Thursday, November 18, 2010

Support The Sacked Taxi Drivers

Twenty Taxi Drivers have now been sacked by the (TOA) Taxi Owners Association in Alexandria & Dumbarton.
Support the sacked Drivers in their new Drivers Coop. Call 75 33 76 for a TAXI.

365 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 365 of 365
Jim Bollan said...

Peter,
For avoidance of doubt. TOA applied for a Taxi booking office licence when they started the company some years ago. This licence was to operate as an Association from their current premises. As of todays date 8/4/2011 they still operate under this licence. TOA have now applied for another licence for a Taxi booking office, at the same address, as a Limited company, this licence has yet to be determined by the Taxi licensing committee. Bearing in mind they have only ever been granted one licence all those years ago, when it was brought to my attention that TOA started to sack substantial numbers of drivers because the drivers were opposed to the privatisation of the Association, that is when I got involved.

peter said...

yes jim i know all that(it seems to me that you just keep on repeating yourself over and over)
but the terms of the existing license HAVE BEEN COMPLIED with.
they have done NOTHING wrong in taking back radios(i'm starting to sound like you now jim repeating myself, but you just don't seem to grasp the fact)
it's WDC you should have been arguing with not TOA as they set the terms of the license.
now should WDC change the terms of the license(which would start from the issuing of the new license), i dare say TOA would comply with that also

Austin said...

Dont you mean Allegedly sacked jim? who said they were sacked and never just left to go start up their new office? Have you spoken to TOA's committee and asked them? NO!!! as always you have believed what they have told you and takin it as gospel so as you have no proof of any sackings other than hearsay then shouldnt you be changing your statement to the "Allegedly 5 taxi drivers were sacked as you have no proof whatsoever that they were!!

Jim Bollan said...

Peter,
Time will tell. The second application for a Limited company will be treated on its merits and the circumstances at the time,just like the one for the Association was all those years ago.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
At a meeting with Brian Rainey and Iain Dennett it was confirmed to me the radios were taken of the drivers because of the alleged "trouble" the drivers were causing the TOA. Quite conclusive evidence to me.

Anonymous said...

Booking Office Licensing
Booking offices that accept bookings for four or more licensed taxis or private hire cars must by law be licensed by the local licensing authority.

For each booking the booking office is required as a condition of licence to:

maintain a record of the registration number of the vehicle hired
record the name of the driver
ensure the vehicle and its driver are licensed appropriately under sections 10 and 13 respectively of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

I'm not quite sure yet about this jim, but i think there may be a legality issue with using a telephone number to book hires without having the proper license, as according to your original post the radioless have been doing since the start of this blog

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
Not so. The licence is required if you are using a booking OFFICE not via a centralised remote number. Someone from TOA complained to WDC about this at the time the drivers were sacked. The centralised remote calling system does not need a licence.

Anonymous said...

well i think the public have the right to know that the radioless taxis are not being monitored(as in who picks them up, reg. no. insurance etc.), as this remote system is not an office as such, and you support this practice?

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
The drivers are the same people. Still licensed to drive a Taxi. Still displaying a plate. Still insured etc etc. The only difference is they were sacked and now have to try and earn a living until Coop Taxis are up and running.

Austin said...

And when did this conversation with brian take place Jim??

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
At one of my surgeries in St Mungo's Church Hall. See previous post dated 3/4/2011 at 9.36am.

Austin said...

Thought so Jim n that was not what i asked you and if you look back to my post then i was talkin about the last 5 drivers that you said (without any proof)were sacked!!!

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
My understanding is that as a result of the TOA board meeting on 4/4/2011 another 5 drivers were sacked? Are you saying this is not the case?

Austin said...

Your understanding Jim? So who told you this? one of the departed drivers no doupt n once again Jim wheres your proof they were relieved of their services and not just playing on your (and i use this term loosely) good nature?? have you spoken 2 any of the TOA committee lately 2 find out if theres any truth in their allegations youve made?? I very much doupt that!! also jim because as is quite clear to all on your blog your not really that interested in the truth only their version of the truth.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
So are you saying my understanding is wrong?

Austin said...

Im mearly interested in the source of your understanding jim??

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
Thought you might be. I think we can deduce from your silence that my understanding is pretty accurate.

Austin said...

Once again jim where's your proof?? Now i understand when they (other blogers)complain bout tryin 2 get a straight answer out of you!!

Anonymous said...

i refer to my earlier anonymous post about the booking regulations, and these are the points which bother me most,


maintain a record of the registration number of the vehicle hired
record the name of the driver
ensure the vehicle and its driver are licensed appropriately under sections 10 and 13 respectively of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

now for the record i'm not a taxi driver, or for that matter a customer of TOA(actually i use wrights)
but this remote system cannot possibly keep a record of which driver picks me up(for instance),
whereas wrights and toa have a system in use at the moment where drivers are tracked via GPS and their movements recorded for weeks on end!
which is why i worry about this remote system

Austin said...

Jim how many times do you want me 2 ask you for proof before you tell me 5,10,15??

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
The proof and truth is out there ...and the truth will always come out in the end.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
The Council's legal officer looked at the regulations and took the view the new system did not need a licence. This system is apparently widely used in England.

Austin said...

thats true Jim so once again wheres your proof?? And as you have none then id like to go back 2 my original post and ask that you change your statement 2 the "allegedly" 5 sacked drivers.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
There is some information I cannot share on a public forum, just like some of your blogger colleagues want to remain anonymous. I stand by 100% what I have said and given you have not provided evidence yet to prove my statement wrong, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this specific point.

Anonymous said...

well jim is that the same legal officer that you disagree with(as in toa's actions)
so the legal officer is ok as long as you agree with it then, but not if you don't?
think you are being a bit hypocritical there jim!
i like to feel safe and tracked in a taxi!
also may i add that i'm one of your constituents

brian rainey said...

jim at the meeting ian and i had with you aapprox 2 months ago we never said the drivers were sacked!!we said they were put out- they were removed from the system- their services were no longer required- whatever term you want to use except sacked as they were never employed,bit of deje vu here as i am sure this is where i came in but you still continue to mislead by saying they were "sacked".

Austin said...

Ok jim so thats a no then??

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
No it was a different Solicitor. The legal manager,Andrew Fraser, wrote the report regarding TOA. Nigel Ettles was the Solicitor who gave the advice regarding the remote telephone system.

Jim Bollan said...

Brian,
It is my view they were sacked from the workplace. I know you disagree and that is fine.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
My recent post is crystal clear on this specific subject.

