Bolton Council tightens taxi regulations after Rochdale child sex ring scandal

Bolton Council tightens taxi regulations after Rochdale child sex ring scandal

Bolton Council tightens taxi regulations after Rochdale child sex ring scandal

First published in Politics
Last updated
The Bolton News: Photograph of the Author by , politics reporter

LICENSING bosses at Bolton Council are tightening their guidelines to make sure private hire drivers are “fit and proper” people before they get behind the wheel.

As well as looking into complaints of inappropriate or indecent behaviour by private hire drivers passed on by the police, councillors will also listen to child safeguarding agencies, licensing bodies and passengers.

The recommendations come from the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities in the wake of the Rochdale child exploitation ring scandal, which saw young girls groomed and sexually assaulted by employees of local taxi firms.

The licensing board has heard several cases involving allegations of indecent behaviour from Bolton taxi drivers over the past year, including a case in October where a driver tricked a 13-year-old into giving him her phone number.

Cllr Nick Peel, Bolton council’s executive cabinet member for environmental services, said the regulations were about protecting vulnerable people using taxi services.

He added: “There’s a great deal of responsibility on private hire drivers. This is about tightening up the regulations with particular regard to vulnerable people and actions around inappropriate behaviour.”


MORE:


In the case of a complaint, drivers would be immediately suspended pending an investigation.

Possible scenarios that might lead to suspension include asking inappropriate or personal questions, asking a passenger for their mobile phone number or making sexually explicit statements.

Asif Vali, chairman of Bolton Private Hire Operators Association and owner of Rapid Private Hire, said he was delighted the council was leading the way with these proposals.

He added: “It’s a great idea for the council to make these changes, to make sure that the Bolton public is looked after as best as possible and we have the best drivers in the borough.

“People’s lives are in our hands and it’s easy to complain, but the truth always prevails. As long as the local authority deals with complaints quickly, none of our drivers will mind waiting.”

The policy will come into force on April 1.

Comments (75)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:20am Wed 26 Feb 14

JustBecause says...

Though we had a few laws to cover this, its a pretty easy fix.

6 monthly checks on vehicles (full mot, and chargeable)
Full DBS check every year for all drivers.
More random and frequent checks.
More checks from HMRC

And the chairman of an association should can hardly be owner of a business in that sector!
Though we had a few laws to cover this, its a pretty easy fix. 6 monthly checks on vehicles (full mot, and chargeable) Full DBS check every year for all drivers. More random and frequent checks. More checks from HMRC And the chairman of an association should can hardly be owner of a business in that sector! JustBecause
  • Score: 18

8:33am Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Hopefully the end of Metro cars, then!!!

Saying that it is funny to hear Indian descended drivers of a couple of other Private Hire firms actually mock, moan and complain about the Pakistani descended drivers of Metro and how bad Metro cars really are and that no one right in the head would actually work for that cowboy outfit!!!! - Now if other drivers from other firms are saying this about Metro then why is NOTHING being done about the company???

Come on Peel do YOUR job, instead of sitting on your backside and watching the pound-signs flow into your bank account!!!
Hopefully the end of Metro cars, then!!! Saying that it is funny to hear Indian descended drivers of a couple of other Private Hire firms actually mock, moan and complain about the Pakistani descended drivers of Metro and how bad Metro cars really are and that no one right in the head would actually work for that cowboy outfit!!!! - Now if other drivers from other firms are saying this about Metro then why is NOTHING being done about the company??? Come on Peel do YOUR job, instead of sitting on your backside and watching the pound-signs flow into your bank account!!! The Righteous One
  • Score: -51

9:16am Wed 26 Feb 14

Sickandtiredoffit says...

Random checks is all thats needed private hire in Bolton is a joke a Scamming Ripoff in Shoddy old cars driven by people who dont give a s@@t cmon Bolton council do your job the one you get paid for !!! Instead of sitting in the office on your ar@e eating M&S sandwiches
Random checks is all thats needed private hire in Bolton is a joke a Scamming Ripoff in Shoddy old cars driven by people who dont give a s@@t cmon Bolton council do your job the one you get paid for !!! Instead of sitting in the office on your ar@e eating M&S sandwiches Sickandtiredoffit
  • Score: 23

9:42am Wed 26 Feb 14

Jim271 says...

The problem is not enough staff to police this properly, licensing officers have to deal with everything from trading to alcohol licensing as well as taxi licenses,

Manchester City Centre only have about 5 who have to deal with over a hundred pubs and clubs as well as over a thousand cab drivers, so how many do Bolton have??

Best advice, avoid the town centre at night.
The problem is not enough staff to police this properly, licensing officers have to deal with everything from trading to alcohol licensing as well as taxi licenses, Manchester City Centre only have about 5 who have to deal with over a hundred pubs and clubs as well as over a thousand cab drivers, so how many do Bolton have?? Best advice, avoid the town centre at night. Jim271
  • Score: 11

9:50am Wed 26 Feb 14

thomas222 says...

Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English. thomas222
  • Score: 38

9:50am Wed 26 Feb 14

Gore Seer says...

The Council Had A Meeting With Police And Taxi Drivers A Few Years Ago And Ask Police To Cut Down On Taxi Laws. In 2006 I Had A Bad Premonition About My Wife Being Attacked By Taxi Driver,But How Could I Say Anything About It,We Had Split Up In 2004, Within 3 Months Of My Prem My Daughter Told Me A Taxi Driver Got Out Of Car Got In Back Of Car With Wife,She Jump Out Of Car Made A Racket It Was 2am And Went In Her Home,Never Told Police, What Could I Have Done.
The Council Had A Meeting With Police And Taxi Drivers A Few Years Ago And Ask Police To Cut Down On Taxi Laws. In 2006 I Had A Bad Premonition About My Wife Being Attacked By Taxi Driver,But How Could I Say Anything About It,We Had Split Up In 2004, Within 3 Months Of My Prem My Daughter Told Me A Taxi Driver Got Out Of Car Got In Back Of Car With Wife,She Jump Out Of Car Made A Racket It Was 2am And Went In Her Home,Never Told Police, What Could I Have Done. Gore Seer
  • Score: 34

9:52am Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

Jim271 wrote:
The problem is not enough staff to police this properly, licensing officers have to deal with everything from trading to alcohol licensing as well as taxi licenses,

Manchester City Centre only have about 5 who have to deal with over a hundred pubs and clubs as well as over a thousand cab drivers, so how many do Bolton have??

Best advice, avoid the town centre at night.
The revenue from PH/Taxis should be ringfenced and only used for the administration of those two entities. The council syphons the money off and uses it elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]Jim271[/bold] wrote: The problem is not enough staff to police this properly, licensing officers have to deal with everything from trading to alcohol licensing as well as taxi licenses, Manchester City Centre only have about 5 who have to deal with over a hundred pubs and clubs as well as over a thousand cab drivers, so how many do Bolton have?? Best advice, avoid the town centre at night.[/p][/quote]The revenue from PH/Taxis should be ringfenced and only used for the administration of those two entities. The council syphons the money off and uses it elsewhere. Donkey Stone
  • Score: 17

10:03am Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

In this country we have a system of justice which relies on the burden of proof. It is far from being perfect but is much better than what the council are doing. The councillors in this town are megalomaniacs and want the power to take a persons living from them on heresay evidence aka chinese whispers. Those same councillors have had a few convictions between them over the last few years Gillies,Hornby,and Prentice Howarth as well as some not paying council taxes. Have any of these lost their income? Don't let these power crazed idiots get away with it. Asif Valli only speaks for himself in the hope of staying the councils blue-eyed boy.
In this country we have a system of justice which relies on the burden of proof. It is far from being perfect but is much better than what the council are doing. The councillors in this town are megalomaniacs and want the power to take a persons living from them on heresay evidence aka chinese whispers. Those same councillors have had a few convictions between them over the last few years Gillies,Hornby,and Prentice Howarth as well as some not paying council taxes. Have any of these lost their income? Don't let these power crazed idiots get away with it. Asif Valli only speaks for himself in the hope of staying the councils blue-eyed boy. Donkey Stone
  • Score: 20

10:29am Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

When will Bolton and other Councils tighten kebab shop regulations after Rochdale child sex ring scandal and the disappearance of Blackpool schoolgirls Charlene Downes and Paige Chivers, because lets face it kebab shops are another means for dirty old men with double standards to meet and groom white schoolgirls?
When will Bolton and other Councils tighten kebab shop regulations after Rochdale child sex ring scandal and the disappearance of Blackpool schoolgirls Charlene Downes and Paige Chivers, because lets face it kebab shops are another means for dirty old men with double standards to meet and groom white schoolgirls? Mick England
  • Score: 20

10:31am Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

Gore Seer wrote:
The Council Had A Meeting With Police And Taxi Drivers A Few Years Ago And Ask Police To Cut Down On Taxi Laws. In 2006 I Had A Bad Premonition About My Wife Being Attacked By Taxi Driver,But How Could I Say Anything About It,We Had Split Up In 2004, Within 3 Months Of My Prem My Daughter Told Me A Taxi Driver Got Out Of Car Got In Back Of Car With Wife,She Jump Out Of Car Made A Racket It Was 2am And Went In Her Home,Never Told Police, What Could I Have Done.
Laws are not made by the police.
[quote][p][bold]Gore Seer[/bold] wrote: The Council Had A Meeting With Police And Taxi Drivers A Few Years Ago And Ask Police To Cut Down On Taxi Laws. In 2006 I Had A Bad Premonition About My Wife Being Attacked By Taxi Driver,But How Could I Say Anything About It,We Had Split Up In 2004, Within 3 Months Of My Prem My Daughter Told Me A Taxi Driver Got Out Of Car Got In Back Of Car With Wife,She Jump Out Of Car Made A Racket It Was 2am And Went In Her Home,Never Told Police, What Could I Have Done.[/p][/quote]Laws are not made by the police. Donkey Stone
  • Score: 15

10:37am Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

Mick England wrote:
When will Bolton and other Councils tighten kebab shop regulations after Rochdale child sex ring scandal and the disappearance of Blackpool schoolgirls Charlene Downes and Paige Chivers, because lets face it kebab shops are another means for dirty old men with double standards to meet and groom white schoolgirls?
Why doesn't the government make checks on bus drivers compulsory, they carry both schoolchildren and vulnerable people.
[quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: When will Bolton and other Councils tighten kebab shop regulations after Rochdale child sex ring scandal and the disappearance of Blackpool schoolgirls Charlene Downes and Paige Chivers, because lets face it kebab shops are another means for dirty old men with double standards to meet and groom white schoolgirls?[/p][/quote]Why doesn't the government make checks on bus drivers compulsory, they carry both schoolchildren and vulnerable people. Donkey Stone
  • Score: 18

10:42am Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

After the Rochdale scandal how many licensing staff/administrators
/councillors have been held to account? I bet the answer is none.
After the Rochdale scandal how many licensing staff/administrators /councillors have been held to account? I bet the answer is none. Donkey Stone
  • Score: 19

10:44am Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

JustBecause wrote:
Though we had a few laws to cover this, its a pretty easy fix.

