Taxi Driver Online

Well well.

We've long said that vested interests were being protected with CEC's restriction policy.

We've asserted that council and trade interests were being protected while drivers rights were being denied, their human rights being breached because of the discrimination against them.

We've long said that the bus lobby were being protected by placing bus drivers as convener of the RC. The current manifestation is the odious scumbag Keir, who'd rather women were harmed than risk the cash from Souter.

But this is only the half of it, isn't it?

You see, Brian Souter of Stagecoach gave £500,000 to the Scottish NastyParty for the last election. And the begging bowl will be out for the Holyrood elections next year. And half a mill is around a whopping one third of the cash that the Nasty Party needs to con its way back into government.

Clearly drivers are never gonna get a fair shake from the Nasty Party. They can't afford to be democratic or accountable. Souter wouldn't like it.

No Souter, No half mill, no re-election for the Nasties.

So it's easier to deliver discrimination than jeopardise the cash.

This is our modern democracy in action. Control the public. Soak up the gravy train. At all costs.

And, when asked about Human Rights. Why, just ignore the questions.

MacAskill only works to his own and the Scottish Nasty Party's agenda.

So, what was given in return for letting the miraculous recoverer known as Megrahi go free?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

I think you should ask the Glasgow taxi trade if Kenny Macaskill is not do anything to help them.

Sorry mate, I don't understand this. What are you saying?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

Kenny Mcaskill has been working with strathclyde police to try and sort out the ph situation and they are now seeing a big difference in how the police are dealing with the problem.Also we have a good relationship with SNP in Dundee progress is slow but that is because council paid employees are making it difficult for the SNP admin to make any significant changes to the taxi trade.

What is happening in Glasgow is about waging war on crime gangs. There is no altruistic motive to particularly assist the taxi trade. And certainly none to bring equality of opportunity for drivers.

What is happeing in Glasgow does not contravene the Party's policy to help Soutar and protect vested council, bus and taxi trade interests.

As for Dundee. I would need some detail to comment.

But I'd guess that the record will show that my assertion of favouring Soutar and similar interests will stand.

A choice between Dundee taxis and Bus interests will only favour one group.

Or, are you saying I'm wrong stationtone?

BTW The way the politicicos work is to bring you into the process, kick your interests around for a long while and then spit you out with as little cost to the process as possible.

You can play the political game, but you'll never win it playing by its rules.

I'm not saying you shouldn't. Just be mindful that you control neither the process nor the timescale.

Remember politicians are sworn to protect the system. We are all irrelevant. The system must prevail.

Or, do you doubt this?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

Oh jimmy,

Everything is always a conspiracy with you.

You don't seem to understand buses at all,

With the exception perhaps of a few small rural companies, bus compamies do not see taxis as competition.
In fact it is to the advantage of a bus company (& council) to have a decent taxi system in their area.
Without taxis there would be no public transport available at certain times or in certain areas, where it would not be possible for a bus service to be run at a profit.
In that situation the council would be pushing a bus company for a service that loses money, and the council could well end up paying for such a service.

With a decent taxi service they can say public transport is available, even at a time or in a place that does not suit the bus operator.
It works even better with a WAV fleet like Edinburgh.

I am sorry jasbar once again we will have to disagree.

So, Tone, what is the SNP in Dundee trying to do that the council officials are being awkward about?

It's the councillors who decide things, not the officials, are am I being a bit naive

_________________
Caledonian Cabbie

Yes and my reason for thinking that are below a reply from a councilor

The Standing Orders of the Council states that whether it is a Standing Committee or a Quasi-Judicial Committee, the business of that committee is governed by Standing Order 49.
In that section it requires the appropriate Principal Officers of the council to deliver to the Chief Executive, not later than five working days before the issue of the agenda, a detailed statement of business to be brought before each committee or sub committee. I can also advise you that any notice to call a meeting of any committee or sub committee is issued in the name of the Chief Executive, David Dorward.

In addition, the officers serving the Licensing Committee's, have to work to legally stated time scales that govern when applications of all sorts have to be considered. I can also advise you that in my capacity as convener I am in regular contact with my officers, usually on a daily basis listening to the business of the department.