Anonymous said...

like i said jim, i like to feel safe and tracked in a taxi, so are you telling everyone that this remote system does that?

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
All I could say in addition to my previous answer to this question is that if you know or hear of any problems with this system then please report them to the WDC licencing officer.

peter said...

well jim looking at the last few posts, it does seem that you don't really know anything about the radio system in use or going to be used when this new office opens, so therefore it is wrong of you to say it's state of the art.
i know of the PDA system it is and it is definately NOT state of the art, it has been used and dumped by a few offices including mine down here.
so therefore i think it is safe to say the general public will feel safer with the other offices in the area(although i agree some passengers don't care)
but as it's a new office and money is tight, it's the best they are going to get at the moment(£300 a head? will be a good while before they can get a state of the art system being honest)

Jim Bollan said...

Peter,
It is my understanding that the current remote system being used as an emergency by the sacked drivers is not the system that is being installed when the new booking office for Coop Taxis opens. Like any other small business it is for the drivers Coop to ensure they have sufficient resources capital/ revenue in place to run their business.

Rational Thought said...

"The Council's legal officer looked at the regulations and took the view the new system did not need a licence. This system is apparently widely used in England" - Jim Bollan

Why, when I ask for a finer example of a taxi office than TOA in Scotland, do you say you are only interested in your constituency and shrug off the point like an irrelevant piece of garbage, then use the same logic as evidence when it suits you?

Additionally, I notice you take the legal officers advice as gospel when it suits you as well.

I just get the impression that you see evidence, arguments and logic as a hinderence, as long as it's not in your favor.

That number you are happy to advertise could lead anyone to your door, taxi driver or axe wielder, untracked and unsafe. But of course it's OK because it's an "emergency". Honestly, the things you are turning a blind eye to regarding one party, while at the same time exploring every avenue to "weed out" TOA is very apparent and staggeringly hypocritical.

Jim Bollan said...

Rational thought,
I don't know if you work or have a lot of free time, but I do not have the time to go and research what is the best Taxi office in Scotland. You seem to think TOA is the best so you do the reaerch and provide it as evidence to back up your claim. I challenge any officer, not just legal officers, on any subject when I disagree with them.

Rational Thought said...

Why bother, Jim? Would it change your mind? The most stonewall argument does nothing to you. Initially I thought that you were misinformed and if I explained things you would come to a fair assessment. Your blog can't fit the argument on one page and you still hold the exact same position. I'm a nobody, Jim. I'm just someone who enjoys a debate. I don't have a say, you should know far more than I do on this matter.

What I would propose is that if you don't have time to do your homework, that you give fair consideration to people who have, such as the council's legal officer and the voices on your blog.

Your insistance that everyone is wrong but you is a fragile position to hold.

Jim Bollan said...

Rational thought,
We all have different opinions. None of us have a monopoly in being right. As a socialist I want to challenge the system when I think the rules are wrong, that is what I am trying to do with this case.

Anonymous said...

are you aware clr bollan that one of the founder members of coop taxis was charged this week with attacking a member of staff at stuart macs in townend?. hardly the kind of behavior one would expect from a director of a company

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
Wasn't aware of this. As I have already stated I am not the fountain of all knowledge. No doubt a court case may follow and due process will take place where the charges will be stated in writing, both sides of the case heard, followed by the right of appeal, if found guilty.

Rational Thought said...

That kind of skewed logic can be applied anywhere Jim. I trust because this driver pays for this garage's services on a weekly basis, that mean's he's employed? Ludicrous isn't it?

I do have a degree of sympathy towards your cause. It must be hard to defend some of these guys while they continue to embarrass you like this. At least they've removed the "death to TOA" graphics from their establishment.

It would be unfair to use this recent event to get at you, Jim, but you should be concerned more with this new office opening within your contituency.

What exactly qualifies a "fit and proper person"?

Austin said...

How does it feel Jim to be defending these guys to the hilt and yet the dont see fit to inform you of any of there wrongdoings?(as serious as this is) But come running and crying to you if TOA so much as looks at them the wrong way!!

linda said...

I can't believe you're being so blase about this very serious charge "No doubt a court case may follow and due process will take place where the charges will be stated in writing, both sides of the case heard, followed by the right of appeal, if found guilty."
i'm related to a girl who works there and it's my understanding the whole thing was caught on cctv which may i add, in a petrol station is pretty conclusive!
i dare say there will be new objections to this COOP license on the strength of these accusations till the matter is sorted

Jim Bollan said...

Rational thought,
I am not in the least embarrassed by any events you talk about. Innocent until proved guilty is supposed to be a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
I am nobodys keeper. Allegations have been made and if these come to Court they will be dealt with, the same as any other citizen.

Jim Bollan said...

Linda,
As you say it is your "understanding"... a court deals with evidence. It would be wise not to pre-judge the result of any court case that takes place. You are right any citizen can object to the Coop Taxi booking office licence application in writing stating valid objections as to why the applicants are not "fit and proper persons" to hold such a licence.

peter said...

well jim as you know i don't live in west dumbartonshire.
but having read your last comments, it does seem this is a very serious accusation to a taxi driver and therefore i think it is only right the license for the new coop isn't granted till they are either proven or disproven.
as i said i don't live there but if i did i certainly would be objecting to any booking office license with this fella as a director or member

Jim Bollan said...

Peter,
Innocent until proved guilty. The Police have a facility to bring to the attention of WDC a pending case.

Rational Thought said...

In the case of alleged misconduct from TOA, opinion seems to be enough. Your opinion, based on the opinion of the malcontents, based on paranoia and lies, yours and theirs.

Of course, in the case of the shiney new CO-OP, you're all too gentlemanly in your approach. They can do no wrong. Anything they do wrong must be a mistake. Everything TOA do must be wrong, until proven otherwise.

I laughed at your glass house comment. Why don't you wait until the verdict from the tribunal before you conclude that TOA are guilty of any wrongdoing, let alone on a par with assault, or does the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" only apply when it doesn't differ from your personal opinion. You'll find it is you who is ignoring the issues closer to home.

A lost cause isn't always a rightious one. Get your priorities right, combat some real problems and stop wasting your time supporting this irrational and bitter plot.

Jim Bollan said...

Rational thought,
Strong language. I have not made my comments to the Committee yet about TOA so I am at a loss to understand how you perceive them to be opinion?

ELAINE said...

Jim,
For the avoidance of doubt:-

(1) Taxi Office Licences were introduced in early 2010, not 'all those years ago' as note in you blog.