6 monthly checks on vehicles (full mot, and chargeable)
Full DBS check every year for all drivers.
More random and frequent checks.
More checks from HMRC

And the chairman of an association should can hardly be owner of a business in that sector!
We have these already, which I am sure I have told you before.
[quote][p][bold]JustBecause[/bold] wrote: Though we had a few laws to cover this, its a pretty easy fix. 6 monthly checks on vehicles (full mot, and chargeable) Full DBS check every year for all drivers. More random and frequent checks. More checks from HMRC And the chairman of an association should can hardly be owner of a business in that sector![/p][/quote]We have these already, which I am sure I have told you before. Donkey Stone
  • Score: 13

10:47am Wed 26 Feb 14

atlas123 says...

Things like having a slash in public (Metro)? And getting caught by google!

http://goo.gl/maps/Z
PYVa

Council didn't even bother to respond when reported to them!

Perhaps the BN would like to take it up and ask for a response from metro who's office is only about 500yrds from the location!
Things like having a slash in public (Metro)? And getting caught by google! http://goo.gl/maps/Z PYVa Council didn't even bother to respond when reported to them! Perhaps the BN would like to take it up and ask for a response from metro who's office is only about 500yrds from the location! atlas123
  • Score: 15

10:54am Wed 26 Feb 14

FreedomOfSpeech1945 says...

Metro cars are ****!
Metro cars are ****! FreedomOfSpeech1945
  • Score: 12

10:58am Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

Laws aren't made by anyone, legislation is and there is a big difference between what is lawful and legal and vica versa! When will people learn that we have a constitution which is Common Law or Tort Law that hasn't changed since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. Acts of Parliament or legislative law revert back to Maritime law (law of the sea) which is only given the force of law through the consent of the governed rather than each and every individual human being. Driving at 35mph in a 30 zone will never be unlawful but is illegal only if you consent that it is, only then can you be punished in a maritime court and be fined.
Laws aren't made by anyone, legislation is and there is a big difference between what is lawful and legal and vica versa! When will people learn that we have a constitution which is Common Law or Tort Law that hasn't changed since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. Acts of Parliament or legislative law revert back to Maritime law (law of the sea) which is only given the force of law through the consent of the governed rather than each and every individual human being. Driving at 35mph in a 30 zone will never be unlawful but is illegal only if you consent that it is, only then can you be punished in a maritime court and be fined. Mick England
  • Score: -7

11:41am Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

thomas222 wrote:
Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations?

Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
[quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid? The Righteous One
  • Score: -91

11:51am Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Donkey Stone wrote:
Mick England wrote:
When will Bolton and other Councils tighten kebab shop regulations after Rochdale child sex ring scandal and the disappearance of Blackpool schoolgirls Charlene Downes and Paige Chivers, because lets face it kebab shops are another means for dirty old men with double standards to meet and groom white schoolgirls?
Why doesn't the government make checks on bus drivers compulsory, they carry both schoolchildren and vulnerable people.
It for the Government to decide fro private bus companies.

As it stands, by law, if a driver whas any chance of a child being a customer then they have to have a full CRB check which approximately takes a month. ANd that is the same for most official jobs that does enatil having children as aprt fo their daily routine. Erstwhile other jobs do not have to comply, but many, not all, do so voluntarily.

Even in my job, which if predominantly office based, I had to have a full CRB check, mainly because the company does have groups of "children" visiting the office!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: When will Bolton and other Councils tighten kebab shop regulations after Rochdale child sex ring scandal and the disappearance of Blackpool schoolgirls Charlene Downes and Paige Chivers, because lets face it kebab shops are another means for dirty old men with double standards to meet and groom white schoolgirls?[/p][/quote]Why doesn't the government make checks on bus drivers compulsory, they carry both schoolchildren and vulnerable people.[/p][/quote]It for the Government to decide fro private bus companies. As it stands, by law, if a driver whas any chance of a child being a customer then they have to have a full CRB check which approximately takes a month. ANd that is the same for most official jobs that does enatil having children as aprt fo their daily routine. Erstwhile other jobs do not have to comply, but many, not all, do so voluntarily. Even in my job, which if predominantly office based, I had to have a full CRB check, mainly because the company does have groups of "children" visiting the office!!!! The Righteous One
  • Score: -50

11:57am Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Mick England wrote:
Laws aren't made by anyone, legislation is and there is a big difference between what is lawful and legal and vica versa! When will people learn that we have a constitution which is Common Law or Tort Law that hasn't changed since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. Acts of Parliament or legislative law revert back to Maritime law (law of the sea) which is only given the force of law through the consent of the governed rather than each and every individual human being. Driving at 35mph in a 30 zone will never be unlawful but is illegal only if you consent that it is, only then can you be punished in a maritime court and be fined.
Again, and I have asked this many times of you. Please provide proof that you have tried all of this and been successful without being fined!!!

Common Law/Tort Law does NOT cover anything of modern life and as such is as dead as the law with regards to eating hot cross buns on Easter Sunday or about slaying sheep and pigs in Churchgate - which have never been repealed - or even the corn laws!!!!

If we all followed the oudated Common Law then there would be nothing but mayhem and unruliness (if that is a word) and worst of all there would be no order, which we all need (whether we realise it or not!)
[quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: Laws aren't made by anyone, legislation is and there is a big difference between what is lawful and legal and vica versa! When will people learn that we have a constitution which is Common Law or Tort Law that hasn't changed since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. Acts of Parliament or legislative law revert back to Maritime law (law of the sea) which is only given the force of law through the consent of the governed rather than each and every individual human being. Driving at 35mph in a 30 zone will never be unlawful but is illegal only if you consent that it is, only then can you be punished in a maritime court and be fined.[/p][/quote]Again, and I have asked this many times of you. Please provide proof that you have tried all of this and been successful without being fined!!! Common Law/Tort Law does NOT cover anything of modern life and as such is as dead as the law with regards to eating hot cross buns on Easter Sunday or about slaying sheep and pigs in Churchgate - which have never been repealed - or even the corn laws!!!! If we all followed the oudated Common Law then there would be nothing but mayhem and unruliness (if that is a word) and worst of all there would be no order, which we all need (whether we realise it or not!) The Righteous One
  • Score: -44

12:08pm Wed 26 Feb 14

thomas222 says...

The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?[/p][/quote]The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have. thomas222
  • Score: -2

12:19pm Wed 26 Feb 14

boltonlife14 says...

most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!!
most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!! boltonlife14
  • Score: 6

12:25pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

boltonlife14 wrote:
most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!!
If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al!
[quote][p][bold]boltonlife14[/bold] wrote: most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!![/p][/quote]If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al! The Righteous One
  • Score: -71

12:27pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.
You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!!
[quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?[/p][/quote]The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.[/p][/quote]You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!! The Righteous One
  • Score: -8

12:27pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

The Righteous One wrote:
Mick England wrote:
Laws aren't made by anyone, legislation is and there is a big difference between what is lawful and legal and vica versa! When will people learn that we have a constitution which is Common Law or Tort Law that hasn't changed since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. Acts of Parliament or legislative law revert back to Maritime law (law of the sea) which is only given the force of law through the consent of the governed rather than each and every individual human being. Driving at 35mph in a 30 zone will never be unlawful but is illegal only if you consent that it is, only then can you be punished in a maritime court and be fined.
Again, and I have asked this many times of you. Please provide proof that you have tried all of this and been successful without being fined!!!

Common Law/Tort Law does NOT cover anything of modern life and as such is as dead as the law with regards to eating hot cross buns on Easter Sunday or about slaying sheep and pigs in Churchgate - which have never been repealed - or even the corn laws!!!!

If we all followed the oudated Common Law then there would be nothing but mayhem and unruliness (if that is a word) and worst of all there would be no order, which we all need (whether we realise it or not!)
Common law covers everything "don't cause injury, harm or loss to your fellow human beings and don't be fraudulent in your contracts" now you name a crime that the above doesn't cover?
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: Laws aren't made by anyone, legislation is and there is a big difference between what is lawful and legal and vica versa! When will people learn that we have a constitution which is Common Law or Tort Law that hasn't changed since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. Acts of Parliament or legislative law revert back to Maritime law (law of the sea) which is only given the force of law through the consent of the governed rather than each and every individual human being. Driving at 35mph in a 30 zone will never be unlawful but is illegal only if you consent that it is, only then can you be punished in a maritime court and be fined.[/p][/quote]Again, and I have asked this many times of you. Please provide proof that you have tried all of this and been successful without being fined!!! Common Law/Tort Law does NOT cover anything of modern life and as such is as dead as the law with regards to eating hot cross buns on Easter Sunday or about slaying sheep and pigs in Churchgate - which have never been repealed - or even the corn laws!!!! If we all followed the oudated Common Law then there would be nothing but mayhem and unruliness (if that is a word) and worst of all there would be no order, which we all need (whether we realise it or not!)[/p][/quote]Common law covers everything "don't cause injury, harm or loss to your fellow human beings and don't be fraudulent in your contracts" now you name a crime that the above doesn't cover? Mick England
  • Score: 4

12:28pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

Common law covers everything "don't cause injury, harm or loss to your fellow human beings and don't be fraudulent in your contracts" now you name a crime that the above doesn't cover?
Common law covers everything "don't cause injury, harm or loss to your fellow human beings and don't be fraudulent in your contracts" now you name a crime that the above doesn't cover? Mick England
  • Score: 1

12:30pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Mick England wrote:
Laws aren't made by anyone, legislation is and there is a big difference between what is lawful and legal and vica versa! When will people learn that we have a constitution which is Common Law or Tort Law that hasn't changed since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. Acts of Parliament or legislative law revert back to Maritime law (law of the sea) which is only given the force of law through the consent of the governed rather than each and every individual human being. Driving at 35mph in a 30 zone will never be unlawful but is illegal only if you consent that it is, only then can you be punished in a maritime court and be fined.
So basically what you are saying, if you are caught having sex with a under-age child then according to Common Law you haven't broken the law, because when that was created marriage, and consent, was allowed from a much earlier age (as there was no law)?
[quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: Laws aren't made by anyone, legislation is and there is a big difference between what is lawful and legal and vica versa! When will people learn that we have a constitution which is Common Law or Tort Law that hasn't changed since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. Acts of Parliament or legislative law revert back to Maritime law (law of the sea) which is only given the force of law through the consent of the governed rather than each and every individual human being. Driving at 35mph in a 30 zone will never be unlawful but is illegal only if you consent that it is, only then can you be punished in a maritime court and be fined.[/p][/quote]So basically what you are saying, if you are caught having sex with a under-age child then according to Common Law you haven't broken the law, because when that was created marriage, and consent, was allowed from a much earlier age (as there was no law)? The Righteous One
  • Score: -59

12:35pm Wed 26 Feb 14

thomas222 says...

