Are saying that someone who rents a Taxi/PH does not care?
Anyone who pays the best part of £300 to rent from an operator cares, believe me I did it for 55% of the time I have been a badge holder!,and RENTERS are too busy making that money each week to sit at a computer Cut and pasting old court cases and sucking up to the dynamic berwick duo!!!!
The ones that don’t care are weekend warriors, and the ones who only go running to Private Hire offices when Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are on there way!!!!…..for the higher rates!

AND all this referring to Court cases means diddly squat to Blueline, they will still be operating the same way as now, with all their Bandits and two faced Newcastle licensed drivers in 10 years time!

Let me ask you to wait until the Paperwork from District Judge Stephen Earl is produced by his Court Room Minutes, before I comment further as I do not want to be in contempt of Court.

I think however David may well have understood my point, there are two pieces of Law applicable depending on the situation & status of the very same Hackney Carriage Vehicle.

I will explain all later NT HACK Driver, as I have said when Court Minutes are produced.

Thanks

Mr Walls

The problem with you is you clearly do not know that what me & David have just established with his Admission that in relation to Seat-Belts the Law is Different when within Your Local Council Area, to when you are Outside your Local Council Area!!!!!

Now READ YOUR BLOODY BYE-LAWS NT HACK DRIVER or are you a RENTER, not a PROPRIETOR? Probably meaning you do not give a dam about the Legalities of the Law in certain Activities!!!!!!

Hope we are still all friends on here of Course? as some people think we are falling out, because we comment to each other in Debate.

Thanks

Mr Walls

The answer is simple, but establishes nothing in relation to the issues in the case!

A hackney carriage driver is exempt from wearing their seatbelt when plying for hire or carrying passengers. As a hackney carriage can only ply for hire in the district or zone in which it is licensed, the driver of an out-of-district hackney carriage would only be entitled not to wear a seatbelt when carrying passengers.

However, that is no different to a North Tyneside hackney carriage driver whilst driving in Newcastle, without a passenger, having dropped off in the city centre. So whatever you do, don’t forget to wear your seatbelt when not carrying passengers in Newcastle, Northumberland or elsewhere!

In view of the fact the issue in the case was one of ultra vires, can you entertain us all by explaining what on earth the relevance is of seatbelts?

If you consider the case of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Fidler and, having noted the inherent rights of hackney carriages, then consider the House of Lord judgments of Rossi v Edinburgh Corporation [1904] and Stewart v Perth and Kinross [2004] that concern the imposition of conditions of licences in excess of statutory power, you should realise why your question about seatbelts is wholly irrelevant!

So, without disrespecting District Judge Earl or even expressing a legitimate view on his judgments, tell us what you think the Rossi and Stewart cases.

David

PS: Its good to know we’re all friends again!

If a Hackney Carriage Driver is driving a Berwick upon Tweed or any Out of Town Hackney Carriage Vehicle for that matter in North Tyneside without a Passenger on board, meaning not hired at all!!!

Does the Driver have to wear a Seat-Belt in Law?

Its a simple question that can only be answered;

YES!!! or NO!!!!

This Question was never asked Mr Shanks, Mr Wilson & Private Hire Driver, but it would have played a great deal in making the point that was trying to be established by the Council!!!!!

Now I am very happy to be friendly with you all.

Thanks

Mr Walls

What on earth or you on about ? you have no legal training and admit to not having been in court before yet assume you have a total grip of what went on to the extent the council and its leading QC missed the point you had and think they should have used.

For christ sake dont make yourself look stupid and let those that do this stuff daily do it ? stop pretending you know all about this when you dont.

cheers ian (not sure if i am on your mates list or not until i see your reply)

You seem to be confused – the magistrates’ courts deal predominantly in criminal cases in which someone is in the dock, whereas the High Court deals primarily in civil disputes in which no-one is in the dock!

As the dock is where the accused stands to stand trial in a criminal case, I do take exception to anyone, but especially a friend, suggesting I should be in the dock!

