It's a shame when other forums close down, even if their admin don't much like the folks on TDO.
I wonder if it would have shut down had the court case gone the other way.
| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Fastblacks has been pulled - RIP Fastblacks http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5843 |
Page 1 of 5 |
| Author: | jasbar [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fastblacks has been pulled - RIP Fastblacks |
Alan Gladstone has pulled Fastblacks' forum. Athough it is claimed the forum is down until the 3rd April, it is clear Gladstone has pulled the site because he does not want drivers to become informed about the changing situation in Edinburgh as the council realises the only course of action open to it is full de-restriction. This follows the decision by the Court of session appeal judges in the Salteri et al case denying the council's appeal to extend the time limit for deciding these applications. It is clear that Gladstone no longer wants Fasties to be the centre for knowledge about the trade. He fears that the forum will be used to encourage drivers to rightfully inform themselves and make application for taxi licences at this key time. This is little more than the worst form of censorship, clearly designed to support an ailing council whose restriction policy is now vulnerable. We can see no future for Fastblack's. Alan Gladstone has shown himself unfit to administer it, betraying prejudice and stubborn refusal to openly debate the issues which are key to the future of our taxi trade. As such, even should the forum return, there is little point engaging debate on it. It should be noted that the only purpose served by Fastblacks for us was to try to inform local trade members. Which we have stoically tried to do despite the personal attacks by the "uncle Toms" of Edinburgh's trade intent on tugging forelocks to the council. However, TDO can serve the needs of informing better. I urge all posters from Edinburgh to pass on the message that all information to hand can be found here. All contributions gratefully welcome. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's a shame when other forums close down, even if their admin don't much like the folks on TDO.
I wonder if it would have shut down had the court case gone the other way.
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fastblacks has been pulled - RIP Fastblacks |
jasbar wrote: Alan Gladstone has pulled Fastblacks' forum.
I notice someone on Fastblacks posted a reference that the Edinburgh Taxi Trade "MIGHT" be getting 3 new licenses. I was always of the opinion that the Edinburgh case concerned 6 appeals? I think whoever posted that message failed to realise that Ali T's application was sisted on the outcome of this case and all he has to do is go back to court and remove the sist and claim back any expenses he's incurred or had awarded against him? The case of M&V taxis now goes by way of default because the judgement in the high court firmly nailed the coffin lid closed, on the rotting corpse of CEC. This rotting corpse which for so long clung to the last vestiges of life has finally breathed is last dying breath. Perhaps one of the bright sparks either north or south of the border who were pedantic in their view that these applications were doomed to failure could offer us an opinion as to why they failed? Especially as two QC's had an uncontested run at the judiciary? In my opinion, if Fastblacks has been pulled it may be to stop people reviewing past comments on this subject which make those who made them look rather foolish. We also know that the comments in question make those who made them look pretty foolish in the eyes of the Taxi Trade, this also includes several less knowledgeable people south of the Border who would be more suited to stick to what they do best. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | stu [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just shows how important it should be that the taxi trade has a proper consultative process in place that is capable of informing stakeholders of the true situation involving their business/employment/undertaking. Back to plan B, maybe even some of plan C  
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
stu wrote: Just shows how important it should be that the taxi trade has a proper consultative process in place that is capable of informing stakeholders of the true situation involving their business/employment/undertaking.
Who do you categorise as stakeholders? Lets not get away from the fact that this case was about councillors failing to administer their statutory duties. These actions were condoned by many in the Edinburgh Taxi trade and a great many outside the Edinburgh Taxi trade. Consultation with whoever you had in mind wouldn't have altered anything in this particular scenario but fortunately every councillor in Scotland now knows that none of them can userp their statutory duties in respect of license applications without "good reason" and that waiting for the results of a survey, is not one of those good reasons. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Maybe Stu is alluding to the p*** poor representation they have in his manor. 