The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.
You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!!
Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?[/p][/quote]The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.[/p][/quote]You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!![/p][/quote]Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want. thomas222
  • Score: 3

12:39pm Wed 26 Feb 14

cliff4treasurer says...

Asif Valli ? Am I not correct in remembering he had his license suspended not to long ago for infringing some rules or other?
Asif Valli ? Am I not correct in remembering he had his license suspended not to long ago for infringing some rules or other? cliff4treasurer
  • Score: 13

12:41pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

No because that would fall under injury or harm to the underage girl, therefore common law covers it.
.
Do you know who the ruler of this land is? Is it our commoners in Parliament, no its our Queen, and do you remember her coronation oath? When the queen made her coronation oath to do her duty to God, Country and its People it was to uphold True Law, which IS God Given Law, Natural Law, The Common Rights
& Freedoms Of The Peoples i.e "COMMON LAW"! Which IS
recognised, layed out and Sealed with the Royal Seal in
Constitutional Law.
.
The exchange between the Queen and the Archbishop was as
follows:
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly
promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa , Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them
belonging or pertaining, according to their respective
laws and customs?"
The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your
power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be
executed in all your judgments?"
The Queen: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the
utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and
the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the
utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom
the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the
settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine,
worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by
law established in England? And will you preserve
unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the
Churches there committed to their charge, all such
rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain
to them or any of them?"
The Queen: "All this I promise to do. The things which
I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep.
So help me God."
No because that would fall under injury or harm to the underage girl, therefore common law covers it. . Do you know who the ruler of this land is? Is it our commoners in Parliament, no its our Queen, and do you remember her coronation oath? When the queen made her coronation oath to do her duty to God, Country and its People it was to uphold True Law, which IS God Given Law, Natural Law, The Common Rights & Freedoms Of The Peoples i.e "COMMON LAW"! Which IS recognised, layed out and Sealed with the Royal Seal in Constitutional Law. . The exchange between the Queen and the Archbishop was as follows: The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa , Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?" The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do." The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?" The Queen: "I will." The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?" The Queen: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God." Mick England
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

And to add:- Under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (the founding
document of our Constitution) we have a right to enter into
lawful rebellion if we feel we are being governed unjustly.
Contrary to common belief our Sovereign and her
government are only there to govern us and not to rule us
and this must be done within the constraint of our
Common Law and the freedoms asserted to us by such Law,
nothing can become law in this country if it falls outside of
this simple constraint.
Article 61 shows quite clearly who really holds the power in
this country, that being quite simply us the people; we
have Sovereignty not any Parliament and nor can this be
taken from us by any Parliament who claim to have taken
the people’s Sovereignty. As defined above any act passed
by a Parliament to remove the power the people possess,
or to remove the power from the point of constraint we
invested the power in, is invalid as it falls outside of the
constraint laid down by Common/Constitutiona
l Law.
This is a simple safeguard put in place to protect our
freedoms under said law and to never allow such freedoms
to be removed or diminished. So in reality any Act, Statute
and subsequent law or legislation formed by these actions,
that effects our freedoms asserted to us, is quite evidently
unjust, invalid and most certainly illegal.
By invoking article 61 we are quite clearly stating that we
feel we are being governed unjustly and after giving the
head of state (Her Majesty) 40 day’s to correct this, if this
is not corrected, then we can simply enter into lawful
rebellion and we do this under the full protection of our
Constitutional Law.
Lawful rebellion allows quite simply for the following
recourse;
1. Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other
forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful
governance of this country.
2. Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory
Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful
governance that is in breech of the Constitutional
safeguard.
3. To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous
government of this land, who have breeched the
Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence
in anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by
Constitutional Law and Article 61.
Above are listed the three main ways we can as a people
rely upon article 61 and what this allows for. The British
people were given over 700 years ago a Law to use as there
recourse when faced with either a Parliamentary
dictatorship, or a Sovereign trying to rule by Divine Right,
which amounts to the same thing. We have a right, and a
birth right at that, to be governed properly under our birth
right law and no other and certainly not by laws introduced
on the pretence of being British Law, when in fact all laws
passed since 1973 have been European laws in the guise of
British law. We have a right to freedom within our true law
and no Parliament can remove this for they were not
present in its implementation nor did it need any
Parliament, or any Parliament involvement, this was quite
simply a deal struck between the people and a Sovereign, a
deal which can never be broken.
The traitors that reside in the Parliament of this country
only fear one thing and that quite simply is us the people
and they know that they can never defend themselves, or
defend their treasonous actions, lies and deceit against the
power of the people, asserted by and given by, the
founding document of our Constitution Magna Carta 1215.
They realize, as many others do, that once the British
public grasps the power of Magna Carta in both hands and
start to use it in their defense; their game is quite simply
up.
link. www.old.tpuc.org/nod
e/285
And to add:- Under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (the founding document of our Constitution) we have a right to enter into lawful rebellion if we feel we are being governed unjustly. Contrary to common belief our Sovereign and her government are only there to govern us and not to rule us and this must be done within the constraint of our Common Law and the freedoms asserted to us by such Law, nothing can become law in this country if it falls outside of this simple constraint. Article 61 shows quite clearly who really holds the power in this country, that being quite simply us the people; we have Sovereignty not any Parliament and nor can this be taken from us by any Parliament who claim to have taken the people’s Sovereignty. As defined above any act passed by a Parliament to remove the power the people possess, or to remove the power from the point of constraint we invested the power in, is invalid as it falls outside of the constraint laid down by Common/Constitutiona l Law. This is a simple safeguard put in place to protect our freedoms under said law and to never allow such freedoms to be removed or diminished. So in reality any Act, Statute and subsequent law or legislation formed by these actions, that effects our freedoms asserted to us, is quite evidently unjust, invalid and most certainly illegal. By invoking article 61 we are quite clearly stating that we feel we are being governed unjustly and after giving the head of state (Her Majesty) 40 day’s to correct this, if this is not corrected, then we can simply enter into lawful rebellion and we do this under the full protection of our Constitutional Law. Lawful rebellion allows quite simply for the following recourse; 1. Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country. 2. Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that is in breech of the Constitutional safeguard. 3. To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land, who have breeched the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61. Above are listed the three main ways we can as a people rely upon article 61 and what this allows for. The British people were given over 700 years ago a Law to use as there recourse when faced with either a Parliamentary dictatorship, or a Sovereign trying to rule by Divine Right, which amounts to the same thing. We have a right, and a birth right at that, to be governed properly under our birth right law and no other and certainly not by laws introduced on the pretence of being British Law, when in fact all laws passed since 1973 have been European laws in the guise of British law. We have a right to freedom within our true law and no Parliament can remove this for they were not present in its implementation nor did it need any Parliament, or any Parliament involvement, this was quite simply a deal struck between the people and a Sovereign, a deal which can never be broken. The traitors that reside in the Parliament of this country only fear one thing and that quite simply is us the people and they know that they can never defend themselves, or defend their treasonous actions, lies and deceit against the power of the people, asserted by and given by, the founding document of our Constitution Magna Carta 1215. They realize, as many others do, that once the British public grasps the power of Magna Carta in both hands and start to use it in their defense; their game is quite simply up. link. www.old.tpuc.org/nod e/285 Mick England
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Mick England wrote:
No because that would fall under injury or harm to the underage girl, therefore common law covers it.
.
Do you know who the ruler of this land is? Is it our commoners in Parliament, no its our Queen, and do you remember her coronation oath? When the queen made her coronation oath to do her duty to God, Country and its People it was to uphold True Law, which IS God Given Law, Natural Law, The Common Rights
& Freedoms Of The Peoples i.e "COMMON LAW"! Which IS
recognised, layed out and Sealed with the Royal Seal in
Constitutional Law.
.
The exchange between the Queen and the Archbishop was as
follows:
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly
promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa , Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them
belonging or pertaining, according to their respective
laws and customs?"
The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your
power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be
executed in all your judgments?"
The Queen: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the
utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and
the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the
utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom
the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the
settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine,
worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by
law established in England? And will you preserve
unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the
Churches there committed to their charge, all such
rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain
to them or any of them?"
The Queen: "All this I promise to do. The things which
I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep.
So help me God."
As I say I really do want to see you in court claiming Common Law rights and see how far you actually get.

If you do win, then can we balme you for teh lawlessness that will eventually happen in the UK as people will see the so-called law as a farce and then do whatever they want and claim Common Law protection!!!!!

In fact ALL Immigrants, if you want, can claim Common Law in being here as they are not going against the law!!!!!!!


As I say Common law does not fit in with today's society.
[quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: No because that would fall under injury or harm to the underage girl, therefore common law covers it. . Do you know who the ruler of this land is? Is it our commoners in Parliament, no its our Queen, and do you remember her coronation oath? When the queen made her coronation oath to do her duty to God, Country and its People it was to uphold True Law, which IS God Given Law, Natural Law, The Common Rights & Freedoms Of The Peoples i.e "COMMON LAW"! Which IS recognised, layed out and Sealed with the Royal Seal in Constitutional Law. . The exchange between the Queen and the Archbishop was as follows: The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa , Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?" The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do." The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?" The Queen: "I will." The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?" The Queen: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."[/p][/quote]As I say I really do want to see you in court claiming Common Law rights and see how far you actually get. If you do win, then can we balme you for teh lawlessness that will eventually happen in the UK as people will see the so-called law as a farce and then do whatever they want and claim Common Law protection!!!!! In fact ALL Immigrants, if you want, can claim Common Law in being here as they are not going against the law!!!!!!! As I say Common law does not fit in with today's society. The Righteous One
  • Score: 1

12:52pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.
You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!!
Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.
So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker?

Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language?

And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!!
[quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?[/p][/quote]The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.[/p][/quote]You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!![/p][/quote]Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.[/p][/quote]So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker? Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language? And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!! The Righteous One
  • Score: -49

12:58pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

If a judge is acting on his/her oath they can only deal with you under our constitutional law (common law)
.
Judicial oath
"I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and
truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. "
.
Is it clear now?
If a judge is acting on his/her oath they can only deal with you under our constitutional law (common law) . Judicial oath "I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. " . Is it clear now? Mick England
  • Score: 2

1:03pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

In every court in our land fixed above the judges head is the motto " Dieu et mon droit" which means "divine right of the
Monarch to govern" and not divine right of our treasonous government to extract money from you by making acts of parliament!
In every court in our land fixed above the judges head is the motto " Dieu et mon droit" which means "divine right of the Monarch to govern" and not divine right of our treasonous government to extract money from you by making acts of parliament! Mick England
  • Score: 3

1:08pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

The Righteous One wrote:
Mick England wrote:
No because that would fall under injury or harm to the underage girl, therefore common law covers it.
.
Do you know who the ruler of this land is? Is it our commoners in Parliament, no its our Queen, and do you remember her coronation oath? When the queen made her coronation oath to do her duty to God, Country and its People it was to uphold True Law, which IS God Given Law, Natural Law, The Common Rights
& Freedoms Of The Peoples i.e "COMMON LAW"! Which IS
recognised, layed out and Sealed with the Royal Seal in
Constitutional Law.
.
The exchange between the Queen and the Archbishop was as
follows:
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly
promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa , Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them
belonging or pertaining, according to their respective
laws and customs?"
The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your
power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be
executed in all your judgments?"
The Queen: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the
utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and
the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the
utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom
the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the
settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine,
worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by
law established in England? And will you preserve
unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the
Churches there committed to their charge, all such
rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain
to them or any of them?"
The Queen: "All this I promise to do. The things which
I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep.
So help me God."
As I say I really do want to see you in court claiming Common Law rights and see how far you actually get.

If you do win, then can we balme you for teh lawlessness that will eventually happen in the UK as people will see the so-called law as a farce and then do whatever they want and claim Common Law protection!!!!!

In fact ALL Immigrants, if you want, can claim Common Law in being here as they are not going against the law!!!!!!!


As I say Common law does not fit in with today's society.
But its ok for some to claim sharia law, and have multiple wives which is against the law, and halal slaughtered meat which is also against our law? Did you know we have over 100 sharia courts in England, that go against the grain of our laws and statutesM
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: No because that would fall under injury or harm to the underage girl, therefore common law covers it. . Do you know who the ruler of this land is? Is it our commoners in Parliament, no its our Queen, and do you remember her coronation oath? When the queen made her coronation oath to do her duty to God, Country and its People it was to uphold True Law, which IS God Given Law, Natural Law, The Common Rights & Freedoms Of The Peoples i.e "COMMON LAW"! Which IS recognised, layed out and Sealed with the Royal Seal in Constitutional Law. . The exchange between the Queen and the Archbishop was as follows: The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa , Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?" The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do." The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?" The Queen: "I will." The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?" The Queen: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."[/p][/quote]As I say I really do want to see you in court claiming Common Law rights and see how far you actually get. If you do win, then can we balme you for teh lawlessness that will eventually happen in the UK as people will see the so-called law as a farce and then do whatever they want and claim Common Law protection!!!!! In fact ALL Immigrants, if you want, can claim Common Law in being here as they are not going against the law!!!!!!! As I say Common law does not fit in with today's society.[/p][/quote]But its ok for some to claim sharia law, and have multiple wives which is against the law, and halal slaughtered meat which is also against our law? Did you know we have over 100 sharia courts in England, that go against the grain of our laws and statutesM Mick England
  • Score: 3

1:11pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

The Righteous One wrote:
Mick England wrote:
No because that would fall under injury or harm to the underage girl, therefore common law covers it.
.
Do you know who the ruler of this land is? Is it our commoners in Parliament, no its our Queen, and do you remember her coronation oath? When the queen made her coronation oath to do her duty to God, Country and its People it was to uphold True Law, which IS God Given Law, Natural Law, The Common Rights
& Freedoms Of The Peoples i.e "COMMON LAW"! Which IS
recognised, layed out and Sealed with the Royal Seal in
Constitutional Law.
.
The exchange between the Queen and the Archbishop was as
follows:
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly
promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa , Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them
belonging or pertaining, according to their respective
laws and customs?"
The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your
power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be
executed in all your judgments?"
The Queen: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the
utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and
the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the
utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom
the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the
settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine,
worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by
law established in England? And will you preserve
unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the
Churches there committed to their charge, all such
rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain
to them or any of them?"
The Queen: "All this I promise to do. The things which
I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep.
So help me God."
As I say I really do want to see you in court claiming Common Law rights and see how far you actually get.

If you do win, then can we balme you for teh lawlessness that will eventually happen in the UK as people will see the so-called law as a farce and then do whatever they want and claim Common Law protection!!!!!

In fact ALL Immigrants, if you want, can claim Common Law in being here as they are not going against the law!!!!!!!


As I say Common law does not fit in with today's society.
Whether it fits or not, we still are a common law jurisdiction and unless our present or any future monarch scrap it you are a human being on the land of common law!
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: No because that would fall under injury or harm to the underage girl, therefore common law covers it. . Do you know who the ruler of this land is? Is it our commoners in Parliament, no its our Queen, and do you remember her coronation oath? When the queen made her coronation oath to do her duty to God, Country and its People it was to uphold True Law, which IS God Given Law, Natural Law, The Common Rights & Freedoms Of The Peoples i.e "COMMON LAW"! Which IS recognised, layed out and Sealed with the Royal Seal in Constitutional Law. . The exchange between the Queen and the Archbishop was as follows: The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa , Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?" The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do." The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?" The Queen: "I will." The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?" The Queen: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."[/p][/quote]As I say I really do want to see you in court claiming Common Law rights and see how far you actually get. If you do win, then can we balme you for teh lawlessness that will eventually happen in the UK as people will see the so-called law as a farce and then do whatever they want and claim Common Law protection!!!!! In fact ALL Immigrants, if you want, can claim Common Law in being here as they are not going against the law!!!!!!! As I say Common law does not fit in with today's society.[/p][/quote]Whether it fits or not, we still are a common law jurisdiction and unless our present or any future monarch scrap it you are a human being on the land of common law! Mick England
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Mick

You are in the minority and no matter whether you belive your principle to be right or not - the majority will just laugh at you (like they do with me and my beliefs)

Fact is if you were to go to court would you uphold your beliefs and claim Common Law - and if you did what do you think would happen to you?
Mick You are in the minority and no matter whether you belive your principle to be right or not - the majority will just laugh at you (like they do with me and my beliefs) Fact is if you were to go to court would you uphold your beliefs and claim Common Law - and if you did what do you think would happen to you? The Righteous One
  • Score: -74

1:29pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

I haven't been to court and don't intend doing so now, so don't laugh at me because I'm a fool, the real fools who don't understand their individual human rights and what the judicial system of the country in which they reside is, are the ones to laugh at! Haha haha haha heres laughing at you!
I haven't been to court and don't intend doing so now, so don't laugh at me because I'm a fool, the real fools who don't understand their individual human rights and what the judicial system of the country in which they reside is, are the ones to laugh at! Haha haha haha heres laughing at you! Mick England
  • Score: -1

1:31pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

I'm through laughing now just research it yourself and get wise to the governmental traitors who hold the Queen captive in her realm.
I'm through laughing now just research it yourself and get wise to the governmental traitors who hold the Queen captive in her realm. Mick England
  • Score: 1

1:33pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

The Righteous One wrote:
boltonlife14 wrote:
most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!!
If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al!
You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boltonlife14[/bold] wrote: most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!![/p][/quote]If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al![/p][/quote]You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault. Donkey Stone
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

