| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Plate premiums likely are protected by the Human Rights Act http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16643 |
Page 9 of 9 |
| Author: | MarkRGuildford [ Fri May 06, 2011 7:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Chilon of Sparta wrote: ..who is willing to take on an absolutely huge gamble by placing tens of thousands of £££'s on black, rather than red...)
What I'm suggesting is getting a top QC in Human Rights to give a current opinion. That's why I was interested in Perth. Any largish city would have enough plate owners to split the cost of an opinion, say 2 or 3 thousand ponds between 500 owners? What usually happens is that if you go to a Council with a favourable opinion, they fold before it goes to Court. Even the cost of a full hearing, say £50,000 is only £100 per owner. Chickenfeed when the value of the plates may have been £50,000. Someone should do it. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Fri May 06, 2011 8:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Chilon of Sparta wrote: However, returning to taxi rulings, TDO, Sussex et al are totally accurate in that, in the absence of a very rich, brave or mad man (or woman!), who is willing to take on an absolutely huge gamble by placing tens of thousands of £££'s on black, rather than red...we have only current court/judges decisions such as the Royden case to go on...which did produce what seemed to be a fairly conclusive result.
I disagree......if a proprietor was picked on the Wirral, who was an owner pre- 1985 I think the result would have been far more enlightening. CC |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Fri May 06, 2011 9:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: I disagree......if a proprietor was picked on the Wirral, who was an owner pre- 1985 I think the result would have been far more enlightening.
I disagree. If a pre-1985 owner was before the court the judge would have gone into greater detail and come out with a similar view. The fact that he was saved from doing so was a direct consequence of T&G idiots leading the way, but IMO the outcome would have remained the same. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Fri May 06, 2011 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: captain cab wrote: I disagree......if a proprietor was picked on the Wirral, who was an owner pre- 1985 I think the result would have been far more enlightening. I disagree. If a pre-1985 owner was before the court the judge would have gone into greater detail and come out with a similar view. The fact that he was saved from doing so was a direct consequence of T&G idiots leading the way, but IMO the outcome would have remained the same. We can disagree from time to time 
CC |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Fri May 06, 2011 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: We can disagree from time to time
Only time from time? 
|
|
| Page 9 of 9 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|