District Judge Earl, as an experienced lawyer and judge knows perfectly well that there are usually two sides to an argument and many more when the argument concerns taxi law, so stop sitting on the fence and state your views, because if you don’t everyone else will only think that you have been proven wrong!

Make your choice – was District Judge Earl right or wrong?

I say he was right!

David

I find this last post by you quite strange, on the basis that I merely suggest there are question that should be asked of you in a Dock & quite how that makes us Sworn Enemies is beyond me?

Now clearly you seem to be making assumptions about how I would get you in the Dock, now clearly a Magistrates Court with a District Judge, as we both know that is not a High Court with a Dock, but a more civilized Court for hearing appeals of the nature of this case so far.

I could take your response on here to have a more worrying meaning for me, as a threat that a “Man in a White Coat” is in fact a Violent Person you have in your corner to shut me up & Maybe Northumbria Police should investigate your “Man in a White Coat” point here, as his first post I did wonder about the sinister undertones at the time & you just seem to make me wonder a little more about the first post by this person?

Now David I have nothing to fear here, but maybe you do? if you have to put posts like this onto this website. Now David I do not need to involve anyone else, therefore why do you? but of course David as we are friends, why would I need to think such things of you David?

I am more than happy when the time is right to debate David, that is Debate with you, but I am not going to Disrespect District Judge Stephen Earl in anyway, nor am I going to comment on here before the Court Room Minutes are released by Judge Earl.

As you have said David, I was not at the Newcastle Hearing, therefore did not hear the evidence debate at that case, but I was at 1 February 2012 Case where very little was debated, as most issues were in transcript form as you well know, therefore the break of around 2 hours before approximately 12.45 hrs resumption for the decision, then quite a strange debate about costs lasting quite some time.

Now David I certainly do not expect the Judge to visit this site to read such posts where we debate our views in open transcript.

I am still happy to be friendly on here & would hope you to are happy to be friendly too, at a time when I choose to discuss the points I wish to comment on & I certainly do not wish to disrespect Mr John McGuinness the Barrister and QC, although his discussion with District Judge Stephen Earl, about Hackney Carriage Vehicles was listened to intently by both myself and the Chairperson of the North Tyneside Hackney Carriage Association, but I will not comment on our “Private Thoughts” on here, as the Association decided when asked by the Newspaper Reporter for a comment, we declined the kind offer until our process has been been conducted.

No Comment though for now, I think is only the right decision for the moment David.

Hope we are still friends & perhaps you are just wanting to try to create the debate with your post here today about being sworn enemies, now David I have never said we are that, it is just you being silly.

Thanks

Transport Manager

You really need to decide once and for all whether we are friends or, as now appears from your latest remarks, sworn enemies!

If you’re not relying solely upon what is printed in the press, you’re relying upon mistaken assumptions based upon something you had no involvement in or knowledge about!

If you had any knowledge of court procedure you would know that the declaration that is signed by a witness is not that they wrote the statement themselves, but that the content is true.

The witness statement to which you refer was indeed referred to by the District Judge as being well written and had clearly and firmly made the points the witness wished to make! In the circumstances, I will gladly step forward and acknowledge that I drafted the statement that my client wished to make; and which my client signed to declare as being true.

If you had been involved in the case, you would have seen the witness statement, but as no-one consulted you, you did not and have not seen it. However, with my client’s kind permission, I can disclose the fact that my involvement was mentioned six times in a statement that was only a little over four pages in length. The last reference to me stated: “With regards to the legal issues, the appellant and I rely solely upon the advice received from David Wilson.”

Whilst I did see you at court, we seem not to have seen and heard the same things! Maybe that is because a lot of what was said referred to the previous case at Newcastle, which you didn’t attend. District Judge Earl did not need to hear evidence from the witnesses, because he had their witness statements and the content was not challenged by the parties. If District Judge Earl had wanted answers to questions, he would have asked more questions than he did. If he had wanted to ask questions of any of the witnesses, he could have required them to give oral evidence so that he could do so. District Judge Earl was undoubtedly in charge of his court and not only managed the proceedings most proficiently, but with a robust sense of humour.

