So, the infantile Scottie calls me a "liar". I ask him to meet me and tell me this straight to my face. Like the coward we all know he is, he refuses.
Then, following another diatribe from the equally infantile, also anonymous Ross, I receive the following warning.
What was that about being nuts?
Trouble is Knight that I can see where things are heading, although I recognise you don't have to be a soothsayer of the brain of Britain to be able to do so.
One only requires one additional brain cell, which in your case would involve an increase of 100 percent.
Not even remotely funny. Mr. Taylor, it is a sign of your ignorance.
Knowing a few big words does not impress anyone, knowing how to use normal words does.
Again I need to remind you "Issues. only issues."
You guys are losing it. You must be so scared about the future you're behaving like children, desperately trying to control the playground.
Scottie, it has already been said before, you're just not good enough.
Rather than playing your games why don't you just ban me outright?
As I've said before you're not really important. Censorship like this never really works. The arguments will still be made. Just you won't be party to them.
In fact, Fasties may already have served any useful purpose it may have had.
As for the future, the difference between us is that I know where the debate is going in the months leading up to the court cases in March, if the council truly has the balls to face the defeat which is going to be inflicted, and to the electionsin may and beyond. You simply don't.
Censoring me is not going to improve your ignorance.
If Ross was injured by my reference to his having only a single brain cell, then I make no apology for this. He has demonstrated an uncanny ability to display his ignorance in full over many postings.
Alan Gladstone. Scottie. Ross. Knight. The distinction between all of these is distinctly blurred.
Who knows whether they truly are separate individuals.
The Taxi Information Group, another red herring, another desperate attempt to protect the indefensible.
You guys just aren't listening.
You've lost it.
You deserve what you get.
Just so you know what is going down, try my letter to Donald. You may just learn something:
Dear Councillor Anderson
Further to your correspondence of 4 September I thank you for the interesting enclosure which, now that I have returned from vacation, I will give the fullest consideration. However I'm bound to say that it is generally what is not contained in such documents that tends to make truly interesting reading. And, I also wonder how much it cost to produce this document and who paid for it?
You stated in your letter " the volume of abuse and false allegations that you have directed at the council" and would seek to use this to justify your "unparliamentary" tone, which I find astonishing for one seeking election.
In view of this, I would be grateful if you would specifically detail this "abuse" to me, along with the false allegations you claim I have made. It occurs to me that if my robust campaigning style had indeed breached any semblance of truth and justice then you, as council leader, and your colleagues in the council's legal department, would have taken appropriate sanctions to hold me to account which, of course, you didn't do.
Rather it seems to me the case that you have simply chosen to descend to the use of words like "hatred" because I am holding you to account for council failures under YOUR leadership.
I look forward to your earliest reply concerning this.
The Jubillee Road figures are proving useful and I thank you for supplying them to me.
In respect of taxi trade matters, it is disappointing, given my cursory appraisal of the document you forwarded to me, that the council under your leadership stoically refused to extend the same free market principles, used to proclaim Edinburgh's leadership in commercial enterprise, to our taxi trade.
It also behoves me to say that you, as a member of the political party "invested" with establishing and ensuring workers' rights, fail to recognise the injustice of high taxi rentals and restricted working practices being inflicted on taxi drivers by owners protecting their council supported vested interest in taxi-plate ownership - plates which are now trading at a prohibitively high level of £58,000, although not permitted in Law.
You also appear to be misinformed when you say there is a body of taxi drivers who want "the number of taxi plates increased". While this may be the case in some quarters this is most definitely NOT my position.
I require that there be NO restriction in the number of taxi licence plates issued. I intend to ensure that we in Edinburgh adopt the London model in this respect, where no such restriction exists and the market decides the level, supported by key and strong council developed quality controls.
I would propose that these go further than is currently the case to include real first aid (supported by compulsory taxi driver insurance liability); real driving skills assessment; full understanding of key legislation to include Licensing conditions, Laws of contract, Road traffic legislation, Laws of assault &etc.
So, you can clearly see that our campaign is not simply one of adding more plates for the benefit of a few to make a quick buck through plate "values".
Perhaps the biggest benefit of us achieving our aims will be the increased service we can offer to our customers. It is certain that the new order will necessitate more taxis being "required" to operate on peak weekend nights in order to meet earnings' targets. Also will come better service to customers, a consequent policing benefit of potentially lowered street incidents, improving citizen's safety.
Incidentally, it is worth re-iterating that my aims and objectives here are not inconsistent with the London model, as well as over 70% of other local authorities throughout the UK, and are supported by key government agencies like the OFT and the terms of European and UK competition legislation. It is not me who is swimming against the tide of change.
Perhaps the acrimony over the taxi trade in relation to your involvement with it is that you singularly failed to take any leadership in the debate. It is manifestly clear to observers that you allowed yourself to be "guided", I would say dictated to, by the unelected officials on the council. The disturbing fact is that this has brought chaos to the system.
Those officials stoically played politics with the trade by insisting on the wholly unrepresentative, unaccountable and secretive consultation group, presumably with the aim of maintaining their "control" over the trade. Given the well-documented failure of the TLG, it is disappointing that you, as leader, failed to learn from this and pressed ahead with a similarly poor successor. It could have been so much better had you not slavishly followed the line from your officials who were doing little more than pandering to the vested interests as they have always done.
And, this has now led to a situation where unelected officials, with elected officials' compliance, have steered the council up the blind alley of legal failure.
Despite being told clearly by Sheriffs Liddle and Horsburgh, the council's legal team threw more licence payers cash defending the indefensible and taking the matter to appeal, when Sheriff Principal Bowen confirmed the previous decisions. However, the legal team persisted and now reckon to be taking the matter to judicial review. Not only was this is folly, but it was the worst kind of bullying for the council to use unlimited reserves of our cash in its attempt to force us into submission. This is not the way a council should behave.
In any case, our Corporate Services Director will not allow this to happen because it removes all leeway the council currently has in terms of how it interprets the atrocious 1982 Act. And, almost certain defeat here opens up the council to considerable litigation to recoup the losses incurred by those applicants whom the council refused to treat properly under the governing legislation.
But the essence here Cllr Anderson, is how much of this did YOU know as council leader? And, if you knew nothing, why not? Were you in control of your council or not? If you were aware, how could you allow your legal department to lead you up the blind alley, knowing full well that the smell of the garbage in that alley will be smelled by the electorate precisely when you intend to be asking it to vote for you to represent them in Holyrood?
Finally, I would be grateful if you would advise me of the following:
1 When did the current continuous Labour administration in Edinburgh's council begin?
2. When were you first elected as a councillor?
3. When did you become council leader?
Thank you for your consideration of, and response to, these matters.
Yours
Jim Taylor
Read it and weep.
:butthead: to you Scottie.
PS this post will be preserved for posterity on taxi driver online to prove to the infantile Scottie that his censorship is futile.
Login
Register
FAQ