PLEASE READ THIS!
.
Statutes
All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as
legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes
are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’
barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation
would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are
distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law - and for a
purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are
different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be
called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the
distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act
of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word
law – that will give you the first clue that there is a
difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between
statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this
knowledge for their personal benefit.
A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society –
they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society.
Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this
is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong
to society as a matter of choice.
The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law
applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour
one sector of society over others, for example, people with
disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which
is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves
special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us
do not have (which is outrageous).
There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our
freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace
and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with
laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not
respect the law then it can afford you no protection.
Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any
individual can withdraw their consent to being governed
(controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve
their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits,
but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the
benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The
choice is and should be yours.
Consent must be given by the individual and not by a
collective on behalf of the individual – this would be
dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having
to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the
absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is
the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.
Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they
frequently like to claim.
The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office)
is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being
governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without
consent, authority enforced becomes power and
government then becomes tyrannical. We never give
‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to
act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly
mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the
principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for
themselves.
The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion –
we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of
politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against
the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right - and the
means by which we deal with the abuse of office.
A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the
law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It
is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they
make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and
statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-
the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are
laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as
such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in
its duty to maintain and understand the distinction
between laws and statutes – through ignorance - but also
because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’
profession enhanced authority – why would they promote
knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do
so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the
court system – with magistrates (our representatives)
having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate
Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made
subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court.
This was a power-grab statute.
Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of
society are given preferable treatment under statutes.
Politicians for example have given themselves pension
provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU
common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land
owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on
double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when
they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work).
Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks
being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will
often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way
of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank
you’ for passing preferential legislation. A
disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the
Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks.
Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in
mind.
If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to
Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent
because such an act is unlawful.
It has become the habit of the legal profession to
describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how
entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not
laws.
If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive,
onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right
to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a
duty to do so in order to defend themselves against
tyrannical power.
Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair
and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries)
statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work
against the wider interest of the community and invariable
benefit small sections of society. During these times these
groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have
accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.
Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling
class do not like ordinary people having too many
freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to
rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict
more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep
control.
Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.
Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.
Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair,
unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.
We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.
Law
Law refers to common law.
Laws are always just – they protect our rights and
freedoms.
Law is based on principles – statutes are based on
practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.
Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of
time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.
Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in
statute they remain in force in law.
Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.
Laws are used to keep the peace.
Without law we have anarchy.
The people make the law – by acceptance and validation
by jury decisions.
Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us
all.
Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.
Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation
and keep a record of laws.
Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the
legal profession are not even taught about our constitution
– that should tell you all you need to know about where this
is taking us.
Courts, Judges & Juries
If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an
offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty –
that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden
to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than
a judge in the handing down of justice.
Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and
have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole
jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is
our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us
from arbitrary power and bent judges.
Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to
be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the
authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury –
which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the
potential of themselves being its victim) would find the
defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This
is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.
Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal
profession have been heard to take a contrary view... but
common sense tells us that common law is and must be
superior. If a government passed legislation making itself
permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did)
– the people could act on their common law right to
withdraw their consent to being governed – putting
government back in its box - common law thus trumping a
statute. (Common sense).
The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath
the law.
A jury can stand in judgement of anybody... nobody is
above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)
If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it
is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are
able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over
government.
A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try
but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must
not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give
direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is
entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its
own mind up and not be lead by a judge.
The people make the law through the validation or the
rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old
established laws through their verdicts.
Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary
power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right
and are protected by our constitution - they cannot be
tampered with by government, although it has done so,
their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is
unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are
desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure
more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a
blatant power grab by the political establishment... which
we must challenge.
Magistrates Courts have become statute courts... mostly
ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We
must enter these courts and claim back our common law
rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous
regulations. We do this by claiming common law
jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw
back our power from the government. Governments use the
court system to enforce its control.
Magistrates and judges make rulings on their
interpretation of statutes and laws - their decisions are not
always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their
interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.
Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the
legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any
real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited
discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in
large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by
Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed
upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not
lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) –
withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our
law (specifically - the Petition and Declaration of Rights)
forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The
Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had
‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see
30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.
Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be
returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the
authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be
abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.
If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable)
rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.
The courts belong to the people - they do not belong to
the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal
advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have
forgotten or probably never knew this.
Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the
government) in our courts. The courts do not get their
authority from the government. Magistrates and judges
give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect
submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t
forget that.
Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we
can be represented - (they certainly try). The ‘right of
audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court
(but denied to you and I) - is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us,
unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the
legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’
The courts are there to serve the interest of justice...
they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We
need to get them working in the interest of justice for the
majority, not as revenue collection agencies for the ruling
elite.
In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to
appeal... without any reason given. This projects the case
into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.
The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a
deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common
law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and
dangerous) wedge.
In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes
cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant.
The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus
converting the court back to a statute court (also called an
admiralty court).
You do not need permission to claim common law rights
– you declare them – it is your right to do so.
If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in
court – they are in contempt of court... and that includes
judges.
Consent
Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance
of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their
assumption of the existence of the authority of others over
them. If the people found out that they can reject
oppressive statutes... by withholding their consent - the
ruling class would panic – because they would lose control.
Watch this space.
A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in
anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back
to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as
a consequence of our greater understanding of the
difference between laws and statutes.
The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is
unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which
guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the
political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey
our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them
invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law
then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes...
all of their statutes... including the ones giving them the
authority to tax us.
This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European
Union – because membership is determined by consent and
I am withholding my consent to being governed by a
foreign power.
Government
Governments do not make, nor can they change laws.
They make and change legislation.
Governments are not above the law (they clearly think
they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt
from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is
probable that because they know they are above statutes
(which they are – they make them) that they have come to
assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how
important it is to know the difference.
KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it.
This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is
opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has
reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to
override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of
the governing elite... but only because we allow it. Our
freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to
defend them when they are being snatched from us from
right under our noses.
.
www.thebcgroup.org.u
k/article/living-rul
e-law
PLEASE READ THIS! . Statutes All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law - and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit. A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice. The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous). There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection. Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours. Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms. Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim. The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves. The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right - and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office. A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in- the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance - but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute. Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work). Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind. If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful. It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws. If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power. Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense. Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control. Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation. Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control. Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian. We are all equal in the eyes of the law. We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes. Law Law refers to common law. Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms. Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed. Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim. Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law. Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation. Laws are used to keep the peace. Without law we have anarchy. The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions. Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all. Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation. Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws. Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us. Courts, Judges & Juries If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice. Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges. Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people. Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view... but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box - common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense). The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law. A jury can stand in judgement of anybody... nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.) If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government. A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge. The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts. Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution - they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment... which we must challenge. Magistrates Courts have become statute courts... mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control. Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws - their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair. Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically - the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful. Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression. If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court. The courts belong to the people - they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this. Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that. Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented - (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) - is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’ The courts are there to serve the interest of justice... they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite. In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal... without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available. The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge. In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court). You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so. If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court... and that includes judges. Consent Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes... by withholding their consent - the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control. Watch this space. A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes. The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes... all of their statutes... including the ones giving them the authority to tax us. This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European Union – because membership is determined by consent and I am withholding my consent to being governed by a foreign power. Government Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation. Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference. KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it. This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of the governing elite... but only because we allow it. Our freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to defend them when they are being snatched from us from right under our noses. . www.thebcgroup.org.u k/article/living-rul e-law Mick England
  • Score: 1

1:40pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.
You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!!
It is surely the job of the police to gather evidence. If they don't then what do they present in court? Why would we have detectives?
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?[/p][/quote]The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.[/p][/quote]You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!![/p][/quote]It is surely the job of the police to gather evidence. If they don't then what do they present in court? Why would we have detectives? Donkey Stone
  • Score: 2

1:43pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.
You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!!
It is surely the job of the police to gather evidence. If they don't then what do they present in court? Why would we have detectives?
Because they just cannot arrest people without any evidence to begin with and that normally comes in the form of actual proof from either cameras, or multiple witnesses!!! A single person just saying something is nowhere near strong enough to create suspicion - otherwise we would all be calling the police to have people arrested over nothing.
[quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?[/p][/quote]The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.[/p][/quote]You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!![/p][/quote]It is surely the job of the police to gather evidence. If they don't then what do they present in court? Why would we have detectives?[/p][/quote]Because they just cannot arrest people without any evidence to begin with and that normally comes in the form of actual proof from either cameras, or multiple witnesses!!! A single person just saying something is nowhere near strong enough to create suspicion - otherwise we would all be calling the police to have people arrested over nothing. The Righteous One
  • Score: -44

1:48pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
boltonlife14 wrote:
most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!!
If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al!
You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.
By law if asked the driver has to show their ID!

Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers

As I have already said.

So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not?

There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by.

Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes!
[quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boltonlife14[/bold] wrote: most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!![/p][/quote]If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al![/p][/quote]You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.[/p][/quote]By law if asked the driver has to show their ID! Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers As I have already said. So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not? There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by. Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes! The Righteous One
  • Score: -30

2:02pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

The Righteous One wrote:
Mick

You are in the minority and no matter whether you belive your principle to be right or not - the majority will just laugh at you (like they do with me and my beliefs)

Fact is if you were to go to court would you uphold your beliefs and claim Common Law - and if you did what do you think would happen to you?
Just read the long article I have posted, the link is there too. All will hopefully make sense and the answers to your many questions are within that post.
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: Mick You are in the minority and no matter whether you belive your principle to be right or not - the majority will just laugh at you (like they do with me and my beliefs) Fact is if you were to go to court would you uphold your beliefs and claim Common Law - and if you did what do you think would happen to you?[/p][/quote]Just read the long article I have posted, the link is there too. All will hopefully make sense and the answers to your many questions are within that post. Mick England
  • Score: -1

2:05pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

The Righteous One wrote:
Mick

You are in the minority and no matter whether you belive your principle to be right or not - the majority will just laugh at you (like they do with me and my beliefs)

Fact is if you were to go to court would you uphold your beliefs and claim Common Law - and if you did what do you think would happen to you?
My comments aren't my beliefs they are our constitution, just read the long post and all will make sense I hope.
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: Mick You are in the minority and no matter whether you belive your principle to be right or not - the majority will just laugh at you (like they do with me and my beliefs) Fact is if you were to go to court would you uphold your beliefs and claim Common Law - and if you did what do you think would happen to you?[/p][/quote]My comments aren't my beliefs they are our constitution, just read the long post and all will make sense I hope. Mick England
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

My comments aren't my beliefs they are our constitution, just read the long post and all will make sense I hope.
My comments aren't my beliefs they are our constitution, just read the long post and all will make sense I hope. Mick England
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

They are PART of the constitution, but as the British Constitution is not a written document, unlike for most other countries, it is quite liquid and can be added to or taken from at a more or less drop of a hat!
They are PART of the constitution, but as the British Constitution is not a written document, unlike for most other countries, it is quite liquid and can be added to or taken from at a more or less drop of a hat! The Righteous One
  • Score: -45

