Taxi Driver Online

The answer here is quite simple.

All anyone has to do is look at my posts, then look at Torn Casualty's.

That'll be a no brainer then, eh?

Erudite, reasoned and logical argument, coupled with accurate reporting and considered statement of the position versus TC's smiley strewn illiterate personal rants, notably devoid of any argument whatsoever, with no evident understanding of the issues and reeking of personal vested interests with no thought for other drivers nor the public we serve.

As, I suggested, that'll be the no brainer, eh?

Given the quality of your recent posts - consisting mainly of potentially libellous remarks, insulting of an innocent disabled woman, and the usual plethora of lies, I'll leave it to others to do the quality control - though the lack of back up from your usual mob speaks volumes.

As for not understanding the issues - your application was rightly refused, you went to court and the sheriff gave you a second chance to be refused, yet you claim victory - I understand that much

_________________
Keyboards and Cretins : Facts - not opinions - are the only truths

Damascus Moments - easy excuses for a sociopath

TDO the website of double standards and changing identities

You're not the brightest candle are you?

Potentially libellous remarks? What does this mean? They either are or aren't. If they are, then sue me. If they aren't then you've just shown yourself to be a pratt again. You aren't a masochist by deviation are you?

My application was rightly refused? What part of this don't you understand.

The Sheriff granted my appeal and sent it back to the council to get it right second time around. I hpe they do the right thing this time and refuse again.

Let me explain it again for the hard of thinking like you TC.

The council will consider the licences again, based on precisely the same information as the previous committee did.

If the refuse to grant again, this time we go back to court, only they can't cede the ground on the contrary to natural justice ground. (Imagine you being happy to know that your council operates contrary to natural justice).

We will be debating the appeal on the merits of the surveys the council concocyed to deny licences. Councillors will be in the witness box. The council will get stiffed. I will stiff them. Tell us all TC. You think this will ever be allowed to happen?

So the council chooses to grant? based on the same info as before? How do they explain that?

Personally, I want the the council to deny the licences again. You get that? I want the council to deny the licences again.

But we all know they won't. because these apps, along with those in the pipeline will all be considered following the agenda item which releases a number of plates onto the market. I get mine. The others get theirs too. Partial delimitation or full delimitation?

No 50 grand or getting 50 grand.

Wanna bet?

So TC. You've gotta pay attention son. It's happening and you're not up to speed.

I can see your thinking Jasbar, and I hope your enthusiasm is not unfounded but I wouldn't take anything for granted where councils and courts are concerned. You may think that you have covered all the bases but there is always the problem faced when someone is pushed into a corner. They come out fighting even stronger. Just keep your eye on the ball and don't be sidetracked by certain people.

_________________
Grandad,

Potentially libellous remarks? What does this mean? They either are or aren't. If they are, then sue me.

Who said the remarks that I was referring to were about me. You go about spreading so much lies and innuendo you just don't know who you've potentially libelled anymore

As for the Sheriff - I understood that the Sheriff accepted the councils concession on the late delivery of the report was against natural justice, but didn't accept any of the other points that you were making, so threw the rest back at you.

The law is clear - no significant unmet demand, the council have the report to support it, and you lose your application fee. All your other BS is is just that, BS smoke and mirrors, rumours presented by you as facts, and your opinions presented as facts.

I have no admiration for politicians, but - Councillors in the witness box - aye that'll be the day

Your claim that you don't want the plate, you just want the fight, just shows the kind of sad inadequate little man you are

_________________
Keyboards and Cretins : Facts - not opinions - are the only truths

Damascus Moments - easy excuses for a sociopath

TDO the website of double standards and changing identities

Oh dear, woe is me. I find that I am now hoping for the same thing as TC. The same outcome.

The application goes back to the council. The council deny the applications again because they have the report to confirm that there is no significant unmet demand. Oh I hope so. I fervently hope so.

That's why they will be invited to make the same decision, based on the same material. That's precisely our strategy. And they know it.

I suggest they're so confident of this, that is the reaon why our cases will not be put on any council agenda until their big report is discussed by the RC and the licences will be granted along with all the others.

Now if I'm wrong then plan A comes into play. back to the appeal court. This time the Sheriff will have no choice but to hear the FULL case. The council have already admitted enough to warrant their losing. The conduct of the surveys will come in to play. Jim Inch's role will be examined. Councillors WILL be testifying under oath. And we'll be [edited by admin] ourselves.

But then, YOU know everything TC, don't you.

Nevertheless, we now both seem to want the same thing. We both want the council to deny our licences at the second bite of the cherry.
Some would say that's real progress.

Lets try to take the personal stuff out of this and look at where the case currently is.
As I see it either:

1 Council grant the applications.
They cannot legally grant in isolation so must grant all active applications.
IPL has no legal standing.
Those on IPL will miss out unless they also have a current application.

or

2 Council reject applications
Back to sheriff court.
Full case examined by the Sheriff.
Witnesses called to give evidence.
Sheriff makes determination.
Losing side considers appeal to court of session.

All the personal stuff doesn't matter. The court will deal only with the relevant facts before it. Have I missed anything?

_________________

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

Perhaps Gusmac. Once full appeal has been heard, the genie is out of the bottle. Sufficiently so to warrant a public inquiry into the role of corporate services, particularly its director.

Because there needs to be a complete understanding of how consultations and surveys have been skewed to allow the council to overlay the questions over the answers.

I'll warrant this appeal will never reach the courts. The return to the council was only ever about buying time.

The trade knows that their goose is cooked. That's why despite claiming that I've been beaten by the council, they had to exact some sanction on Gordon MacDonald. Had the council really won, there would have been no need.

I agree. I think the first option far more likely. None of them are going to vote for a route into the witness box.

What has happened to Gordon MacDonald is beneath contempt. He has done no more than exersise his rights.

_________________

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

concede!! isn,t that what the council did over the contrary to natural justice thing! Oh no i must be wrong cause the council won and paid the court costs. DOH !!!!

I think they must grant in isolation, else they will be 'fettering their discretion'.

_________________
IDFIMH

To a degree yes, but the council must know that the likes of Mr Jasbar and Mr Skull aren't going away.

And do the LOs and the like want this for the next 5/10/20 years?

_________________
IDFIMH

The only grounds for refusal are "no significant unmet demand". If the council cannot show there is "no significant unmet demand", then we have demand. Demand is not quantified. Each active application must be considered on it's merits not how long its applicant has been waiting. Therefor they must grant all active applications, unless the applicant has been deemed unfit to hold a licence. They can't legally issue a few licences and deny the others. I'm sure that principle has already been settled.

_________________

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

My point was they can't issue without considering each applicants merits i.e. might be a crook.

Of course the SUD issue is the only reason they can reject an applicant from a 'fit and proper' person, but not everyone is 'fit and proper'.

_________________
IDFIMH

Who knows? Either way if they say there is "no significant unmet demand", they will refuse the remitted applications and it's back to the sheriff. If they grant these applications then we have demand. Demand remains until they have another survey that shows "no significant unmet demand". They must grant all applications in the meantime.

_________________

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