(2) The drivers who were opposed to the privatision of the Association were not members, hence they had no part in the decision making process. As an employee of TOA for 22 years, I had no say in the matter since I am not a member of the Association which is totally acceptable to myself and the other 10 people who are EMPLOYED by the association.


(3) The drivers who you continually refer to as being SACKED have NEVER BEEN EMPLOYED by
TOA, I am responsible for the weekly payroll, and have been for
20 years, they have never been paid a wage by T.O.A. Taxis. They are obliged to submit their own tax returns and N.I contributions as all SELF EMPLOYED workers do.

Jim Bollan said...

Elaine,
We are all entitled to our opinion and I and others take the view there was a contract in place between the sacked drivers and TOA. This is also the view of the GMB solicitor who has approved the ET submissions. This could be a test case and will hopefully result in a review of the workplace/employment practices of all Taxi companies in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

i think there should be an investigation into why you feel, so vindictavie against TOA(a reputable company over the last 22years), and why you will not accept anything that has been stated to you from numerous sources unless it is your view, lets face it jim, the radioless drivers are starting to regret all the trouble they have caused, as they will not be getting another radio from TOA as all they caused was trouble there and at leven before that(before that again at TOA) when they weren't happy with something they moved to another office.
but for a minute jim lets forget about the "unfortunate" drivers, and ask you, the public and anyone else who has a view on this subject "what does JIM BOLLAN hope to gain from this?"
noone was sacked the decision to take back the radios was voted from 22 shareholders(think thats democracy)
you have continued to deflect from answering certain relevant questions which leads me to ask "why?"
you have only answered the questions you feel suitable!
and again why have the radioless drivers not posted on this blog?
do they think they are wrong and hope for a return if possible?
personally i rent a radio and would not wish them to come back, but it is not my choice.
i have been watching this blog since the start, never posted but now feel that this is the time to ask these questions!
they have had a fair hearing and also warnings on they're behaviour
but still felt the need to slander, bully and threaten the 22 members of TOA(before you say tell the police, they are aware of it and it stopped when the police got involved(as in the threatening and bullying text messages) and messages were relayed via taxi dataheads that physical and verbal abuse will not be tolerated), then try to poach TOA customers(who on the whole are sensible and know that TOA provide a public service to the community and local law enforcement if required!
so jim in concluding this comment,
i know it is a bit large for you to "sift through" as you say, so i don't expect to get your views on it all, but will ask "why are you so much against this pillar of the community which has done more for the people of alexandria than you have yourself?"
btw anon.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
Jim Bollan will get nothing from this dispute. It would have been easy to try and ignore this dispute but when you get elected you make yourself accountable and accessible to the people who elect you and when Constituents approach you seeking help, I try and provide advice and assistance especially if I feel they have been unfairly treated. People will always have different views on the same issue and that is part of our so called democracy. It is healthy and I respect other peoples view although I don't always agree with them. You will need to ask the sacked drivers why they do not post on my Blog, it is their choice. It is an open forum and forms part of my attempt as a Cllr to be as accessible and accountable as I can to people who elected me.

Anonymous said...

If your last post were to be believed it would be admirable that you were working so hard for your constitutants. However, you are not just assisting the drivers who you think were unfairly treated, if you were you would be helping them with the Unions and Employment Tribunal and speaking on their behalf with the Council to obtain a License for themselves. What you are doing is ignoring the members and workers of TOA, who are also your constitutants and going out of your way, by your actions before the Licensing Committee to prohibit them from running their business the way they wish to do so. So I don’t think you can pretend anymore that this isn’t personal.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
The drivers have joined a Union and the GMB will represent them at the ET, that is not in my remit. They are also making the application for a booking office licence, again not my remit we employ officers to deal with these matters. It is not acceptable in 2011 for any employer to run their business "any way they want" workers have got basic rights in the workplace and these need to be honoured.

Anonymous said...

You are avoiding the issues here. What about the basic rights of the people who actually work for TOA. You may feel that you are on a crusade against business, but you are not acting in the best interests of your constituents, many of whom voted for you and are directly involved with TOA. I would suggest that It is not in your remit as an elected councillor to act against the interests of so many effected parties.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
I did not force TOA to sack the drivers in the manner they did. I was shocked to learn that workers could still be trated like this in 2011 and as a small cog in a big wheel have decided to do what I can to change these victorian workplace practices. TOA have shown themselves not to be "fit and proper persons" to hold a Taxi booking office licence, in my opinion. I appreciate others disagree with me, which is fine.

Anonymous said...

Something confuses me here Jim with your stance in this dispute, you are supporting 15 people which some may consider very admirable but in doing so you could be putting the jobs and earnings of over a 100 plus people at risk with flagrant disregard to the basic facts in this case. Can you vouch for the people running this new office ? Have you spoke to the other drivers in TOA many of whom have been complaining about the poaching of their customers and the blatant lies that have been told by the breakaway drivers. Have you stopped to think about these ordinary hard working drivers and what you are doing to them by telling people not to phone the office for which they are quite happy to work out off ?

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
The only people putting jobs at risk is TOA. I hear another 5 have been sacked bringing it to a round 20. Your premise that 100 jobs could be in danger if TOA do not get the Ltd Company licence on 3/5/2011 is false as they will retain their current licence for an association which they can continue to trade under therefore no jobs will be at risk, unless TOA sack more drivers.

Anonymous said...

Jim you really cant see the basic problem with your argument here, you are trying to paint 15 or if you are correct 20 people here as squeaky clean and TOA as some sort of rogue company. What right do you have to tell a company how to operate. If TOA are fit and proper people to have their original licence then by the same reckoning the same TOA people must be fit and proper people to be granted their new licence. However you have thrown your weight behind these 20 people without probably even knowing the correct circumstances in which they left TOA. I have used TOA taxis since the company was formed and cant speak too highly of them, but since all this stuff has started i have spoken to many of the drivers and on the whole they are delighted to see the back of these people who many think have had a hidden agenda all along. Do you have any intention of talking to the vast majority of the drivers who are more than happy with the service TOA provide them with or are you just going to keep your head buried in the sand and keep going over the same old " poor us "nonsence being put about by people who were very much undermining the company and indeed their own fellow drivers in the taxi office where they worked.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
I am not exactly hiding. In trying to be accessible I hold 12 surgeries every month dotted aroung the Leven Ward where people can come in and raise concerns/issues with me.