And maybe if they knew what the law was then folks wouldn't be paying hundreds of pounds to go on a list that has no legal standing and can be bypassed by just about anyone. And folks not in the know wont be buying plates for £50,000+ from folks in the know. 
|
|
| Author: | stu [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JD wrote: stu wrote: Just shows how important it should be that the taxi trade has a proper consultative process in place that is capable of informing stakeholders of the true situation involving their business/employment/undertaking. Who do you categorise as stakeholders? Lets not get away from the fact that this case was about councillors failing to administer their statutory duties. These actions were condoned by many in the Edinburgh Taxi trade and a great many outside the Edinburgh Taxi trade. Consultation with whoever you had in mind wouldn't have altered anything in this particular scenario but fortunately every councillor in Scotland now knows that none of them can userp their statutory duties in respect of license applications without "good reason" and that waiting for the results of a survey, is not one of those good reasons. Regards JD Well thats nice and clear cut JD, but it isn't really as simple as that is it, obviously it is for those who have won their case on the grounds that they have, but for some of the rest it could prove to be a much more complicated affair,it is for me anyway. The definition of Stakeholder is just being used as a generic name for people who are involved in the taxi trade in Edinburgh, not the legal definition you are no doubt thinking about, although now that you bring it to mind. 
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
stu wrote: Well thats nice and clear cut JD, but it isn't really as simple as that is it, obviously it is for those who have won their case on the grounds that they have, but for some of the rest it could prove to be a much more complicated affair, it is for me anyway.
There is nothing complicated about it. The law is now established that doing nothing to process an application within six months is not a good reason for an extension of time. Waiting for the results of a survey is ruled not to be a good reason for an extension of time. The ruling is set and thats only one of many good things to come out of this case. In the present case the appellants had embarked upon a voluntary policy not so much based on supply and demand, although that obviously featured, but rather directed towards section 10(3) which enabled them to refuse an application if they were satisfied that there was no significant demand for additional taxis. Thus, the local authority had determined that their decision-making process should depend upon section 10(3), apparently in every case. This was an entirely voluntary imposition on their procedures which they were not required to carry out. In terms of the statute they could have refused every application when it was originally made or equally have allowed them to be granted by default at the end of the six month period. It is they who have voluntarily accepted the burden of satisfying the sheriff if they are putting forward as a good reason lack of demand that there was no significant demand at the relevant time, which means at the time when the application was being considered. Simply to fail to meet procedural elements in the process regulated by consultation and meetings of Committees did not remotely amount, in our opinion, to meeting the provisions of section 3(2) in the context of section 10(3). It may be that having embarked upon this policy the local authority must keep constantly under review the issue of supply and demand so as to be able to give a reason for refusal in that context on the basis that in each case that they are considering they are satisfied there is no significant demand for further licenses. [15] In our opinion this self-imposed burden, whatever may be the problems of procedure with regard to consultation with interest groups and by Committee, cannot amount to a "good reason" for not determining a licence application within six months, as required by section 3, being the linchpin of the whole procedure. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JD wrote: [15] In our opinion this self-imposed burden, whatever may be the problems of procedure with regard to consultation with interest groups and by Committee, cannot amount to a "good reason" for not determining a licence application within six months, as required by section 3, being the linchpin of the whole procedure. I think a great many people either side of the border will benefit from those words in the years to come.
|
|
| Author: | MR T [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: JD wrote: [15] In our opinion this self-imposed burden, whatever may be the problems of procedure with regard to consultation with interest groups and by Committee, cannot amount to a "good reason" for not determining a licence application within six months, as required by section 3, being the linchpin of the whole procedure. I think a great many people either side of the border will benefit from those words in the years to come. Sussex, I am sure your going to say I am wrong , but I don't think there is a six-month rule in England and Wales.. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
MR T wrote: Sussex, I am sure your going to say I am wrong , but I don't think there is a six-month rule in England and Wales..
You are spot on about the six months rule, but I was thinking along the lines of the issue of evidence at hand.
|
|
| Author: | Skull [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
And let the fun begin 
http://www.edinburghsucks.com/ |
|
| Author: | Skull [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: It's a shame when other forums close down, even if their admin don't much like the folks on TDO.
I wonder if it would have shut down had the court case gone the other way. This is Alan running away with his ball. I don't think anyone is surprised it's not the first time
BTW I've met Alan on a number of occasions. He just shouts things like "you are trying to f*ck the trade" runs away. This is unfortunately the standard of the average Edinburgh Cabby. It's not then surprising he's pulled the site.
|
|
| Author: | jasbar [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yup, he's bottled it.
|
|
| Author: | The Basa [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hate to stirr it!!! However, I notice from http://www.fastblacks.com/drivers.htm that the Forum is "Just updated - watch as new features are introduced" Maybe the removal is just a new feature! The Basa http://www.edinburghSucks.com |
|
| Page 1 of 5 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|