Taxi Driver Online

Nice one Frank.

It would appear that our cab inspector, probably in a childsh fit of pique, and with "conspirators" in the council has decided to pursue the Skull on the basis of an alleged incident supposedly involving a "member of the public".

We have no doubt that Frank thinks he's won a chocolate watch. But let's remind ourselves of some of the circumstances here.

Skull received a fone call from Frank. Skull refused to respond to frivolous, unsubstantiated, uncoroborated allegations.

From memory the fone call to the Skull happened only 4 hours after the allegd incident.

This tells us that whoever made the complaint had to be known to Frank. He has to be someone who thinks that he has some status and that status is above that of a taxi driver. And this individual will be appearing before the committee to show everyone how such a bigshot he is.

In return Frank Smith threatened the Skull with referral to the committee. We now have a cop who has carried out that threat.

This is how our cops now behave. A complete abrogation of Human rights which shows the contempt that Lothian and Borders police have for taxi drivers in particular, and the public in general.

The council has selected the 16th March at 1.30 pm for the kangaroo court to sit.

It never ceases to amaze me how your pathetic little mind works.

Let's look at the situation the way that normal sane people would.

Cab Inspector receives a phone call from member of public. How do YOU reach the conclusion that he must be known to Cab Inspector? He could have spoken to another cabby and been advised to contact the Cab Office.

Rather than go down the official route, Cab Inspector asks skull to come in and see him. Seems fair to me, keep it informal and if there's nothing in the allegation it gets quietly dropped. But no, Big man Skull has to take the wrong approach yet again and assumes that he is being picked on (poor sod) so goes off on one, leaving the Cab Inspector no choice but go down the official route.

Now tell us all jasbar

1. Why must the complainant be known to Cab Inspector? Not a word points to that.

2. Why must the complainant think he has some status above that of a taxi driver? He just made a complaint. (A secret one apparently, since neither of you have said what happened.)He is probably a "Joe Soap" [edited by admin] off at something the big bairn did.

3. Where is the "complete abrogation of Human rights" (sic)? Reading your posts and skull's it looks more like paranoia.

Pity the pair of you don't just enter into a civil partnership and feck off into the sunset and let real cabbies get on with a job that is clearly too much for you pair to handle.

How can the committee act on an anonymous complaint?

While I agree the phone call could have been anonymous and the cab Inspector could have phoned Skull on the strength of it, an anonymous complaint is no complaint.
That would be Skull's word against.........nobody's.
It would need to be made by someone prepared to put their name to it surely?
Probably in writing as well to go forward to the committee.

Which sort of begs the question, why say the complaint was anonymous if it wasn't?

_________________

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

I didn't read it as an anonymous complaint, I read it that it was implied the complaint came from somebody who knows the cab inspector personally

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Is it a public meeting and how many spare seats are there left?

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

yes you may be right wise one.

The complaint was apparently by fone call to peter Lang. He emailed Frankie babes at 12.29. John Blain then contacted the owner, who advised that the Skull was the driver and the fone call was then made.

The Skull advised that he does not respond to frivolous unsubstantiated uncorroborated and malicious complaints. The fone was handed to frankie boy who asked the Skull to come in and see him. The Skull reiterated his position and Frankie spat the dummy out and threatened Skull that he would clipe to the council.

On this basis the complaint alleges that the Skull breached his licensing conditions by obstructing the cab inspector in the performance of his duties - regulation 142. of course Frank could have said that the complaint was substantiated and corroborated but because it doesn't have to be to fit with council procedures he didn't. Frank is in trouble with this. And of course it's borne out that the complaint isn't substantiated etc.

The complaint alleges under regulation 118 that the Skull behaved in an uncivil manner. yet there is no proof of this. Just tittle tattle from a guy who has apparently discovered a grudge.

And because the council claims not to need proof that the incident even took place, far less as this individual claims, anyone with a dislike for any cabbie can complain to the council and if they don't like the cabbie they can use the "powers" they think they have to take away his livelihood.

Touch the forelocks boys, Adolf Hitler is running licensing it seems.

Our hapless cab inspector has also claimed a breach of regulation 143, the driver of a taxi shall comply with all instructions or directions of the authorised officer in relation to these conditions and shall give all information reasonably required in the discharge of the duties of the authorised officer.

