism.

We need to wake up, smell the coffee and force this change.

_________________
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?"

Of course he should be tried twice as he's tried by 2 different people for the same crime

Let's take another example

Company salesman gets caught speeding in his car at a dangerous speed & due to totting up goes to 9pts on his driving license

He then goes to work Monday morning but due to his employers regulations, he can't work for them as the insurance won't cover him due to totting up the points


Similar scenario, the guy is being punished by the courts for a race crime, then as a CONSEQUENCE is being punished by the authorities that license him to work



I await the usual nonsense insults

Did you actually read Jim's post? How you've managed to come out with the above tripe, is beyond me. You are a simpleton. How's that for an insult?

And there they are

In jims post, said cabby is being punished for his race/hate crime by the court of law then as a consequence of his guilt he's being investigated by the licensing authorities if he is suitable to do his job

Where have I got this wrong?

Try reading the post in context, before making comment.

Read the post & re read it

Can you tell me where I am wrong?

I've got all the sympathy in the world for the cabby, its a horrible thing to happen, but surely he must have known when the brief was dealing with the PF that this could have serious consequences for his licence. You would have to assume that the prosecution had some serious corroborating evidence for him to even consider this as an option. That said, it is totally normal is it not for people to lose their jobs through convictions.

Really?


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... rs-1166039

"Scotland’s eight police forces admitted having 333 officers who are guilty of serious offences – and the true figure could be higher because not all data was revealed."

"totally normal" perhaps I'm missing something...?

Take it I'm not getting an answer skull?

If I call you a black or a Scottish cu*t, and you happen to be black or Scottish, while acting like a cu*t, is my comment a statement of fact or a racial slur?

Should someone who is less than Caucasian be granted diplomatic immunity by pulling the race card?

Do you think the same weight of the law would be applied if the complainer of racism was white or Scottish?

Can you see the police tracking down some black guy because you claimed racial abuse? And what if this guy made a counter allegation, that it was you, making the racist comments, who do you think the council or courts would believe?

Now do yourself a favour and read Jim's post again, educate yourself to the realities of being a serf. You might be white and Scottish but in the eyes of the law or your council, your skin is Blacker than the Earl of Hell's waste coat. Being white and a taxi driver, is the new black.

Where am I getting this wrong?

How can two punishments for one "crime" possibly be justified.

If the courts tried to pull a stunt like this even longshanks would against it So, why should councils be allowed to get away with it?

We're supposed to be equal in our society yet the guy who commits the same "crime" and is not a cabby gets punished once, the cabby gets punished twice.

How can that possibly be justified? How can two cases the same be treated so differently?

And if this cabby didn't realise the consequences of his acceptance of the deal done with the court, then his lawyer should have made it clear to him. The lawyer in this case was incompetent and didn't act in his clients full interest.

The other aspect of the post was that councillors sitting in judgement are not qualified to do so. They have no legal training, they are not even "inducted" into their role with even basic in-house training. They have no grasp of the rules of evidence, corroboration or any of the other aspects that those sitting in judgement in a court would have. Which is why they accept one side of a case while listening to the other side with guilt already established in their minds, only the sentence to be handed down.

And we know how anything that happens in the supposedly "public" committee meetings is already a done deal, the decision pre-determined by the suits who exercise the power. He's not being judged, just sentenced for a second time, and not for something he allegedly did while in his professional capacity. He was in his own private time. Had he called a passenger of his with the terms alleged, then it would be right and proper for a council to take action. But in his private life?

For me it is breathtaking that longshanks believes that what is transpiring in this case is acceptable. Clearly the chains of servitude are weighing down on him. Perhaps if we knew who he was we might understand better.

But this isn't about one case. While it's perhaps still too early to talk about the current RC, we've seen many cases in Edinburgh alone where arrogant councillors treat the cabbies coming before them abominably. Remember that no councillors are elected with a majority mandate from their electorate.

And for examples of the worst excesses committed by our local council you only have to look at the deplorable conduct of councillors on committees chaired by real scum like Attridge who was everything a Labour politician shouldn't be, Wrigglesworth who proved just how devious and morally bankrupt ministers of the cloth are, and the ultimate scumbag in chief, Colin Keir, a man who fails even the most elementary qualification to be called a human being.

So, longshanks why don't you ask yourself the question of what kind of society do you want to live in? And why don't you look at the real picture now, before, like others, you ever have to appear before the committee to justify yourself for something you did in your private life and which has nothing to do with your ability to do the job?

One where we're all equal, and treated equally and fairly, or one where the bozos who climb to the top of the electoral heap gets to stiff the minions paraded before them?

Personally I have no faith in any politician. The fact they want to be one should bar them from ever becoming one. And councils should not be training grounds to send these miscreants to Parliament, Westminster or wherever. Politics should be service rather than a breeding ground for the power hungry with little life experience. Which is why any elected official should not be allowed to serve more than two electoral terms.

_________________
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?"

I'm happy to live in a society that if I commit a crime in my private life and am punishned in the appropriate court, that the CONSEQUENCE of that could be me having to face punishment from my employers or other appropriate authority

If a salesman that spends a lot of time travelling for work, has an accident through dangerous driving in his private time, that cost someones life, should he not be investigated by his employers if he is suitable for his job

OR

The unfortunate cabby who ran over someone last year in an argument and was sent to jail. When he is released, should his license not be scrutinised by the appropriate authorities because he has already been punished?

For once lonmgshanks you do make a good point about the miscreant who ran someone over. And I would agree with you that he is not fit and proper to drive a taxi. But tweo things here.

First, what he did was dangerous and life threatening. The cabby in our case was involved in a minor spat who was provoked, and who retaliated by telling the guy where he came from and offered his opinion that he was a [edited by admin]. Which, as far as I can see, he was. because he played the race card, which I abhor and which only ever gives one an unhealthy antithesis to ethnic minorities. "Rivers of blood" Longshanks. Do you get it?

Second, the rules are not applied equally. It doesn't apply to cops who commit all sorts of crimes in both their personal and professional lives and are never deemed to be noit fit and proper to serve as a police officer. This can n ot be right. Clear out that nest of vipers and you may just be getting somewhere with your argument.

Nor do the same rules apply to the politicians on the committees who are stiffing drivers. They get up to all sorts of nonsense and are NEVER held to account. This is not a just and equal society.

It beggar's belief that anyone could possibly believe it right and proper for anyone to suffer the severe sanction of losing their livelihood because of the minor misdemeanour of a spat between two antagonists.

Finally I condemn you for putting up with this injustice. Because your compliance is what brings inequality and injustice down on the heads of the rest of us.

_________________
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?"

Longshanks, have you always sought approval from anyone who might pat you on the head, telling you what a good little cabby you are?

Now are you going to answer my questions, and perhaps give a comment on the criminal cops still in their jobs?

If I call you a black or a Scottish cu*t, and you happen to be black or Scottish, while acting like a cu*t, is my comment a statement of fact or a racial slur?

Should someone who is less than Caucasian be granted diplomatic immunity by pulling the race card?

Do you think the same weight of the law would be applied if the complainer of racism was white or Scottish?


Can you see the police tracking down some black guy because you claimed racial abuse? And what if this guy made a counter allegation, that it was you, making the racist comments, who do you think the council or courts would believe?



http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... rs-1166039

"Scotland’s eight police forces admitted having 333 officers who are guilty of serious offences – and the true figure could be higher because not all data was revealed."

i refuse to believe there wasn't any corroborating evidence here. who in their right mind would cut a deal when its a he said/she said situation. the corroborating evidence is the central issue to this whole subject and without any of us knowing that then its a pointless thread imho.