Anonymous said...

so much for your tribunal jim, and then again your objection against the license,
firstly the "poor sacked workers" never even turned up for their tribunal(by the way jim they played you like a fiddle and never even had the guts to show up!) just shows you they'd have lost and they knew it!
and finally i didn't think anyone could stoop so low as to blame parents for a drug problem their kids have especially you jim, when you're all for giving people chances in life(tell me jim aren't people allowed to work if there children have bee convicted of a drug offence) so can you explain on this blog site why you cited that particular reason as an objection to a license(when the parents haven't been convicted or accused for that matter of any wrongdoing)
so being all for being "out in the open, accountable and transparent"(as you yourself put it) can you read this complete article and give me your views? so you can be out in the open, accountable and transparent

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
I don't control what the sacked drivers do. It was their decision to apply for an ET not mine, the same as it was their decision not to appear. You would need to ask them yourself why they never presented. My hunch is they want to close the door on what has happened and concentrate on Coop Taxis as things have moved on in recent weeks. If TOA appeal the unanimous Council decision then I will probably be a witness for the Council therefore I would not want to make any public comment at this stage which may prejudice the Council case. All I would say of my objections is that you can only play the cards you are dealt and given the circumstances that is what I done to represent my Constituents.

Anonymous said...

well i just think this is a dispicable and disgusting thing as lots of people have a history of family drug problems(i being one may i add), and to try to stop someone from working due to this is lower than low(might i add i'm not a taxi driver or connected to taxi business, though i take an interest in this case for these exact reasons)
if everyone with the said history was excluded from working, there are a lot of extra people in this area who would be out of work as dumbarton and alexandria does have its share of drug culture

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
I am at a loss to understand who is being stopped from working? Can you explain this? TOA will continue to operate as normal under their old licence so nobody is being stopped from working.

brian rainey said...

you know full well clr if michael is not a fit and propper person to hold a taxi booking office licence your words incidently, the next step could be he is not fit to hold a taxi licence thus taking away his means making a living,i used to think you were a man of integrity not any more i have more in my little finger than you could ever have. what you did at that meeting was shameful and despicable you know that the person convicted in their home was their son he was not dealing from the home so other than search his room every day they would not know what he had in his bedroom, you also know full well the police took no action against his parents as they had no reason to suspect they knew anything, but you clr decided they must be guilty of knowing without any evidence whatsoever this from the very person who very recently on this very blog said you are presumed innocent until proven guilty not unless jim bollan says you are !! like i said shameful, also the despicable part is they had to sit there in a public meeting and have their character and integrity slandered without beeing allowed to defend them selfs where is the justice in that clr ?

Anonymous said...

so if toa can carry on with the old license, what difference does it make to you if they get another one?

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
TOA already had the existing licence before they started sacking drivers.

Jim Bollan said...

Brian,
As you indicated yourself TOA may challenge the Council decision in the Courts and as such I will probably be a witness for the Council therefore I do not want to make any public statement that may inhibit the Councils position.
I know and understand why you are angry with me. I had hoped TOA would have took a more reasonable position in this whole sorry saga and it would not have got to this stage but that did not happen and we are where we are.

Austin said...

words escaped me at that kangaroo court that you call a meetin on tue at how low a cllr could go and in my view and members of my family you went low!! In dragin Michaels OWN unblemished reputaition through YOUR kangaroo court you could cost that man his livelyhood and for what cllr?? You maintain that you'r a socialist fighting for the workin man yet you single handedly jeopardize this man's livelyhood for something that he had no knowledge or part of. Its a good job we dont ALL get held acountable for our childrens actions! Where would we be then?? Unemployed??

Anonymous said...

TOA as it seems didn't sack anyone, so where dyu get your information jim, as the tribunal and also the troublemakers(by not turning up at the tribunal) don't seem to agree with you.
seems to me that you just make your mind up and set it in stone, i think it's high time you had a right good look at yourself over this situation, you've prejudged this case from the beginning and nothing will ever change your mind.

i don't think that is a fair practice, "showing prejudice against constituents that have voted you in in the past(over a group of troublemakers) who might i add won't again probably as brian said"you have slandered and called their integrity into question"
time after time you've dodged questions on this blog site, and we all know the reason why now

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
Who is going to lose their job as a result of the Committee's unanimous decision?

Austin said...

Please read back jim i said jeoperdized!!

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
Thats democracy. No doubt I may lose votes over the position I have adopted on this matter. I don't make my mind up on an issue by trying to judge how many votes I will gain or lose...i make my mind up based on what i believe to be fair and the right thing to do. As a Cllr i make decisions every day that will please some folk and displease others that is the nature of the job.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
OK whose job is going to be jeopardized and why as a result of the Committee's unanimous decision?

Austin said...

For the same reason as Brian gave you about Micks licence!!

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
You are jumping the gun. This decision relates solely to the application for a taxi booking office licence.

Austin said...

No sorry jim you are bein naive if you think these licenses arnt connected,surely its the same licensing committee that approves both taxi bookin license & operators license?

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
Yes it is. I am not a member of this Committee.

Austin said...

Whether or not you are a member of this committee you made your views/opinions very clear, you intimated that your initial concerns were strictly for your constituents who were 'sacked', the same constituents who obviously no longer consider themselves 'sacked' as even with the full backing of yourself and the unions did not deem it necesarry to attend a tribunal to hear their case. Although you still mentioned those 'sacked' at Tuesday's meeting you have now changed tack to personally attack Michael, how you can consider that your view will have no impact on him personally and in particular his operator licence defies logic.

brian rainey said...

you may not be on the commitee clr but you do have a very cosy relationship with clrs j mcoll and r mcoll who are on the commitee and along with you have been conducting this vendetta against toa.and stop this rubbish about being unable to go into details of the councils refusal of the licence you were only an objector the court case would be against the clrs who refused the licence so dont be a coward and answer the points put to you.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
We are supposed to live in a democracy and I respect your right to state your views. I hope you will appreciate I also have the same rights.

Jim Bollan said...

Brian,
Any Court case will be against the Council who delegated powers to the Committee. I probably will be called as a witness and do not want to prejudice the Council case.

Austin said...

I can see your just goin to keep skipping around these issues so i wont waste any more of my time as it would be pointless.

Rational Thought said...

Hello Jim, a pleasure as always.

Although I am not a taxi driver, I attended the hearing. After all, it's not every day you have the opportunity to witness a stitch up of that magnitude, not since the Iranian elections.