Except, although the council appears to want to ignore the fact, all reasonable information was indeed conveyed to Frank. The incident didn't happen. What is there to talk about. The fullest position was declared so no obstruction took place, all available information WAS given.

Except of course, in the normal course of event our supposed public servant cop is accustomed to sitting the alleged miscreant down in front of him, with Blain in attendance to help stitch him up, and browbeat the guy into giving up information that Frank, with no corroboration, can use to deliver him trussed up like a turkey to the council.

Aye right.

What Frank and the council has failed to understand is that the powers they've assumed under the CGSA are all subordinate to the Human Rights Act 1998.

And what they've delivered to us is the clearest confirmation that they routinely breach Human Rights.

So, it's game on. We couldn't have been afforded a better battleground, on which the council is so weak and with the written confirmation they've provide to prove our case to the court that our council breaches rights as a matter of course.

Now, many will be intimidated by the charges against the Skull. Should they ever find themselves in the same position they'll feel compelled to prostrate themselves before this process. This is what the council is seeking to restore in their stoic defence of the hapless turkey.

We still advise not to speak to this man. If you feel a need to comply by attending the grilling room in Murrayburn, it's name rank and serial number only. Do not talk to any specific aspect of any claims made against you.

So, this complainant may not be personally known to Frankie. But he knows enough about the council to be part of the process. he also addressed Lang as Peter, which suggests that he is in the coven somewhere, a guy with a massive ego who is attempting to use his status to stiff a cabbie.

His ID will out. Bet on it. he may even actually turn up to press home his complaint, if such a meeting takes place.

As for abrogation of Human Rights. try this.

Please note that any proceedings that take place before the Licensing Sub-committee are distinct from any criminal proceedings that could arise in relation to the alleged incident. The Committee is entitled to have regard to any incidents brought to its attention regardless of whether a criminal prosecution is in progress or contemplated. Notable differences between criminal procedures and the procedure before the committee are a) corroboration is required in criminal procedure whereas only one witness's statement is required for committee and b) the standard of proof required in criminal cases is "beyond all reasonable doubt" which is higher than that required at Committee which is "on the balance of probabilities".

So, in essence, anyone can make complaint and if they choose to, which they will with their political enemies and critics, they can take away your licence based on tittle tattle.

That's some free and democratic systems eh? I wonder if those applying these "rules" have all read Mein Kampf? I wonder if the bus drivers, housewives and erstwhile political gurus on the Committee would even understand it? Or, are they even bovvered as sit through the process like inanimate Trolls doing the bidding of Keir and crew.

I would be interested to know where any of this appears in the CGSA. It's purely down to this council's fascist interpretation of the Law and the fact it hasn't been challenged, until now.

Now, watch this space.

BTW If the council, in an unusual rush of rational thought, pulls this case, then that will prove that what we say is true.

It will render Frankies position as untenable, he'll have to go.

And the incompetent and grossly negligent legal department will be up for a root and branch review, which is what Sue Bruce should be doing anyway.

We just can't understand why anyone with her reputation has allowed this to happen.

You do know about this Sue? Of course you do.

The council usually hides behind anonymity so we can't see the repobates stiffing cabbies.

We will require this case to be heard in public so they conduct their actions in the full glare of the public knowledge.

Does anyone know of a Gary Reid, who drives a Range Rover? We are doing some back ground checks on him and his possible connection to Frank Smith or the Council?

I should know more by tomorrow but if anyone has information that may be of use feel free to give me a PM.


It's no accident. This guy knew exactly what he was doing.

Jasbar wrote:

You surely know full well that ALL civil cases are settled on the balance of probabilities and only criminal cases require the higher level of proof. It is not unique to council committees.

Equally, whilst corroboration is not required by either side, it is not guaranteed that the balance of probabilities backs the complainant.

Skull's and your behaviours up till now actually work against you by showing you to have scant regard for the common courtesies and the rights of others. So, in the eyes of others, it becomes more probable that you are wrong and the complainant right.

Skull has obstructed the Cab Inspector who has a duty to investigate and in all probability would have said what has been said a thousand times before about cabbies being in a vulnerable position etc. and there the matter would have ended.

However, that said, the simple route, should suspension of licence be on the menu is a short reminder to the "executioners" that you cannot be found unfit for a few days. Being unfit to hold a licence is an all or nothing; you are fit or you are not. They can suspend a licence conditionally; eg until you attend a module or pass a test of some sort but NOT just for a set period of time.