2:39pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

The British Constitution is not, as it is in many countries, a
‘written constitution’. It is not codified in a single
document but is made up of a complex web of statutes,
conventions, and a corpus of common and other law. It is
also informed by an interweaving of history and more
modern democratic principles. The legal premise of the
United Kingdom constitution – that the UK parliament is
sovereign – is a fundamental part of our constitutional
arrangements. This means that an Act of Parliament must
be obeyed by the courts, that later acts prevail over earlier
ones, and that the rules made by external bodies cannot
override Acts of Parliament.
The Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta are important
elements of our constitution. Magna Carta is Primary
legislation and has the same status as any other legislation
and is not immune from repeal or amendment. The same
applies to the Bill of Rights which was an ordinary Act of
Parliament passed in the ordinary way.
This statement is untrue - it is a political interpretation,
with a political agenda. It is designed to nullify our
Constitution and the protections it provides.
The first line, for example, states that the British
Constitution is "unwritten." This is untrue, often repeated
and unqualified in the press. It is strange that the Ministry
of Justice would make such a statement, since the British
Constitution is the basis for many of the world's
constitutions, including those of the United States, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand and India.
It is worth quoting U.S. President John Adams here,
because he makes a few points to which we should pay
close attention. Discussing the British Parliament and
Constitution, he wrote:
“ If the people are not equitably represented in the house of
commons, this is a departure in practice from the theory.
— If the lords return members of the house of commons,
this is an additional disturbance of the balance: whether
the crown and the people in such a case will not see the
necessity of uniting in a remedy, are questions beyond my
pretensions: I only contend that the English constitution is,
in theory, the most stupendous fabrick of human invention,
both for the adjustment of the balance, and the prevention
of its vibrations; and that the Americans ought to be
applauded instead of censured, for imitating it, as far as
they have. Not the formation of languages, not the whole
art of navigation and ship building, does more honour to
the human understanding than this system of government.
So what is this Constitution that the Ministry of Justice
denies, and yet was held in high regard by one of the
authors of the American constitution? Why would they wish
to brush it under the carpet? Could it be that it has been
treasonously and unlawfully undermined?
The British Constitution is not, as it is in many countries, a ‘written constitution’. It is not codified in a single document but is made up of a complex web of statutes, conventions, and a corpus of common and other law. It is also informed by an interweaving of history and more modern democratic principles. The legal premise of the United Kingdom constitution – that the UK parliament is sovereign – is a fundamental part of our constitutional arrangements. This means that an Act of Parliament must be obeyed by the courts, that later acts prevail over earlier ones, and that the rules made by external bodies cannot override Acts of Parliament. The Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta are important elements of our constitution. Magna Carta is Primary legislation and has the same status as any other legislation and is not immune from repeal or amendment. The same applies to the Bill of Rights which was an ordinary Act of Parliament passed in the ordinary way. This statement is untrue - it is a political interpretation, with a political agenda. It is designed to nullify our Constitution and the protections it provides. The first line, for example, states that the British Constitution is "unwritten." This is untrue, often repeated and unqualified in the press. It is strange that the Ministry of Justice would make such a statement, since the British Constitution is the basis for many of the world's constitutions, including those of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. It is worth quoting U.S. President John Adams here, because he makes a few points to which we should pay close attention. Discussing the British Parliament and Constitution, he wrote: “ If the people are not equitably represented in the house of commons, this is a departure in practice from the theory. — If the lords return members of the house of commons, this is an additional disturbance of the balance: whether the crown and the people in such a case will not see the necessity of uniting in a remedy, are questions beyond my pretensions: I only contend that the English constitution is, in theory, the most stupendous fabrick of human invention, both for the adjustment of the balance, and the prevention of its vibrations; and that the Americans ought to be applauded instead of censured, for imitating it, as far as they have. Not the formation of languages, not the whole art of navigation and ship building, does more honour to the human understanding than this system of government. So what is this Constitution that the Ministry of Justice denies, and yet was held in high regard by one of the authors of the American constitution? Why would they wish to brush it under the carpet? Could it be that it has been treasonously and unlawfully undermined? Mick England
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
boltonlife14 wrote:
most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!!
If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al!
You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.
By law if asked the driver has to show their ID!

Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers

As I have already said.

So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not?

There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by.

Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes!
Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boltonlife14[/bold] wrote: most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!![/p][/quote]If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al![/p][/quote]You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.[/p][/quote]By law if asked the driver has to show their ID! Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers As I have already said. So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not? There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by. Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes![/p][/quote]Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws. Donkey Stone
  • Score: 2

2:53pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

If the USA's 2nd President, John Adams, held the British Constitution in such high esteem, then why did he not "fight" to change the US Constitution to be similar?

As it is the US Constitution is far more unlike the British due to the lack of liquidity and hence as to why the US conflicts itself all the time (especially with the gun laws!!!!!)
If the USA's 2nd President, John Adams, held the British Constitution in such high esteem, then why did he not "fight" to change the US Constitution to be similar? As it is the US Constitution is far more unlike the British due to the lack of liquidity and hence as to why the US conflicts itself all the time (especially with the gun laws!!!!!) The Righteous One
  • Score: -48

2:53pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

Our courts impose their will on us using the ‘legal fiction’ and it is
through this imposition that governments are able to control every facet of our lives. Without the ‘legal fiction’ governments and an array of authorities have no power over us whatsoever and with this in mind it is perfectly clear that understanding the ‘legal fiction’ is a prerequisite to understanding how the world around us really works as distinct from how we think it does. Knowledge and understanding of the legal fiction is the first step on the road of freedom. Get to know who your Strawman really is!
Our courts impose their will on us using the ‘legal fiction’ and it is through this imposition that governments are able to control every facet of our lives. Without the ‘legal fiction’ governments and an array of authorities have no power over us whatsoever and with this in mind it is perfectly clear that understanding the ‘legal fiction’ is a prerequisite to understanding how the world around us really works as distinct from how we think it does. Knowledge and understanding of the legal fiction is the first step on the road of freedom. Get to know who your Strawman really is! Mick England
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

The Righteous One wrote:
If the USA's 2nd President, John Adams, held the British Constitution in such high esteem, then why did he not "fight" to change the US Constitution to be similar?

As it is the US Constitution is far more unlike the British due to the lack of liquidity and hence as to why the US conflicts itself all the time (especially with the gun laws!!!!!)
Because constitutional rights far outweigh legislative rights as with our constitutional rights, not one being on this earth can deny you them!
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: If the USA's 2nd President, John Adams, held the British Constitution in such high esteem, then why did he not "fight" to change the US Constitution to be similar? As it is the US Constitution is far more unlike the British due to the lack of liquidity and hence as to why the US conflicts itself all the time (especially with the gun laws!!!!!)[/p][/quote]Because constitutional rights far outweigh legislative rights as with our constitutional rights, not one being on this earth can deny you them! Mick England
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

The Righteous One wrote:
They are PART of the constitution, but as the British Constitution is not a written document, unlike for most other countries, it is quite liquid and can be added to or taken from at a more or less drop of a hat!
The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights are written and they form the majority of our constitution.
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: They are PART of the constitution, but as the British Constitution is not a written document, unlike for most other countries, it is quite liquid and can be added to or taken from at a more or less drop of a hat![/p][/quote]The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights are written and they form the majority of our constitution. Mick England
  • Score: 1

3:02pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
boltonlife14 wrote:
most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!!
If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al!
You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.
By law if asked the driver has to show their ID!

Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers

As I have already said.

So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not?

There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by.

Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes!
Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.
INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car.

Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent.

As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!!
Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use!
[quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boltonlife14[/bold] wrote: most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!![/p][/quote]If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al![/p][/quote]You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.[/p][/quote]By law if asked the driver has to show their ID! Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers As I have already said. So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not? There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by. Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes![/p][/quote]Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.[/p][/quote]INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car. Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent. As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!! Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use! The Righteous One
  • Score: -61

3:14pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
boltonlife14 wrote:
most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!!
If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al!
You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.
By law if asked the driver has to show their ID!

Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers

As I have already said.

So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not?

There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by.

Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes!
Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.
INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car.

Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent.

As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!!
Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use!
None of the above is law, it's legislation!
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boltonlife14[/bold] wrote: most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!![/p][/quote]If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al![/p][/quote]You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.[/p][/quote]By law if asked the driver has to show their ID! Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers As I have already said. So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not? There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by. Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes![/p][/quote]Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.[/p][/quote]INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car. Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent. As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!! Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use![/p][/quote]None of the above is law, it's legislation! Mick England
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Mick England wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
They are PART of the constitution, but as the British Constitution is not a written document, unlike for most other countries, it is quite liquid and can be added to or taken from at a more or less drop of a hat!
The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights are written and they form the majority of our constitution.
But as you say they are only PART of the Bfritish Constitution - but the constitution only became British - but as Britain doesn't actually exist materialistically as we are part of Britain/Great Britain (which also inludes Isle of Man, Ireland and the Channel Islands - don't they fall under the same constitution?) or are we speaking of United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for which this Constitution doesn't exist??? But then the question has to be asked as our monarchy is a hybrid of other European monarchies then doesn't that make our contitution a mockery of the present world as it would then also cover basically the whole of Europe and the old Commonwealth Empire!
[quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: They are PART of the constitution, but as the British Constitution is not a written document, unlike for most other countries, it is quite liquid and can be added to or taken from at a more or less drop of a hat![/p][/quote]The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights are written and they form the majority of our constitution.[/p][/quote]But as you say they are only PART of the Bfritish Constitution - but the constitution only became British - but as Britain doesn't actually exist materialistically as we are part of Britain/Great Britain (which also inludes Isle of Man, Ireland and the Channel Islands - don't they fall under the same constitution?) or are we speaking of United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for which this Constitution doesn't exist??? But then the question has to be asked as our monarchy is a hybrid of other European monarchies then doesn't that make our contitution a mockery of the present world as it would then also cover basically the whole of Europe and the old Commonwealth Empire! The Righteous One
  • Score: -60

3:22pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Mick England wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
boltonlife14 wrote:
most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!!
If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al!
You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.
By law if asked the driver has to show their ID!

Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers

As I have already said.

So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not?

There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by.

Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes!
Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.
INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car.

Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent.

As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!!
Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use!
None of the above is law, it's legislation!
Nope law, not legislation!
[quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boltonlife14[/bold] wrote: most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!![/p][/quote]If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al![/p][/quote]You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.[/p][/quote]By law if asked the driver has to show their ID! Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers As I have already said. So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not? There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by. Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes![/p][/quote]Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.[/p][/quote]INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car. Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent. As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!! Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use![/p][/quote]None of the above is law, it's legislation![/p][/quote]Nope law, not legislation! The Righteous One
  • Score: -37

3:29pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Mick England wrote:
Our courts impose their will on us using the ‘legal fiction’ and it is
through this imposition that governments are able to control every facet of our lives. Without the ‘legal fiction’ governments and an array of authorities have no power over us whatsoever and with this in mind it is perfectly clear that understanding the ‘legal fiction’ is a prerequisite to understanding how the world around us really works as distinct from how we think it does. Knowledge and understanding of the legal fiction is the first step on the road of freedom. Get to know who your Strawman really is!
Therefore what you are saying is, then, that we ought to go with the written word!

In that case isn't the Ten Commandments, actually older and, therefore, supercedes any future constitution because they are the word of God on how we should be!!!! And we know that God is higher that any power on this earth!
[quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: Our courts impose their will on us using the ‘legal fiction’ and it is through this imposition that governments are able to control every facet of our lives. Without the ‘legal fiction’ governments and an array of authorities have no power over us whatsoever and with this in mind it is perfectly clear that understanding the ‘legal fiction’ is a prerequisite to understanding how the world around us really works as distinct from how we think it does. Knowledge and understanding of the legal fiction is the first step on the road of freedom. Get to know who your Strawman really is![/p][/quote]Therefore what you are saying is, then, that we ought to go with the written word! In that case isn't the Ten Commandments, actually older and, therefore, supercedes any future constitution because they are the word of God on how we should be!!!! And we know that God is higher that any power on this earth! The Righteous One
  • Score: -48

3:32pm Wed 26 Feb 14

thomas222 says...