I would have thought the result of the employment tribunal earlier in the day, essentially an embarrassment to you and your argument, would have settled this whole thing. After all, it was on the grounds that the drivers were sacked unfairly, in your opinion, that you objected to this new license. So, even with the advice of the legal officer AND now the result of the employment tribunal, you still insist that they were sacked. Opinions aren't equal when one is disproven time and time again, Jim.

Often enough you and your cronies have used the tribunal as justification of there being some wrongdoing, even before a verdict had been reached. The simple existence of the case was enough evidence for you. Now that it's been proven to be as ridiculous as I have argued, you shrug it off and claim the malcontents want to "close the door on what has happened and concentrate on Coop Taxis"?

Simple as that, eh Jim? Oh aren't they merciful? They certainly seemed grown up enough at the hearing, smug-faced hecklers, sarcastic applauding and kind enough to make their true opinions known outside of the building. Of course, any remorse will only be shown when they are held accountable for wasting the ET and TOA's time and money.

What I do find bemusing is the grounds on which the license was denied. It's funny how, now that your entire argument has been reduced to a bitter joke, you cry out in mock outrage regarding Micheal Rainey's situation. Earlier in this very blog Brian Rainey, on numerous occasions, asked you about that objection, and you showed no concern, no interest, it was a petty issue compared to your grand vision. Now that your particular chosen scab isn't ready to come off, this has become the council's only get out clause. The police have no concerns, they are the first to bring up such concerns. Are they mistaken? Liars? Unfit to be police officers?

Logic evades everything the council does nowadays it seems, so thankfully a legitimate court will deal with this, where TOA's lawyer will be allowed to speak for more than 4 minutes and 30 seconds, defending TOA against the inane drivel aimed at them and only opinions with evidence and reason will be considered.

Additionally, now that it has been undoubtedly proven, beyond individual opinion, yours or mine, I would kindly ask that you (and the Lennox Herald if they're reading this) could stop using the term "sacked" or any term implying that the terms of their radio removal was unfair. It was not. Thank you.

Jim Bollan said...

Rational thought,
Welcome back. The unanimous decision of the Committee speaks for itself.

Rational Thought said...

Please note that my concern is only partially regarding the final verdict. It is how that verdict was reached that is the most frustrating thing. A less-than-five minute defense by TOA's lawyer, time he had to dedicate towards tackling over a dozen objections, most of which should have been disregarded following the tribunal. In fact, all 18 objectors could have had a 5 minute monologue EACH to slander TOA (And hour and half of lies, Jim) Following this, a lengthy dialogue between councillors, stating personal opinions and offering no opportunity for a defense. Case dismissed, go home and shut up. The entire bank holiday weekend is not sufficient time to present the full extent of TOA's case.

Considering your objection at the last hearing was not submitted legitimately, but allowances were made to hear it, surely the least that could be offered to TOA is sufficient time to offer their case, or at the very least the chance to defend themselves against the council's merciless hammer of illogical justice. I've never been to anything like this before, maybe all of your hearings are like this, which is a concept I find deeply disturbing.

Furthermore, why is it that whenever police object to an individual obtaining a license, any license, at one of the council's hearings, whether it be because of drug, driving or assault offenses which THAT INDIVIDUAL is guilty of, the council frequently ignore the police advice, showing no concern, turning the other cheek and granting the license. However, when it comes to TOA, the conviction of a RELATION of an individual is enough of concern to deny a license. Don't turn around and say this isn't personal, Jim, because my eyes are wide open.

The word "disgrace" is so frequently applied that I feel it has lost it's impact. It's been aimed unfairly at TOA and it's been aimed, maybe unfairly, at you, but know that when I say this I mean it - that hearing was a disgrace.

Jim Bollan said...

Rational thought,
The hearing rules are followed as per the Council Standing Orders which govern how meetings are conducted. Both sides are given the same amount of time to state their case. Cllrs can then ask questions of the applicants agent and the objectors. The Cllr's then deliberate and make a decision.

Anonymous said...

Mr Bollan,
The need for fair play in everthing in life is necesary.
The group of councillors on the taxi licence committee can show that they have a purpose by debating the fors and the againsts of any licence application.
The most recent debate about the fight between the TOA and the new Co-Op has now reached the licence committee. Both sides should have been given plenty of time to give all of their reasons for their application or their objections and a fair an reasoned decesion given.
What really happened was a total bias toward a group of drivers who failed to justify their own case at an earlier hearing with most of them not even bothering to turn up for that hearing, but managing to put you on a a witness, the only one called who slandered a poor man, with the appropriate apoligy for doing so but never the less still slandering him without hardly any of the details of his non crime....the criteria for refusal is one of previous conviction..nothing else..the poor man Michael Rainey has none but is the holder of a current taxi licence..issued by the same committee....
kangaroo courts were banned and lost forever a long time ago but has now been reserected by our local committee...shame on them...and you for believing such drivel from the mouths of bitter and hostile men hell bent on revenge...the way the police input was ignored pointed to an already made decision of refusal but the high light of the show was the complete refusal to let michael rainey speak for himself...he was at the hearing just 5feet away but no-one asked him to speak...just you councillor Bollan...hand picked by the band of brothers who have conned you...as a socalist it seems that fairness and objectivity is lost on you...you have been used...how sad

brian said...

clr bollan as per usual said ? nothing!!

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
We are all entitled to our opinions and I respect your right to hold yours. Kangaroo Courts you will need to take up with the Committee of which I am not a member, but I will bring your comments to the attention of the Chair. All objectors are given the option of speaking to their objection, I was the only one who took that offer up. Nobody "put me on as a witness". I carry out my duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, not at the behest of any third party. It is a serious allegation to suggest the Cllr's formed a conspiracy before the meeting as this would be in direct conflict with the code of conduct Cllr's need to abide by, when participating in this type of Committee. The TOA Solicitor was speaking on behalf of the 3 applicants and he was in possession of copies of all the 18 objections, so he knew the issues that were going to be raised. I appreciate at times we would all like to live our lives they way we would want to, but unfortunately we have to live our lives as they are and not how we would like them to be.

Anonymous said...