Other than that, what punishment can they actually hand out?

Talk about making mountains out of molehills......................

The complainant is a bare faced liar, and I don't give a shi* what you think.

I wouldn't give you tuppence for this job. I hate myself for doing it. Don't think the council or the Cab Inspector hold any fear for me. They don't, but I will fight to make a point.

You Swannee, should want me to win but since you are such a weak pathetic piece of shi*t you need to believe that everyone is just like you.

Sorry Swannee, no can do, the price you pay is just too high, and the laugh is, you have no idea what I am talking about.

Civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities. But the rules of evidence still prevail. Check "The rules of Evidence" by J D MacPhail.

Probability is a matter for decision, not the credibility of evidence. This case has no credible evidence.

We're not even at the matter of lower proof for civil cases. This council has ridden roughshod over legal process by accepting unfounded allegations to arrive at decisions. Even schoolboys wouldn't behave like this. But this council are not schoolboys. They're fascists.

The Skull and my behaviour is irrelevant, other than the council has to negotiate our rights to hold different political position. Another slippery stone for it to negotiate.

The Skull did not obstruct the cab inspector. He advised him that he was not going to respond to unsubstantiated frivolous and uncorroborated claims. A point that our hapless cop appears not to have reported.

Now the cab inspector could have claimed that such corroboration did indeed exist, necessitating a police investigation. Frank Smith is an incompetent Police officer. He didn't. He did what usually ends all officers's careers, he had a rush of blood to what passes as his head and he made a poor judgement call. His emotional response proves the need for his career to be ended. Frank Smith is not a fit and proper person to be a police officer. And the complaint in respect of this is being drafted as we speak.

This council inends to suspend licence until renewal. They have form doing this, Rab Smith the case in point.

Yet there is NOTHING in the CGSA which permits suspension as a punishment. There is nothing to suggest Parliament intended such a course of action. The Council has simply assumed this power.

You should fear this process Swannee. Oh, I know you may think you'll never fall foul of it so it doesn't concern you.

But this council can't be trusted. The legal department has been led by a man who leaves common decency behind on the pillow when he raises his head each morning. But like other establishment enforcers, he will be given his pension and big speeches, lots of clapping and back slapping.

The establishment is under pressure here. It just has to protect Frank in order to maintain any semblance of control.

But Frank was too thick to realise what he does. His career is over. He is unsaveable. No officer who threatens as a sign of his impotence has ever advanced his career. And Frank's indiscretions must have his L&B colleagues laughing their corks off.

The council has backed itself into a corner. Because it is stupid.

Sue Bruce should be putting a stop to this. She isn't. That would suggest that 5 minutes into the job she is also failing.

There is a cancer in this council.

Now Swannee. Sit back and enjoy the gig. Cos we're gagging for it.

You have to be one of the dummies up at the council to come away with this [edited by admin]*.

Following your train of thought to its logical conclusion would mean that allegation alone is enough to establish someone's guilt.

So, if I happen to be passing you on the rank and claimed to have seen you looking at kiddie porn tucked inside a magazine. This allegation on its own should be enough to take away your licence. Based on of course, the “balance of probabilities”.

Without some sort of credible evidence, there are no balance of probabilities and no protection for the accused. All the weight lies with your accuser and the council. The scales of justice are tipped heavily in their favour.

When John Blane phoned me, he said there was an alleged driving incident. I replied by saying, that I do not speak to frivolous, malicious unfounded, and unsubstantiated allegations. To speak to any such allegation is to put yourself at the mercy of the council.

When driving a taxi on your own, your right of silence is the only protection you have when faced with a malicious allegation. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental and inalienable right. The council is proposing to breech my human rights, and trust me, the information they have sent me so far proves exactly that point. Their licensing conditions and their trumpet up kangaroo court affords me no protections whatsoever. This is all about coercion and nothing to do with truth or justice or coming to the appropriate decision. If I accept any of this driving a taxi makes us all second class citizens, we have no rights.

I don't know who was the architect of their licensing conditions or committee procedures, but they appear to have been written by a mad man.

yu twa ar a couple of kippers and yis are giting ah yis deserve

So why would you do it?

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!