jimbo wrote:
It seems to me to be an iniquity for a council to issue additional licenses on the condition that the new plateholder puts on a WAV when established plateholders remain in a saloon. if all was fair, all license renewals from that date forward should be WAV only. "If that is the law, then the law is a ass sir a ass" Any licensing district should be for Hackney Carriage to be either WAV or Saloon. A condition of license should be a condition for all not for some. Correct me if I'm wrong (yeah, I know some of you wuckfits will correct me if I'm right!!!
The quote is Charles Dickens. £10 to RND 05 if you can tell me who said it
I entirely agree Jimbo, we should have a level playing field, that's why I don't like license quotas
I don't think competition law is relevant, but the Human Rights Act might be, I keep thinking back to the Royal Parks case, which related to peaceful enjoyment of property and non-discrimination. That case was lost on that basis because the judge deemed it reasonable to discriminate between PH and HC, but I wonder if it would be the same for HCs per se?
It would be interesting to read the details of the Manchester case that Yorkie refers to, might it not be about specifing a WAV per se rather than one rule for one and one for others?
Has anyone seen Yorkie by the way, if he doesn't appear soon we might have to report him as a MISPA, or whatever it is they call it on the Bill.
Login
Register
FAQ