It was suggested to me that this blog was interesting reading. As someone not connected to any of the parties involved here I have found it fascinating. It strikes me that its obvious that all the Councillors involved here had their own reasons for refusing this licence, none of which would appear to be legitimate. In these circumstances, surely its time these Councillors were investigated by however has this authority to do so.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
Thats a fair point. The Standards Commission for Scotland is the body charged with regulating the behaviour of all Scotland's Cllr's. Any citizen can make a complaint against a Cllr and the service is free. They can be contacted via the website below.
standardscommissionscotland.org.uk

NOEL said...

as you keep referring to the "sacked drivers" i'll put you straight jim.

i'm a taxi driver(non shareholder, though rent a car )and this little bit of factual information has been overlooked in this whole blog!

what happens is that the drivers are warned of they're conduct when they signup for the first time, then messages are relayed via datahead, then if they break the rules(we all need rules jim or the streets would be just anarchy, i would hope you'd agree with that!) they are brought into the office and appear before the commitee of 5(now but before it was 7)and their opinion is heard, if found guilty(by majority) they are warned again of their conduct(which also happens another 2 or 3 times, i know as i've been in front of the "jockey club" a few times over the years myself), so if found guilty again they have to make a decision!
now let me stop you there to reflect on what has just been said(if you care of course!)

the next thing that happens is a full SHAREHOLDER meeting to vote on taking the radio back from said individual(which has to be voted to a majority of 75% as in ALL decisions )

above is all fact

now the radioless drivers(not sacked as you put it) have went to the expense of purchasing a union membership(who might i add will take anyones money, and not care if they have a case or not) then never even showed at the tribunal(wasting more money and pissing people off), these drivers have nowhere to go if the COOP venture fails as they've caused trouble in(again not all of them caused trouble so some may have somewhere to go) whichever office they were in before, so would it not be wiser to get on with their work and not piss anymore people off, as the chances off getting into another office will get slimmer and slimmer, and lastly if they have to sell their businesses the value will drop severely as the market will be flooded at that particular time with owners who can't get into an office because of trouble they've caused in the past(i know some people will be able to afford to keep the businesses, but some won't)

Just my thoughts on the situation

Jim Bollan said...

Noel,
It would appear things have changed a lot in TOA since you were up in front of the "Jockey Club". Some of the drivers sacked were not taken in front of the Committee even once let alone the 3 - 4 times you mentioned. Some were sacked over the phone. Some were told by a third party. None had a hearing. None were given anything in writing. No independent investigations took place to verify the allegations against these drivers. There was no right of appeal. I appreciate you telling me how it is...but these are the facts.

NOEL said...

no jim they are the facts that you have been told by the radioless drivers(which is the only side which you choose to listen to)
and they don't need anything in writing(what part of NOT EMPLOYED do you not understand?????)

they had a fair hearing which again is none of yours, mine or anyone elses business, i work and have heard all the lies, trouble and threats that have been made over the last year to 18month, when may i add, i would just like to go to work and make my wage without any added hassle. i considered a few of these drivers as friends, but with all this nonsense i just keep myself to myself now

in fact there have been a lot of lies told, especially regarding the 28days notice(me personally i think it was up for 28 days but can't prove it)also there are a lot of people in this case who should hang their heads in shame at the way it was conducted(ie you too jim regarding the reason for the objection)



i'm not going to waste anymore time on this as i've dishes to do!

Jim Bollan said...

Noel,
You say the sacked drivers got a fair hearing? How many went in front of the Committee? How many got the opportunity to defend themselves? How many got a right of appeal against dismissal? Unlike the drivers TOA got a fair hearing at the Taxi Licensing Committee. They were given time to prepare their case. They had copies of the objections in advance of the hearing. They were represented by a Solicitor. They can appeal to the Sheriff. TOA afforded the drivers none of these protections.

NOEL said...

they were warned of their behaviour beforehand and i for one are firsthand witness to threats, slanderous behaviour, intimidation and lies, so maybe not in your mind but i would have taken back the radios sooner!
every other driver/and public(including you jim) who supported them has been made a mockery of when they declined to turn up at the employment tribunal.
and i say every one was in front of the commitee beforehand and challenge you to prove me otherwise(just the same as i can't prove certain people are lying through their teeth about the 28 day notice not being up)
and as for the objections to the license i hope(and i sincerely mean this) that noone who objected to the license ever has a drug problem on their doorstep

Jim Bollan said...

Noel,
I have spoken face to face with the 5 drivers who were elected to represent the disgruntled drivers. These 5 drivers were sacked. None of these drivers were in front of a Committee before or after being sacked. I have no reason to believe these drivers were telling me lies, are you saying they are? What evidence do you have to back this up? The fact people did not appear at their ET hearing proves nothing either way.

Austin said...

It proves they were not employed by TOA Jim n therefore cannot have been "SACKED" how many people is it going to take on this blog of yours to make you realise this??

Anonymous said...

Five drivers Jim. Just how many of the other over a hundred drivers have you spoken face to face with? Every single taxi driver with TOA knows the truth about what went on here, you just choose to ask everyone else for their evidence and produce none of your own other than the say so of these five drivers. As for the ET. Of course it matters. It proves, as everyone has always said (including the Council’s own legal department) that they weren’t “sacked”. It looks like you need to keep repeating this statement to justify your own actions here.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
Nothing has been proved as the ET never took place therefore the case was never scrutinised or judged by the panel.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
I was responding to another anoymous, Noel,who said "all the drivers sacked had been up in front of the Committee" before they were sacked. I used the 5 sacked drivers as an example to prove this comment to be unproven. I have spoken to more than 75% of the twenty sacked drivers and of course it is open to any citizen/driver to come and speak to me in confidence at any of my surgeries.

Austin said...

And it never took place why??? Could that be because THEY WERE NOT EMPLOYED!!! Jim wake up n smell the shit these guys are feeding you they are taking you for a mug and your letting them!! you are going to be the looser out of this sorry saga and i will try n not say i did tell you so when it happens but you and i both know i will as will every one else on this farcical blog of yours

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
Instead of guessing why the drivers never presented at the ET, why don't you ask them?

Austin said...

We did after your kangaroo court had finished!! ohh but wait Jim you never hung around long enough to see that (and i must say jim for a man of your mature years your quite quick on your feet)when we went outside they were standing waiting on us so they could have a laugh n let us know it was just to waste TOA's profits! so yes Jim we know(as do you) why they never turned up. But ofcourse your band of merry men wouldnt do that as they dont have an agenda.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
Kangaroo Court? At least TOA got a fair hearing something TOA have never gave the sacked drivers. I have never asked any of the drivers why they did not present at the ET, it is none of my business. The answer you have given me tonight is the first and only explanation I have heard. I can only speak for myself. There is no hidden agenda from me, only to represent my Constituents who were in my opinion unfairly sacked.

brian rainey said...

seeing as you are being pedantic clr the et did take place its just that the malcontents did not turn up, wasting taxpayers money as 2 days had been set aside for this hearing also at great exspence to toa but then this was prob the plan all along, anyway thought you could not speak about the case as you may be called as a witness or is it just your despicable and shameful slandering of an innocent mans character that you dont want to be reminded of ? where was his fair hearing ? oh thats right toas laywer had five mins to respond to that and 18 objections,now clr seeing as you are always banging on about being a soscialist do you call that fair and just ? and dont hide behind council rules and procedures just an honest unbiased opinion that is if you recognise such a thing !!