The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.
You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!!
Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.
So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker? Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language? And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!!
We are not talking about Holiday reps on Benidorm we are talking about people here working with peoples public health and safety & cant even read road signs or direction to take. If a English person goes to Wales they will speak in English generally. If they dont and prefer to speak Welsh as some do thats fine by me its their Country. Do you have any understanding of quality service. None give that they are all old bangers dropping to bits cars & driven by poor amabassadors for their own Companies reputaion.
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?[/p][/quote]The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.[/p][/quote]You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!![/p][/quote]Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.[/p][/quote]So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker? Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language? And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!![/p][/quote]We are not talking about Holiday reps on Benidorm we are talking about people here working with peoples public health and safety & cant even read road signs or direction to take. If a English person goes to Wales they will speak in English generally. If they dont and prefer to speak Welsh as some do thats fine by me its their Country. Do you have any understanding of quality service. None give that they are all old bangers dropping to bits cars & driven by poor amabassadors for their own Companies reputaion. thomas222
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.
You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!!
Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.
So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker? Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language? And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!!
We are not talking about Holiday reps on Benidorm we are talking about people here working with peoples public health and safety & cant even read road signs or direction to take. If a English person goes to Wales they will speak in English generally. If they dont and prefer to speak Welsh as some do thats fine by me its their Country. Do you have any understanding of quality service. None give that they are all old bangers dropping to bits cars & driven by poor amabassadors for their own Companies reputaion.
As I say, if you go to another country do YOU expect them to speak English or do they expect YOU to speak their language and it doesn't mean holiday reps - what about taxi drivers from airports, shop keepers, hotel staff, people you see in the street etc etc etc
[quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?[/p][/quote]The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.[/p][/quote]You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!![/p][/quote]Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.[/p][/quote]So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker? Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language? And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!![/p][/quote]We are not talking about Holiday reps on Benidorm we are talking about people here working with peoples public health and safety & cant even read road signs or direction to take. If a English person goes to Wales they will speak in English generally. If they dont and prefer to speak Welsh as some do thats fine by me its their Country. Do you have any understanding of quality service. None give that they are all old bangers dropping to bits cars & driven by poor amabassadors for their own Companies reputaion.[/p][/quote]As I say, if you go to another country do YOU expect them to speak English or do they expect YOU to speak their language and it doesn't mean holiday reps - what about taxi drivers from airports, shop keepers, hotel staff, people you see in the street etc etc etc The Righteous One
  • Score: -19

3:45pm Wed 26 Feb 14

thomas222 says...

The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.
You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!!
Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.
So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker? Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language? And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!!
We are not talking about Holiday reps on Benidorm we are talking about people here working with peoples public health and safety & cant even read road signs or direction to take. If a English person goes to Wales they will speak in English generally. If they dont and prefer to speak Welsh as some do thats fine by me its their Country. Do you have any understanding of quality service. None give that they are all old bangers dropping to bits cars & driven by poor amabassadors for their own Companies reputaion.
As I say, if you go to another country do YOU expect them to speak English or do they expect YOU to speak their language and it doesn't mean holiday reps - what about taxi drivers from airports, shop keepers, hotel staff, people you see in the street etc etc etc
Few Spanish drivers speak English though it has got more than it was & by the way you will never see a immigrant driving a Spanish taxi... The reason that drivers in other Countries find it useful to know English language is the most spoken language by many many Counties & in many is the first language also. Not to know the English Language in any tourism area or similar would mean you dont get the job generally.
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?[/p][/quote]The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.[/p][/quote]You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!![/p][/quote]Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.[/p][/quote]So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker? Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language? And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!![/p][/quote]We are not talking about Holiday reps on Benidorm we are talking about people here working with peoples public health and safety & cant even read road signs or direction to take. If a English person goes to Wales they will speak in English generally. If they dont and prefer to speak Welsh as some do thats fine by me its their Country. Do you have any understanding of quality service. None give that they are all old bangers dropping to bits cars & driven by poor amabassadors for their own Companies reputaion.[/p][/quote]As I say, if you go to another country do YOU expect them to speak English or do they expect YOU to speak their language and it doesn't mean holiday reps - what about taxi drivers from airports, shop keepers, hotel staff, people you see in the street etc etc etc[/p][/quote]Few Spanish drivers speak English though it has got more than it was & by the way you will never see a immigrant driving a Spanish taxi... The reason that drivers in other Countries find it useful to know English language is the most spoken language by many many Counties & in many is the first language also. Not to know the English Language in any tourism area or similar would mean you dont get the job generally. thomas222
  • Score: -1

3:50pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
boltonlife14 wrote:
most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!!
If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al!
You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.
By law if asked the driver has to show their ID!

Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers

As I have already said.

So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not?

There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by.

Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes!
Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.
INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car.

Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent.

As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!!
Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use!
My insurance says hire and reward AND social domestic and pleasure. You really know very little. Also (as I have pointed out to you before) the insurance company has to indemnify third parties,that means passengers and anyone else you may come into contact with. Just stick to watching the telly, you have no idea on Taxi/PH law.
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boltonlife14[/bold] wrote: most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!![/p][/quote]If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al![/p][/quote]You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.[/p][/quote]By law if asked the driver has to show their ID! Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers As I have already said. So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not? There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by. Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes![/p][/quote]Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.[/p][/quote]INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car. Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent. As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!! Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use![/p][/quote]My insurance says hire and reward AND social domestic and pleasure. You really know very little. Also (as I have pointed out to you before) the insurance company has to indemnify third parties,that means passengers and anyone else you may come into contact with. Just stick to watching the telly, you have no idea on Taxi/PH law. Donkey Stone
  • Score: 3

3:55pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

We once were ruled by the ten commandments and other Catholic books, scripts and texts, that was until Henry VIII told the Vatican to do one and formed his own church, the Church of England and the St James bible is the same one our Queen swore allegiance too the day she became Queen.
We once were ruled by the ten commandments and other Catholic books, scripts and texts, that was until Henry VIII told the Vatican to do one and formed his own church, the Church of England and the St James bible is the same one our Queen swore allegiance too the day she became Queen. Mick England
  • Score: 7

4:13pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mick England says...

Remember the Queens words when she pledged her oath were: - To maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
Remember the Queens words when she pledged her oath were: - To maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Mick England
  • Score: 9

4:30pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.
You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!!
Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.
So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker? Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language? And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!!
We are not talking about Holiday reps on Benidorm we are talking about people here working with peoples public health and safety & cant even read road signs or direction to take. If a English person goes to Wales they will speak in English generally. If they dont and prefer to speak Welsh as some do thats fine by me its their Country. Do you have any understanding of quality service. None give that they are all old bangers dropping to bits cars & driven by poor amabassadors for their own Companies reputaion.
As I say, if you go to another country do YOU expect them to speak English or do they expect YOU to speak their language and it doesn't mean holiday reps - what about taxi drivers from airports, shop keepers, hotel staff, people you see in the street etc etc etc
Few Spanish drivers speak English though it has got more than it was & by the way you will never see a immigrant driving a Spanish taxi... The reason that drivers in other Countries find it useful to know English language is the most spoken language by many many Counties & in many is the first language also. Not to know the English Language in any tourism area or similar would mean you dont get the job generally.
Pardon, meneer, zou u kunnen adviseren over waar de dichtstbijzijnde baan uitwisseling is, alstublieft.


Absolute garbage.

Did you know that tourism, in ay form, nowadays, needs a foreign language whether it be another European language or from further afield. Infact the more languages ones knows the better the pay and teh better the job opportunities not only here in the UK but overseas and in selling the UK. Just knowing English nowadays is very much ahrking back to the Empire days which are long gone - and in fact knowing English is a disadvantage, especially when dealing with tourists from the rest of the world!
[quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?[/p][/quote]The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.[/p][/quote]You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!![/p][/quote]Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.[/p][/quote]So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker? Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language? And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!![/p][/quote]We are not talking about Holiday reps on Benidorm we are talking about people here working with peoples public health and safety & cant even read road signs or direction to take. If a English person goes to Wales they will speak in English generally. If they dont and prefer to speak Welsh as some do thats fine by me its their Country. Do you have any understanding of quality service. None give that they are all old bangers dropping to bits cars & driven by poor amabassadors for their own Companies reputaion.[/p][/quote]As I say, if you go to another country do YOU expect them to speak English or do they expect YOU to speak their language and it doesn't mean holiday reps - what about taxi drivers from airports, shop keepers, hotel staff, people you see in the street etc etc etc[/p][/quote]Few Spanish drivers speak English though it has got more than it was & by the way you will never see a immigrant driving a Spanish taxi... The reason that drivers in other Countries find it useful to know English language is the most spoken language by many many Counties & in many is the first language also. Not to know the English Language in any tourism area or similar would mean you dont get the job generally.[/p][/quote]Pardon, meneer, zou u kunnen adviseren over waar de dichtstbijzijnde baan uitwisseling is, alstublieft. Absolute garbage. Did you know that tourism, in ay form, nowadays, needs a foreign language whether it be another European language or from further afield. Infact the more languages ones knows the better the pay and teh better the job opportunities not only here in the UK but overseas and in selling the UK. Just knowing English nowadays is very much ahrking back to the Empire days which are long gone - and in fact knowing English is a disadvantage, especially when dealing with tourists from the rest of the world! The Righteous One
  • Score: -8

4:50pm Wed 26 Feb 14

The Righteous One says...

Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
boltonlife14 wrote:
most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!!
If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al!
You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.
By law if asked the driver has to show their ID!

Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers

As I have already said.

So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not?

There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by.

Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes!
Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.
INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car.

Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent.

As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!!
Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use!
My insurance says hire and reward AND social domestic and pleasure. You really know very little. Also (as I have pointed out to you before) the insurance company has to indemnify third parties,that means passengers and anyone else you may come into contact with. Just stick to watching the telly, you have no idea on Taxi/PH law.
You'd better read the small print.

You can only carry passengers that have booked in advance - anyone else nullifies the insurance.

If it states personal (which i very much doubt) then I presume there are clauses as to what and what not should be installed when in personal use - as it is I knwo of no major insurance company that allows personal and business use for the same vehicle employed in the PH business!!!

As regards to the law with PH ID's I think you'd better refresh yourself as it is a law and you have to show it!!!
[quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boltonlife14[/bold] wrote: most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!![/p][/quote]If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al![/p][/quote]You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.[/p][/quote]By law if asked the driver has to show their ID! Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers As I have already said. So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not? There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by. Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes![/p][/quote]Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.[/p][/quote]INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car. Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent. As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!! Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use![/p][/quote]My insurance says hire and reward AND social domestic and pleasure. You really know very little. Also (as I have pointed out to you before) the insurance company has to indemnify third parties,that means passengers and anyone else you may come into contact with. Just stick to watching the telly, you have no idea on Taxi/PH law.[/p][/quote]You'd better read the small print. You can only carry passengers that have booked in advance - anyone else nullifies the insurance. If it states personal (which i very much doubt) then I presume there are clauses as to what and what not should be installed when in personal use - as it is I knwo of no major insurance company that allows personal and business use for the same vehicle employed in the PH business!!! As regards to the law with PH ID's I think you'd better refresh yourself as it is a law and you have to show it!!! The Righteous One
  • Score: -16

4:52pm Wed 26 Feb 14

owencoyle99 says...

