On 05/07/2014 11:49, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 04/07/2014 20:44, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 04/07/2014 12:30, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
On 03/07/2014 19:18, tim..... wrote:

The PCO (now operating under TaL) has strong form for this sort of
thing. Anything for a quiet life and to hell with the livelihood of
the taxi industry.

It originally decided to do nothing about Welbeck Minicabs and their
Renault Dauphines. History records that something happened
nevertheless.

Hum,
1962!!!!!



It used to be routine for police to beat up suspects in that era

are you going to use that "fact" to prove that they still do so today?

tim

What are you talking about?

I looked up the date of the incident that *you* used to prove that the
licensing authority don't take action against miscreants


Let me remind you that taxis in England and Wales outside London are
licensed under an Act passed in 1847.

Are you under the impression that people today are "cleverer" than
they were then?

We aren't discussing "users" we are discussing the authorities and it
was you that suggested a 50 year old case was relevant

A 53-year-old (and still current) interpretation of a law from the
middle of the 1800s.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing - as an issue of law.

But it's worthless as an issue of current procedure.

You were using the fact that the licensing authority didn't act in this
instance until (presumably) someone else took the issue to court to show
that today's licensing authority would be equally delinquent. And, of
course, it shows no such thing.

Do you always post stuff and then immediately forget that which you post

In that case let me apologise for being led astray, firstly by your
comment: "Hum, 1962!!!!!"

I took that as a claim that no legal ruling from as "long ago" as 1962
could possibly be relevant to our current all-singing, all-dancing,
everyone-allowed-to-do-as-they-effin-well-like modern society.

It's hard to see what else "1962!" was supposed to say.

Secondly, you claimed:

"It used to be routine for police to beat up suspects in that era".

I took that as firther amplification of your apparent view that nothing
dating from before [a very recent date, whatever it is] still has any
validity.

Perhaps we can step back a few paces?

(a) Of what relevance was your "Hum, 1962!!!!!"?

(b) What did you mean by "It used to be routine for police to beat up
suspects in that era" and what on Earth does it have to do with the
matter at hand (enforcement of the law on unlicensed plying for hire)?