Austin said...

Ok Jim then im asking you to step back open your eyes and look around you i know your a clever man and i cant understand why after all thats been presented to you on your blog that you cant see they have an agenda and they're using you and your clout to do they're dirty work. They went from getting you to fight for they're jobs! When they had intended all along to open there own office and that was talked about long before they got you involved! To dragging micks sons past up to stop TOAs licence and also jeoperdizing micks lively hood at the same time. So jim what im now doing is asking you to have a look at this from our side and see the catalogue of lies,hate & slander we endured in the months leading up to them coming to you.

Jim Bollan said...

Brian,
TOA at least got a hearing...the sacked drivers did not.

Anonymous said...

did michael get a fair hearing?

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
I do not have any clout. I have one vote out of 22. Over 80% of the comment on this blog regarding the Taxi issue has been made anonymously, hardly a strong basis for forming a sound argument. We are all entitled to our opinions and while I do not agree with yours I respect your right to hold it and express it on a public forum. I do nobodys bidding Austin. It is well documented I got involved after receiving a surgery enquiry from 2 Constituents after they were sacked. That has been and still is my only agenda.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
Yes...a fairer one than the sacked drivers got.

Austin said...

Ok then Jim thats your only agenda you say so what was that character assassination on Michael at the meeting for?? please explain as im having some trouble understanding it

Austin said...

Jim while you deam Michael un fit to hold a licence because of what his adult son did (just to quote you at the meeting. Im sorry i have to bring this up) but isint it true that sum years ago your wife was charged with the theft of some jumpers? and your job was jeoperdized due to this and did my dad not help defend you through the papers at the time to help keep your job as a cllr (which you have) so suerly that must be classed as double standards on your side?? so why should it be any difference from you to Michael?

Anonymous said...

The new office is about to open and one of the directors/office holders has just been charged with serious assault. As it has not been before the court yet it would be premature to make any judgement on the case ( I have viewed the video which caught the whole incident and can only say it is an vicious attack ), but the criminal has nothing to worry about if the licencing committee keep their usual standard of ignoring the police objections to any application. With the bias toward the new co-operative taxi company this young man has nothing at all to worry about, his licence is safe with this council's rediculous standards as shown on many previous occasions. I only hope jim that when the time comes for any objection to this man you are as forcefull in your objection against his licence as you have been to Michael Rainey. As a side issue both of these men as your constituants... no bias there then.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
I was still representing the 3 sacked Constituents when I objected to the licence.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
No it is not true and you should be very careful what you allege on an open forum.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
I am not a member of the Taxi Licensing Committee.

AUSTIN said...

So your saying my information is wrong then Jim?

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
Yes. Nothing of what you said happened or is true.

Anonymous said...

you could always take your own advice and sue for libel or just take out a super injunction.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
I would if I had the money but I earn £16,000 gross as a Cllr and could not afford it.

Austin said...

And who said you dont have a sense of humour cllr Bollan! And anonymous I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE lol

Aistin said...

With friends like anonymous Jim who needs enemies lol anyway back to our debate on Michael you still havent told me why you attacked Michael at the meeting over something his son did when you say you were still representing your three constituents over being sacked. now unless you can prove hes guilty of some wrong doings then surely that shouldnt be an issue as he is inoccent untill proven otherwise the same as the driver who "ALLEGEDLY" attacked a garage worker??

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
You are now straying into the details of a possible Court case if TOA take the Council to Court. I will probably be cited as a witness for the Council and will therefore not be able to comment on any detail of my objection other than what I have stated publicly prior to the hearing on 3/5/2011.

Austin said...

If its the council we are taking to court over thier decision then in what way would that involve you Jim? Surely you were called as an objector and as you say your not sitting on the board

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
I answered this in an earlier post to one of your colleagues. The Taxi licencing committee operates under delegated powers from WDC which constitutes 22 Cllrs, of which I am one. It is reasonable to assume if we want to lead "best evidence" then as I was the only one that gave verbal evidence to the Committee the Council Solicitors may want to call me as a witness, much the same as I have been called to give evidence at ET's because I sit on the Appeals Panel for Council Employees.

Anonymous said...

you keep saying these drivers were sacked, so why did'nt any of them appear at the trbunal when everyone else did. i think you have a hidden agenda and are motivated by more than poltics

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
There is no hidden agenda with me. I have already said I do not know why the sacked drivers never presented at the ET. The best way to find out is to ask them.

brian rainey said...

hidden agenda what about the fact clr craig mcglauchlan has two taxis working out of allan wrights office he and clrs r mcoll j mcoll are in the same party, allan wright is in direct opposition to toa ,all the unrest started immedietly after wrights office opened,but only you clr bollan fail to see this connection why?what are you getting out of this? is it a case of you help the mcolls mcClaughlin and wright and you get backing from them for something in the future? or are you just being vindictive?

Anonymous said...

didn't you jump the dyke and change parties jim. where are you're loyalties.

Jim Bollan said...

Brian,
I don't know much about how Craig operates any of his business's only that he has quite a few. I don't socialise with any of the 3 Cllr's you mentioned and my reltionship with Ronnie and Jonathan is a purely professional one relating to Council business. Craig and I very rarely communicate. I do not think it is appropriate for a Cllr to have private business interests but the law allows it. Whether it is appropriate is another matter. I will say again for the umpteenth time there is no hidden agenda from me.

brian rainey said...

it would be good if you just stuck to council buisiness clr instead of getting involved with a private company trying to run its buisiness without outside inteference, and as for backing your constituents there are approx 160 drivers remaining at toa with no intention of leaving, many of whom are also your constituents when are you going to represent them in stead of advertising a company in oppisition to them should you not be fair and impartial to all.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
No i didnt jump the dyke, as you put. I was an Independent and then joined the SSP and stood as an SSP candidate and have been elected twice. Always have and will be a Socialist.

Jim Bollan said...

