Taxi Driver Online

I suppose it will all depend on what the council says when they go WAV.

If they say that there is a demand, however small, that isn't being met, then they could be OK. But if they say that the gov has told us to do it, and then the gov doesn't, then they could have a case.

_________________
IDFIMH

Nothing this council ever does will surprise me Nigel.

They freely discriminate against wheel-chair users by making them wait 20 years for equality. They freely discriminate against the PH trade by not allowing them the freedom to be their own boss. They freely discriminate against taxi journeymen and women by restricting their freedom to work when they wish. They freely discriminate against non British drivers by saying they must pay up to £40/45,000 for something that a local got for f*** all.

I could go on, but I wonder if those that are meant to represent the people of Brighton and Hove really give a dam.

All the evidence shows they don't.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm sorry Sussex ............... but that has got to be the biggest load of crap I have ever heard .............. trying to provoke people into thinking this is a racial issue .............. shame on you.

The restriction on plates applies to everyone, everyone must either pay a premium ......... buy a WAV .......... or wait ............ regardless of their creed or colour.

Another scaremongering comment ............ maybe you should join the T&G as a press officer

There is the concept of indirect discrimination Chas. The judge in the Irish de-limitation judicial review outlined it in relation to Euro law, but I don't think it's been properly tested in court. But read the quote below.

I think the Commission for Racial Equality said as much in Bristol re taxi plates. Anyway, that's by the by, because it's clear that quotas are discriminatory, although not directly on a racial basis.

Discrimination on grounds of nationality is expressly proscribed by Article 12 of the EC Treaty (formerly, Article 6 EC).

It is trite law that this prohibition extends also to indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality.

Such a case of indirect discrimination would arise where, as in the case before me, a national rule which appears on its face not to discriminate on grounds of nationality in practice affects nationals of other European Union Member States to a greater degree than nationals of Ireland.

In this regard, it is not necessary for it to be established that the national measure in practice affects a higher proportion of foreigners, but merely that the measure is "intrinsically liable" to affect nationals of other Member States more than Irish nationals: see, in the context of Article 39 EC (formerly, Article 48 EC) Case C -237/94, O'Flynn v. Adjudication Officer [1996] ECR 1-26 17.

Article 12 EC is directly effective and can be relied upon before this Court without the necessity of relying on any other Treaty article: Case C-92192, Phil Collins v. Imtrat Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1993] ECR 1-5145, [1993] 3 CMLR 773.

I have come to the conclusion that the scheme purportedly put in place by SI 3/2000 may very well indirectly discriminate against Member States of the European Union other than Ireland in a manner which is prohibited by Article 12 of the EC Treaty.

I venture that all and, if not, the great majority of current taxi licence holders are Irish nationals.

By restricting the grant of new licences to this category of persons, the Minister is effectively precluding nationals of other EU Member States from becoming the owners of new taxi licences in Ireland.

That those nationals could purchase the licences at the market rate is no defence.

It is true that Irish persons who are not taxi licence holders are equally negatively affected, but the favouring of one group, all or most of the members of which are Irish nationals, remains.

Note in particular the second last paragraph above:

That those nationals could purchase the licences at the market rate is no defence.

CGull Brighton have 28 or thereabouts van derived or mpv bodied vehicles, can you tell me if these vehicles are WAV compliant? If the're not, then Brighton only have 11.89% WAV compliant vehicles.

Thank you.

Best wishes

JD

Discrimination occurs when rules/ laws/ conditions are imposed or changed because of a persons individual circumstance.

If a British Citizen cannot aquire a plate direct from the local authority then it is not discriminative for a non British Citizen to recieve the same treatment.
If a British Citizen has to pay a premium for a plate but a non British Citizen does not then discrimination would have occured.

Or are you saying that the indigenous population cannot be discriminated against.

To even suggest that a person would not recieve a licence on these grounds is tantamount to scaremongering .................... and is simply not true.

Sounds to me like some are struggling for argument

I think with all new wavs and the old wavs both TXs and E7s etc Brighton have about 80 wavs now.
So out of 484 (the 479) didnt incluide the last 5. they have about 80 taxi wavs.

You are confusing (not deliberately) direct discrimination with the indirect version. Both are equally illegal.

To answer your question, it more than likely wouldn't be direct discrimination, but without a doubt would be indirect discrimination.

Basically having taxi quotas is a barrier to trade entry that non-nationals could never meet, even if they wished to. By virtue of not being in the country.

One day, I well expect this to reach the highest courts in Europe. Lets' hope the likes of Brighton council kop the bill for it all.
It's the least they deserve.

_________________
IDFIMH

OK Thanx for that.

Best wishes

JD

Yep, only fair that the tax payers pay for it

regards

Captain cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

So did you actually read the quote from the case then Chas?

Or maybe the paperlad knows the law better than the judge!!

I think the point is perhaps that in UK law it's not illegal to discriminate per se, otherwise restricted numbers would have gone years ago.

However, in UK law, in certain circumstances, it clearly is illegal to discriminate, for example in an employment situation on grounds of sex or race.

But even here there can be indirect discrimination for example, if a group of workers tends to be all women (but there's nothing to say that men can't join that group, therefore no direct discrimination) then if that group is offered inferior terms then that could amount to indirect discrimination.

But coming back to taxi quotas, although it is clearly discriminatory, the grounds are arbitrary rather than race or whatever.

In the EU context, although if you said that a Frenchmen couldn't hold an Irish taxi plate, then that would clearly be discriminatory and contrary to EU law.

But what the judge appeared to be saying was that the system EFFECTIVELY discriminates against Frenchmen because most current taxi plate holders were then Irishmen.

Ya foooockin havin a laff though.

Your claiming the quota system is illegal because it stops people from other EU states from obtaining a licence even if they are not, or ever have been, in this country.

This judge was from Ireland (not part of the UK) and therefore very possibly ruling under different laws.

Like I said before it seems some people are struggling for argument.

I think it's you that's struggling for an argument Chas.

The judge was talking about EU law, which the UK is bound by as a signatory of the Treaty of Rome, and subsequent treaties such as Masstricht and Nice.

Thus Art 12 of the Treaty of Rome is as applicable in the UK as in Ireland (as an EU member) and ultimately takes precedence over domestic law.

But if you read the quote you'll notice that he didn't rule under the EU provisions, as you seem to be claiming, but only under domestic Irish law, because the EU aspect was not necessary to decide the case.

Yes, clearly Irish domestic law is different from UK domestic law, but EU law overrides both - don't you read the Sun - they keep on going on about it

You'll see also that he uses comments from cases from other countries to make his argument, because it's all decided using the same EU law, whichever country it happens to be in.