Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - A belated reply to JD

I've posted this yesterday, but its probably been lost as I'm only just getting use to the site. But the reason I came on the site was that you was slagging off mark Royden from Wirral. When Wirral delimited about 60 drivers decided to oppose the decision. We formed a co-op called COAD (cab drivers against delimitation) however the legal advice we was given was that an individual had to be named as the litigant. however that made the individual responsible for all costs. Mark was the only one who would put his name forward. the T&G had nothing to do with the action, but with the unions activists used to organising, they took over the running of the action. Hope that clears that up. PS liverpool re-regulated in 1983 not 93 it might seem a petty point but the difference was that the delimitation and the reversal was pre-Transport Act

The open and closed quotation syntax is, open = quote placed between the open and close brackets, like this [put the word "quote" in here ]. You place this open quote at the beginning of the text you want to highlight and in order to finish the job you put the closed quote at the end of the text you are highlighting. The closed quote is exactly the same as the open quote except that you place a forward slash / after the open bracket such as this [/ then the you type the word "quote" and you finish it off with the closed bracket ]

Sorry John, that was my fault - I pasted the post from another forum but didn't put it in quote box because it wasn't a quote from another post as such but a post transferred to one thread from another if you see what I mean :oops:

Whole threads can be shifted around, but not single posts as far as I know, but maybe Alex can do it

I actually think in one way Mr Royden did non plate-holders a big fat favour. :shock:

Before his case, it could be argued by the scare-mongers that plate premiums were possessions under the HRA. I suspect many councils would have used it as an excuse not to de-limit.

Thankfully that avenue of defence is no more.

Author:	TDO [ Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:58 am ]
Post subject:	A belated reply to JD
Deecee posted the following in an unrelated thread, but I've pasted it into a new one because I doubt if anyone is actually following the other thread now, thus it may get lost again. In fact I think JD has already replied to this elsewhere, but I'll leave it up to him if he wants paste his reply here again. Deecee wrote: I've posted this yesterday, but its probably been lost as I'm only just getting use to the site. But the reason I came on the site was that you was slagging off mark Royden from Wirral. When Wirral delimited about 60 drivers decided to oppose the decision. We formed a co-op called COAD (cab drivers against delimitation) however the legal advice we was given was that an individual had to be named as the litigant. however that made the individual responsible for all costs. Mark was the only one who would put his name forward. the T&G had nothing to do with the action, but with the unions activists used to organising, they took over the running of the action. Hope that clears that up. PS liverpool re-regulated in 1983 not 93 it might seem a petty point but the difference was that the delimitation and the reversal was pre-Transport Act

Author:	TDO [ Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:02 am ]
Post subject:
By the way deecee, if you can't remember where you posted something, once you've logged in, go to the bottom of the forum page and you'll see your name as being a registered user online. Click on that and that will take you to your profile. Then click on the option to 'show all posts by deecee' and then you can click on the relevant post and that will take you back to where you put it. Basically, any blue coloured writing can be clicked on and it will take you somewhere!

Author:	JD [ Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: A belated reply to JD
Deecee wrote: I've posted this yesterday, but its probably been lost as I'm only just getting use to the site. But the reason I came on the site was that you was slagging off mark Royden from Wirral. When Wirral delimited about 60 drivers decided to oppose the decision. We formed a co-op called COAD (cab drivers against delimitation) however the legal advice we was given was that an individual had to be named as the litigant. however that made the individual responsible for all costs. Mark was the only one who would put his name forward. the T&G had nothing to do with the action, but with the unions activists used to organising, they took over the running of the action. Hope that clears that up. PS liverpool re-regulated in 1983 not 93 it might seem a petty point but the difference was that the delimitation and the reversal was pre-Transport Act First of all I would like to say welcome to this forum Mr Deecee. It may take some time for you to get used to the mechanics of how the site works especially if you are new to this type of interaction. If you need any assistance you only need to ask, there is always some one willing to offer sound advice. In order to frame another persons text in a Quotation box such as the one below you need to use the open and closed quotation syntax. Quote: The open and closed quotation syntax is, open = quote placed between the open and close brackets, like this [put the word "quote" in here ]. You place this open quote at the beginning of the text you want to highlight and in order to finish the job you put the closed quote at the end of the text you are highlighting. The closed quote is exactly the same as the open quote except that you place a forward slash / after the open bracket such as this [/ then the you type the word "quote" and you finish it off with the closed bracket ] Hope that helps. Now can you please tell us what the reference to Liverpool capping numbers in 1983 and not 1993 is apertaining to? Best wishes JD

Author:	TDO [ Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:28 am ]
Post subject:
Sorry John, that was my fault - I pasted the post from another forum but didn't put it in quote box because it wasn't a quote from another post as such but a post transferred to one thread from another if you see what I mean Whole threads can be shifted around, but not single posts as far as I know, but maybe Alex can do it

Author:	Nidge2 [ Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:00 am ]
Post subject:
Deecee wrote: I've posted this yesterday, but its probably been lost as I'm only just getting use to the site. But the reason I came on the site was that you was slagging off mark Royden from Wirral. When Wirral delimited about 60 drivers decided to oppose the decision. We formed a co-op called COAD (cab drivers against delimitation) however the legal advice we was given was that an individual had to be named as the litigant. however that made the individual responsible for all costs. Mark was the only one who would put his name forward. the T&G had nothing to do with the action, but with the unions activists used to organising, they took over the running of the action. Hope that clears that up. PS liverpool re-regulated in 1983 not 93 it might seem a petty point but the difference was that the delimitation and the reversal was pre-Transport Act Well said, I think this driver could be a valuble asset to the Anti Dreg protests. Welcome to the board Deecee

Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

A belated reply to JD http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361	Page 1 of 1

Author:	JD [ Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:49 am ]
Post subject:
TDO wrote: Sorry John, that was my fault - I pasted the post from another forum but didn't put it in quote box because it wasn't a quote from another post as such but a post transferred to one thread from another if you see what I mean Whole threads can be shifted around, but not single posts as far as I know, but maybe Alex can do it Yes I realise you were being helpful, I was also trying to offer some assistance to MR. Deecee seeing as how he is new to the way the board operates. I look forward to debating Mr Royden with him and the human rights legal approach which was advocated by their legal team. It was novel way of attacking the decision of the council but it was also ill thought out. Best wishes JD

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:
I actually think in one way Mr Royden did non plate-holders a big fat favour. Before his case, it could be argued by the scare-mongers that plate premiums were possessions under the HRA. I suspect many councils would have used it as an excuse not to de-limit. Thankfully that avenue of defence is no more.

Author:	JD [ Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: I actually think in one way Mr Royden did non plate-holders a big fat favour. Before his case, it could be argued by the scare-mongers that plate premiums were possessions under the HRA. I suspect many councils would have used it as an excuse not to de-limit. Thankfully that avenue of defence is no more. I don't know about that one, before you go into court case you ask yourself am I actually holding a possession and is any part of that possession being taken away from me. The case with Mr Royden is that even if he had a possession that possession was not being taken away. Regardless if he had bought that possession on the grey market or got it free. Just because a council decides to alter its policy and lift numbers or indeed increase numbers is not fettering the ability of MR Royden or anyone else to carry on their business. Now that is a fairly simple conclusion to reach. It makes you wonder why the boys from the Wirral didn't realise that. Best wishes JD

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/