Brian,
If TOA had not sacked 3 of my Constituent's i would never have got involved and you would never have heard from me. Coop Taxis is the first taxi drivers workers coop in Scotland. It is a workplace model I support as a Socialist where every driver has a say and a vote.

Austin said...

Yes Jim it is a first, they have their office and they are still working and they werent sacked as in your original agenda (fact) so why are you still actively involved in this fight ??

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
I suspect once the Court case is finished that will be when the representation of my Constituents who were sacked will end.

Austin said...

But Jim as in your original agenda it has been proven via ET they werent sacked so surely your involvment with this new business venture of theirs is at an end as of now?? and your new agenda (Michael)then carries on to the sheriff court as a separate agenda??

Austin said...

Jim im assuming that if your backing them as the ideal model then you are party to their constitution and therefore happy that what they have put in place can be transparently monitored to ensure this continues and is not open to manipulation because after all you have given them free advertisment/endorsment on your blog

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
See my previous answer to you regarding the ET on 9/5/2011.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
I don't have any "involvement" with Coop Taxis therefore it can't end because it never started. I gave the sacked drivers advice and put them in touch with the appropriate people to help get their Coop started.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
I have not seen the final drafts of the documents that govern how the Coop operates. The Coop will have to operate within the rules and regulations that govern a company of their type.

Austin said...

Then please answer me this then Jim if as you say you have no involvment in the co op taxis then why are you advertising their number on your blog?? surely that would indicate that you are involved in said company in one way or another?? also jim i noticed you answered my last blogs but as of yet havent posted them!!

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
The Blog has been down for 20 hrs and some posts have been lost. I am presenting Coop Taxi's number because I believe in workplace democracy where each worker has one vote and a say in how the Coop is run. Decisions are also made collectively. It is a workplace model which as a Socialist I believe puts a bit of control in the hands of the drivers and all other members, who are equal. The first one in Scotland and I am delighted it has been established in the Leven Ward.

Austin said...

Well its nice to know your suporting liers and thugs jim that proves your not the kind of cllr id like to have on my side! what was their slogan Honesty fairness and equality? Ha lets watch this company that you favour over a well established trusted company and see where they are in a years time!! my guess is sold or transfered over to those parties(gangsters) we fought to keep out of this area.

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
Do you know really amazes me? Many bloggers on this thread have called the sacked drivers liars, thugs, malcontents, scum and to many more names to mention...yet not one had the courage to come out in public and object to the Coop licence for a taxi booking office, which was granted without objection.

Austin said...

thats because the sooner they opened the sooner we see the rest of them leave our company n stop feeding our loyal customers with their lies,hate n bile so its good ridden's to vile rubbish as far as im concerned Jim.

Rational Thought said...

I would propose that the reason the CO-OP Taxi's license went unopposed was because nobody felt the desire to lie and slander in the aid of a personal vendetta. I would also suggest that there is no opposing equivelant of Jim Bollan who would blindly support said objections.

Just putting it out there...

Jim Bollan said...

Rational thought,
My take on why there was no objections is that it is easy to hide on a forum like this and call people some quite obnoxious names, it is an entirely different matter to have the bottle to repeat them in public and put your name to them.

Rational Thought said...

Bottle?

I'll grant you that, Jim. If there's anything you have in abundance it's bottle. It takes a special level of character to maintain your position and to argue your particular case, especially when all reason and evidence proves otherwise.

What you call bottle, I consider to be the arrogance and ignorance of some very stubborn and bitter individuals.

Jim Bollan said...

Rational thought,
Ill take that as a compliment then.

Rational Thought said...

Once again, I would question your assessment of my post...

Anonymous said...

Are you really saying that because the TOA owners and drivers did not object to the co-op licence and try to prevent these drivers from earning a living, that that makes them cowards. I think it makes them the better persons.

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
I just found it strange that nobody objected to a group of people who have been called scum, malcontents, thieves, liars, thugs etc as being "fit and proper persons" to hold a Taxi Booking Office Licence.

Anonymous said...

i think most of the existing drivers just wanted rid of them so there wasn't any more hassle,me myself was just sick and tired with the disruption, when i only wanted to go out and do my work, make my wage then go home and thats why noone objected!
but alas we'll see how they get on when certain drivers round there instead of putting their own work into the office, they'll keep it and we'll soon have all the same arguments as before. but remember these drivers(most of) have nowhere else to go, because they've already disrupted the harmony of the offices they were in previous

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
Hopefully things will settle down now. I appreciate a lot of the TOA drivers are satisfied with who they work for and thats good.

Anonymous said...

Jim, I have tried to keep an open mind on this debate but find myself apalled by your attitude towards the driver whose son was caught with drugs. It is just as well for you that voters do not hold the same narrow minded views as yourself or you would have never been elected in this area.If he is being held accountable for the deeds of his family then you should also be accountable for the past deeds of yours. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Anonymous said...

must admit jim i do agree with the previous anon post, and i would like to add a question jim,
taxi drivers are requested to list all previous conviction(as per disclosure scotland), which should clear the man with the son in question, as how can someone not be a fit and proper person to run an office, then be a fit and proper person to carry a public hire taxi licence?
do councillors have to do this and should WDC be aware of any councilors previous convictions?

have you been an angel all of your life jim?(remember this is a blog open to all of the public, and i'm neither a constituent of yours, taxi driver or owner)
if not i really think people in glass houses(think you know the rest jim)
btw i know you're not the fountain of all knowledge(as per your earlier post) but i think you have the knowledge to answer all these questions if you wish
anon

Jim Bollan said...

Anonymous,
I have an enhanced disclosure as a Cllr. I am not a member of the Taxi Licensing Committee as you know but I understand the criteria to secure a licence to be a driver is different from trying to secure a licence to run a Taxi Booking Office which has a much wider set of responsibilities attached to it.

Rational Thought said...

Additionally (I say that, but I don't think you're posting my previous comment), whenever someone proposes that TOA didn't recieve a fair hearing, you insist that it is how the hearings work and is completely legal. So is it not you I have a problem with, is it the system in which you operate? Why should the council be critisized for operating within their legal rights? That's the way it's been for ages so it's all OK?

If that were the case, we'd still be forcing children up chimneys...

Austin said...

Your past will always catch you up Jim!! and it amazes me what you can find out in the archives of the lennox herald in the library these days!!

Jim Bollan said...

Austin,
Very true the truth will always out.

Jim Bollan said...

Rational thought,
Challenge the system then the same as I have done, don't hide behind the keyboard.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 365 of 365   Newer› Newest»