Taxi Driver Online

There SHOULD be a line that should not be crossed when it comes to the actions of taxi drivers, both verbal and physical, and if it is crossed then action NEEDS to be taken.

The public have a right to expect taxi drivers behave in a certain manner.

I quite agree but that action needs to be fair and transparent.
As I said already, it's not about the man - it's about a system which allows his rights to be sidelined.

Whatever Skull may or may not have done in the past was dealt with back then.
If councillors considered he was fit and proper at that time, after hearing the case against him , its no reason to hang him out now on the uncorroborated word of a single individual or a cop with an axe to grind.

BTW, considering everything Skull has said about the RC, how on earth could they possibly be impartial?
You may as well let CC hear the case instead

Are you really this thick? FFS

No, I don't think he's Joan of Arc, nor do I think CEC are the master race.
But just where did the master race get started CC?
Half a dozen lunatics in a Munich bar, plotting and scheming against those they didn't like, to further their own ambition.

Death camps, genocide and wars of extermination were the end result of doing nothing. The thick end of the wedge.
What was the thin end CC? Where did it all start?
A few untruths about why a war was lost?
A few boot-boys painting slogans and smashing windows?
People turning a blind eye because they thought the target deserved it?

Cu*t or not, if we allow this to happen without protest, we deserve no better when it's our turn.
Or perhaps you think rights should only be afforded to the "right" people?
Who decides who is worthy? You?

If you allow peoples' rights to be trampled, because you don't like them or don't think it can happen to you or yours, you are a fool.

It's not about the person - it's the system.
If he's a cu*t, the system should be able to deal with him in a fair and just manner, respecting his rights in the process.
The same way as it deals with everyone and in the way we would expect to be dealt with ourselves.

Anything else is unacceptable in a supposedly democratic society.

He has been given the benefit of the doubt in the past, no doubt the council now think that was a mistake.

A committee would be right to take past incidents into account , just as a criminal court would take into account previous convictions prior to sentencing.

There is nothing here that is different from any other job, When I drove buses you could be hauled in to answer a complaint from someone. If your explaination was not up to it then the complainants word would be taken and you would be warned or indeed sacked.

Taking the uncorroberated word of one person would be another mistake. Two wrongs don't make a right.


A criminal court wouldn't be told of a previous conviction until after a verdict had been arrived at by an impartial jury. Only then, if the verdict is guilty, would past history be considered.
It's called a fair trial.



If an employer acted this way, they would be answerable to an employment tribunal.
The council do not employ taxi drivers, do they?

Evidence in Scots Law

In Scots law the burden of proof and standard of proof in civil and criminal cases are different. The Burden of proof is the person who must lead evidence and must prove the point they make. In criminal cases lies with the prosecutor, and in civil cases, lies with the pursuer. The standard of proof is the extent to which you must prove your case. The two types of standard of proof are;

Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Balance of Probabilities.

In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, and in civil cases is balance of probabilites.

http://en.jurispedia.org/index.php/Lega ... _(Scotland)

Are drivers in Scotland subject to the Criminal burden of proof or Civil burden?

CC

just as a criminal court would take into account previous convictions prior to sentencing.

No mention of whether the accused is a cu*t then?
How dissapointing for you.

That fact was established long ago.

So tell me, if I'm wrong here, I think drivers are judged upon the civil burden of proof, which as the article above describes as the Balance of Probabilities.

CC