However, I do recall that you seemed to be expecting a different outcome, despite the fact that these two cases were being heard by the same District Judge, hearing the same legal arguments presented by the same barristers as those in the Newcastle case only three weeks ago. Did you really think District Judge Earl might pronounce a different judgment on the basis that he’d read something in the meantime – possibly something by you on this website – and come to realise he’d got it wrong the first time?

Doesn’t the fact that Newcastle City Council are not appealing against District Judge Earl’s ruling that Blue Line Taxis (Newcastle) Ltd can use out-of-district hackney carriages not tell you something?

Unless North Tyneside Council appeal, your hope of the point being considered by the High Court is unlikely to happen, because the appeal by Blue Line Taxis (Newcastle) Ltd relates only to the telephone number conditions imposed by Newcastle City Council.

So tell us Transport Manager, do you agree with District Judge Earl’s judgments in relation to the use of out-of-district hackney carriages by private hire operators, because if you do, you agree with me! If you disagree, maybe Newcastle City Council and North Tyneside Council should have consulted you with your qualification in Road Passenger Transport, rather than John McGuinness who has, after all, only been called as a barrister since 1980, a QC since 2001 and is a Recorder of the Crown Court (a part-time judge) with an impressive track record in licensing cases!

Whilst you may claim to be responding professionally, I must say that if professionalism is judged by knowledge and conduct, I cannot agree that you qualify on either count, because on your own admission, yesterday was the first time you had attended a court hearing and you openly make allegations against me – someone you claimed to be a friend only last week – of some undisclosed criminal wrongdoing! You know what happens when you overstep the mark, Admin removes your posts or “Man in a White coat” has to become involved!

If you want to debate, lets debate.

David

I do love your let the debate start statement, but as I do not wish to be found guilty of disrespecting the District Judge Stephen Earl & his written submission about the Case in question.

Therefore to avoid such a charge I for one will wait for the Written Reasons for his decision on 1 February 2012, because I noticed something today in the proceedings that I was unaware of, because I have never visited a Court Room where a District Judge is sitting on a Live Case before & was simply fascinated by the whole event, but not scared by the proceeding, just the experience was very educating to the questions that can be asked, depending on what is allowed to be discussed in relation to the Case before the Judge?

I am sure David you & I are going to have a full & frank discussion about the end outcome of events, but I am sure you on this occasion will understand why I am not about to comment at this present moment in time.

Do not worry David, this discussion may well take place in a High Court at a later date, where the very Questions I wanted to be asked about your involvement in particular? something that was referred to today when District Judge Stephen Earl referenced in a statement he believed was not written by the person who signed it….ha ha ha, because you Sir will hopefully be in the Dock answering those very questions at a later date in the future, if I ever get my way David!

It is always best to be in the Court Room to watch at events like yesterday, because sometimes not everything that happens in the Court Room is written up in the Transcript (The tone of the Judge`s Voice for example?), but when you witness first hand the way the District Judge says something it tells a thousand stories about someones frustration at what evidence has not been presented before him, but because it is not in the evidence before him he cannot comment on the said evidence, as it is not in the Court Papers he has before him to make his Judgement! (This can be very frustrating for anyone, who has to make a Judgement, because as we both know David only the evidence before him can be considered, along with the permitted scope of the Case in Question Submissions of the Charge being Made)

Till the Official unedited Minutes of the Case are produced by the Court, meaning NO CUT & PASTE of an Official Document is produced, I will remain Silent about my Views, therefore not at risk to prejudge the soon to be released in detail reasons for District Judge Stephen Earls Decision yesterday 1 February 2012.

Hope you agree with my Professional Approach here David.

As you were there, you won’t have to wait for the written judgment to be handed down this time!

Let the discussions begin!

David