Taxi Driver Online

Fair enough, I misquoted you, you never called the guy a wan##r you called him "A fuc###g arse" but you chose to roll doon yer windae' and say what you said !. You have admitted that and all I am saying is that the Council would have repremanded you for this!. Just like they would have reprimanded any other driver. It's no a conspiracy against you. As I said, stop taking things personally.

Any chance of this f*****g Priks reg no, its got to be a private,worth looking oot for this C**T

Are you for real?

The guy at the wheel of the Range Rover was driving without due care and attention, his first offence, while on his mobile phone, his second offence. He hit his breaks deliberately putting myself and the taxi I was driving at risk, by driving dangerously, his third offence. He then abuses me by giving me the [edited by admin] sign, a breach of the peace, his forth offence. I was the victim in all of this, and you think I should be reprimanded for calling him a fuc*ing arse?

Under the circumstances, my response was measured and appropriate. I don't have to accept abuse of any kind just because I drive a taxi, and I have the right to defend myself.

Councillors are not here to reprimanded anyone. You are not at school. They are supposed to represent the public and taxi drivers are included.

Are you a complete simpleton?

Did you read any of this:



Or can your little brain not cope with so many words.

TAZ1669

Citevictor, what are you on aboot?. What are you going to do?. Key the guys car ?. Yae' dinnae' like the fact that he reported Skull? Neither dae' I but what Skull done wis' wrong and he and everyone else knows it!. Ken' what, make up a silly,unfunny video, that you think, (but naebody' else does) video and continue to remaim anonymous.

You are a fuc*ing idiot

Gary, yer prob right !.

Let's say your neighbour filed a complaint against you. Accused you of say, smashing his greenhouse window during an argument

Police come along, can't sort it out and the 2 of you get called to see a sheriff at court. He tells his side of the story, when it's your turn you stand and say, "im innocent by presumption, prove my guilt" and then refuse to answer any questions. The sheriff is gonna find you guilty. You may be presumed innocent but it's a 2 way street. You need to prove your not guilty also. It's why lawyers DEFEND cases in court and PROVE INNOCENCE.

End of the day, even if the guy was an arse, he goaded you and you bit.

Do you actually believe what you have written or is this a wind-up?

The police and the fiscal cannot bring a case to court without two types of corroboration. This means conformation that some fact or statement is true. They need credible evidence. Your scenario wouldn't even make it into court.

And no, I would not have to prove my innocence as I already have the presumption of innocence. No two way street I'm afraid.

Even if by some miraculous feat it made it into court without evidence it would be binned in a heartbeat.

As I said Gary I, in the pas,t I, may have reacted the way you did, but in retrospect I would have relised that it was WRONG ! We've prob got more things in common than you would think. For example Noam Chomski?, Zimmerman? (Fantastic), But you chose the wrong option, get over it and have a happy life.

Point to what you don't understand or tell me where I have it wrong.










You can't read anything and understand it if you are still a victim of group think.

You need to free your mind for your ar*e to follow, but you are still very much a Niddrie Boy with a wee taxi.

O.J. went to court, (Criminal Court) found him "Not Guilty !". Went to" Civil Court" GUILTY !. That was because the verdict was based on "Probability". Your case was never "Going to court", You were simply asked "What happened?" You refused to answer, refused to appear in front of the Council, admit that you abused the guy, and then expect everyone to feel sorry for you?. As i said, get over it and have a good life,

So by your thinking, if I accuse you of abusing me, and you deny it. Your denial is enough to establish your innocence based on balance of probabilities?

How would your denial of my accusation proves anything? Even on the balance of probabilities you need to lead with credible evidence, or it's just my word against yours, but now you are presumed guilty and the burden of proof is yours to prove your innocence.

Explain to me how your simple denial is proof of innocence?

The simple fact is, without credible evidence, we are back to spin the bottle or Ouija boards. No one knows who is telling the truth. This is why we have a presumption of innocence and the right of silence. Speaking to an accusation you can't prove is false can turn you into a witness against yourself. You no longer have the presumption of innocence but what you do say can be used against you to establish your guilt, even if you are innocent.

The truth is Fairplay. You are not too bright. You are a bias wee Niddrie boy trying to protect his council from bad boys who speak out and tell the truth.

What is more, this guy committed a number of criminal offences against my person, and you are not even interested. You are more concerned that I called him and ar*e.