The agenda for any committee is prepared by officers in the name of Dundee City Council as the business of the council. There is therefore, no process for any member of the public to request an agenda item be placed on any committee of the council. However once the agenda for any committee is in the public domain, members of the public do have the right to make a request to be heard as a deputation and that often happens. Again within standing orders there are prescribed timescales and deadlines for such requests.

As you are aware the Licensing Committee does have a very pro active forum to discuss a range of issues viz the Taxi Liaison Forum. This is therefore the place that gives, you the trade, the opportunity to make a formal request to discuss items you want raised. The forum has no decision making powers but after constructive debate has often referred issues to the Licensing Committee for a policy decision to be examined. At a recent forum meeting we discussed an issue where it was accepted it should go forward to the Licensing Committee and in support of it the Committee did agree to ask the officers to carry out a very extensive review, reporting back in September 2010.

regards

Rod

Also a email from a council emplyee

Re your request please note that in terms of Section 3 of the Civic Government ( Scotland ) Act 1982, applications must be considered within 3 months and a final decision made within 6 months. Accordingly, if we hold any applications for Taxi Licences back, the maximum time we could do this for would be 6 months. Even if the Committee decide in September 2010 to instruct a survey, the process involved in putting a limit on numbers into practice would take several months thereafter. Although there is provision in the 1982 Act for the licensing authority to apply to the Sheriff for an extension of the 6 month period "if there is good reason to do so", this would mean that someone applying now would face their application being held back for in excess of 12 months and it is not likely that the courts would support such a practice. If this turned out to be the case then any such applicants would be entitled to a deemed grant of a licence with no conditions attached, including the accessible vehicle condition. Further, to hold back an application where there are no outstanding issues in order to await the outcome of a process whereby the policy may or may not be changed (and, even if it is, not for several months) could be regarded as maladministration and leave the Council open to claims for compensation by disgruntled applicants who may have incurred financial costs in purchasing a vehicle and being prevented from operating it and earning income therefrom.



You will see from the above that we cannot put your request before the Committee.



regards



Stuart

Now do you see the reason why i a blaming the support services for many of our problems.

So the SNP want the town to be capped but the officials say they can't do it because the rules don't allow it?

That's fair enough surely, after all even if councillors are the ones who decided things they have to do it within the rules?

_________________
Caledonian Cabbie

I think you will see that they can do it but they wont because of the fear of court action.
As the letter says they will not put it before the elected councilors to vote on, just like Cardiff did.

They have no power to do what you ask and they won't have a vote on whether to break the law to do it.
The CGSA doesn't apply in Cardiff.

The council are spot on with their answer. You just don't like it

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

They can but will not for fear of legal action

Re your request please note that in terms of Section 3 of the Civic Government ( Scotland ) Act 1982, applications must be considered within 3 months and a final decision made within 6 months. Accordingly, if we hold any applications for Taxi Licences back, the maximum time we could do this for would be 6 months. Even if the Committee decide in September 2010 to instruct a survey, the process involved in putting a limit on numbers into practice would take several months thereafter. Although there is provision in the 1982 Act for the licensing authority to apply to the Sheriff for an extension of the 6 month period "if there is good reason to do so", this would mean that someone applying now would face their application being held back for in excess of 12 months and it is not likely that the courts would support such a practice. If this turned out to be the case then any such applicants would be entitled to a deemed grant of a licence with no conditions attached, including the accessible vehicle condition. Further, to hold back an application where there are no outstanding issues in order to await the outcome of a process whereby the policy may or may not be changed (and, even if it is, not for several months) could be regarded as maladministration and leave the Council open to claims for compensation by disgruntled applicants who may have incurred financial costs in purchasing a vehicle and being prevented from operating it and earning income therefrom.


They are also wrong in what they said "such applicants would be entitled to a deemed grant of a licence with no conditions attached" even you must now that this is wrong

It's a whole pile of [edited by admin]*, Stationtone, surely you can see this?

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

I am not sure what you are saying
If you are saying that what they have said is wrong then i am cautiously agree with you