Last time I used Metro taxis I had to wipe my feet getting out not going in the taxis are old and dirty
Come on Nick Peel get off your backside and check a few taxis - mainly Metro
Last time I used Metro taxis I had to wipe my feet getting out not going in the taxis are old and dirty Come on Nick Peel get off your backside and check a few taxis - mainly Metro owencoyle99
  • Score: 4

5:28pm Wed 26 Feb 14

thomas222 says...

The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
thomas222 wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.
Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?
The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.
You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!!
Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.
So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker? Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language? And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!!
We are not talking about Holiday reps on Benidorm we are talking about people here working with peoples public health and safety & cant even read road signs or direction to take. If a English person goes to Wales they will speak in English generally. If they dont and prefer to speak Welsh as some do thats fine by me its their Country. Do you have any understanding of quality service. None give that they are all old bangers dropping to bits cars & driven by poor amabassadors for their own Companies reputaion.
As I say, if you go to another country do YOU expect them to speak English or do they expect YOU to speak their language and it doesn't mean holiday reps - what about taxi drivers from airports, shop keepers, hotel staff, people you see in the street etc etc etc
Few Spanish drivers speak English though it has got more than it was & by the way you will never see a immigrant driving a Spanish taxi... The reason that drivers in other Countries find it useful to know English language is the most spoken language by many many Counties & in many is the first language also. Not to know the English Language in any tourism area or similar would mean you dont get the job generally.
Pardon, meneer, zou u kunnen adviseren over waar de dichtstbijzijnde baan uitwisseling is, alstublieft. Absolute garbage. Did you know that tourism, in ay form, nowadays, needs a foreign language whether it be another European language or from further afield. Infact the more languages ones knows the better the pay and teh better the job opportunities not only here in the UK but overseas and in selling the UK. Just knowing English nowadays is very much ahrking back to the Empire days which are long gone - and in fact knowing English is a disadvantage, especially when dealing with tourists from the rest of the world!
What language is the largest in the World On the Internet & what is the most common language spoken by most of the Worlds Countries. Most important Language one can have for people who are travelling around the World is English. : )
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thomas222[/bold] wrote: Criminality of all kinds are being done by many of these dodgy companies with the taxis used from drug running to cigartettes being smuggled. Needs to be overhauled & start again and get rid of the ones who cant speak English.[/p][/quote]Can you give the evidence of your allegations? Also, to be fair, I have had a couple of drivers whose command of English is poor but they have been the best drivers - so why get rid?[/p][/quote]The Police need evidence not me. I dont have to prove anything to anyone as i have seen it with my own eyes many times as many others have.[/p][/quote]You have made allegations without any proof - therefore evidence is required. Is it NOT down to the police to seek out the evidence of your allegations, as if they did, it could be classed as entrapment, which is illegal!!!![/p][/quote]Yes Police did do something. They arrested and stopped a dark spot near his house that was used by dealers of all kinds many Taxis from being used. The reason a person needs to speak English is because it is a job dealing with a English speaking client base who is paying for a service has the 100% right to insist that a English speaker is what they want.[/p][/quote]So what about dealing with somone who doesn't speak English - a visitor, a migrant worker, a holiday maker? Do you expect to have English speaking holiday reps when you go away on holiday or do they expect YOU to speak their language? And what if you go to Wales where there is a strong movement for its inhabitants to speak Welsh, and even learn it in school - and they have their own channel (S4C, S4C2)? So do they expect you to speak Welsh instead of English because you will be in their country!!![/p][/quote]We are not talking about Holiday reps on Benidorm we are talking about people here working with peoples public health and safety & cant even read road signs or direction to take. If a English person goes to Wales they will speak in English generally. If they dont and prefer to speak Welsh as some do thats fine by me its their Country. Do you have any understanding of quality service. None give that they are all old bangers dropping to bits cars & driven by poor amabassadors for their own Companies reputaion.[/p][/quote]As I say, if you go to another country do YOU expect them to speak English or do they expect YOU to speak their language and it doesn't mean holiday reps - what about taxi drivers from airports, shop keepers, hotel staff, people you see in the street etc etc etc[/p][/quote]Few Spanish drivers speak English though it has got more than it was & by the way you will never see a immigrant driving a Spanish taxi... The reason that drivers in other Countries find it useful to know English language is the most spoken language by many many Counties & in many is the first language also. Not to know the English Language in any tourism area or similar would mean you dont get the job generally.[/p][/quote]Pardon, meneer, zou u kunnen adviseren over waar de dichtstbijzijnde baan uitwisseling is, alstublieft. Absolute garbage. Did you know that tourism, in ay form, nowadays, needs a foreign language whether it be another European language or from further afield. Infact the more languages ones knows the better the pay and teh better the job opportunities not only here in the UK but overseas and in selling the UK. Just knowing English nowadays is very much ahrking back to the Empire days which are long gone - and in fact knowing English is a disadvantage, especially when dealing with tourists from the rest of the world![/p][/quote]What language is the largest in the World On the Internet & what is the most common language spoken by most of the Worlds Countries. Most important Language one can have for people who are travelling around the World is English. : ) thomas222
  • Score: 11

6:30pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Gore Seer says...

Donkey Stone wrote:
Gore Seer wrote:
The Council Had A Meeting With Police And Taxi Drivers A Few Years Ago And Ask Police To Cut Down On Taxi Laws. In 2006 I Had A Bad Premonition About My Wife Being Attacked By Taxi Driver,But How Could I Say Anything About It,We Had Split Up In 2004, Within 3 Months Of My Prem My Daughter Told Me A Taxi Driver Got Out Of Car Got In Back Of Car With Wife,She Jump Out Of Car Made A Racket It Was 2am And Went In Her Home,Never Told Police, What Could I Have Done.
Laws are not made by the police.
The Police Pick Which Laws To Enforce And Which To Relax,With The Help Of The Council It Was All In Bolton News Look It Up.
[quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gore Seer[/bold] wrote: The Council Had A Meeting With Police And Taxi Drivers A Few Years Ago And Ask Police To Cut Down On Taxi Laws. In 2006 I Had A Bad Premonition About My Wife Being Attacked By Taxi Driver,But How Could I Say Anything About It,We Had Split Up In 2004, Within 3 Months Of My Prem My Daughter Told Me A Taxi Driver Got Out Of Car Got In Back Of Car With Wife,She Jump Out Of Car Made A Racket It Was 2am And Went In Her Home,Never Told Police, What Could I Have Done.[/p][/quote]Laws are not made by the police.[/p][/quote]The Police Pick Which Laws To Enforce And Which To Relax,With The Help Of The Council It Was All In Bolton News Look It Up. Gore Seer
  • Score: -4

6:39pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

cliff4treasurer wrote:
Asif Valli ? Am I not correct in remembering he had his license suspended not to long ago for infringing some rules or other?
Yes you are.
[quote][p][bold]cliff4treasurer[/bold] wrote: Asif Valli ? Am I not correct in remembering he had his license suspended not to long ago for infringing some rules or other?[/p][/quote]Yes you are. Donkey Stone
  • Score: 12

6:45pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Donkey Stone says...

The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
Donkey Stone wrote:
The Righteous One wrote:
boltonlife14 wrote:
most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!!
If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al!
You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.
By law if asked the driver has to show their ID!

Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers

As I have already said.

So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not?

There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by.

Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes!
Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.
INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car.

Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent.

As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!!
Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use!
My insurance says hire and reward AND social domestic and pleasure. You really know very little. Also (as I have pointed out to you before) the insurance company has to indemnify third parties,that means passengers and anyone else you may come into contact with. Just stick to watching the telly, you have no idea on Taxi/PH law.
You'd better read the small print.

You can only carry passengers that have booked in advance - anyone else nullifies the insurance.

If it states personal (which i very much doubt) then I presume there are clauses as to what and what not should be installed when in personal use - as it is I knwo of no major insurance company that allows personal and business use for the same vehicle employed in the PH business!!!

As regards to the law with PH ID's I think you'd better refresh yourself as it is a law and you have to show it!!!
OK Goldmember, just stick to the Dutch waffle and the telly.
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Donkey Stone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boltonlife14[/bold] wrote: most of the time its not even the registered person driving the taxi, ask to see their taxi id card 90% of the time they refuse because its not even them!![/p][/quote]If they refuse, then you can, by law, call the police and actually make a citizens arrest as, by law, they are meant to show their ID card, or place it in a prominent position so that all passengers can see it with photo ID et al![/p][/quote]You seem to make up laws as you see fit.(the same as our councillors). Taxi & PH rules vary from one council to another they are not laws. In Bolton the rules say you have to wear your Taxi Badge. You have no right to try and enforce anything. The driver could construe that as an assault.[/p][/quote]By law if asked the driver has to show their ID! Also by law it has to be in a prominent place to be seen by passengers As I have already said. So If call at your house tonight saying I am from teh Gas company and I refuse to show you my ID, is that lawful or not? There was a series on BBC1 primetime recently which showed what rights we have a consumer, and it was on that show i found out about the laws private hire drivers have to abide by. Television does educate, if you watch the right programmes![/p][/quote]Your last line says it all. You are getting into someone elses property i.e. his car, so your gas man analogy means nothing. You can't distinguish between what are rules and what is actually law.As I said rules vary from one council to another, but they are not laws.[/p][/quote]INcorrect as you are NOT getting into someone's car. Whilst that person has PH licence number on his/her car and they are working and have meters fitted then it becomes the property of the company/business and as such, under current law, as with all Private Hires which have to be PRE-BOOKED or Taxis which can be flagged only at specific pick-up points then it is a legal requiremnt that ID has to shown/be prominent. As, under the same law, a private hire vehicle cannot be used for personal use whilst it shows the PH plates - due to invalidating the business insurance!!! Remember the car is part fo the business and is not personal use![/p][/quote]My insurance says hire and reward AND social domestic and pleasure. You really know very little. Also (as I have pointed out to you before) the insurance company has to indemnify third parties,that means passengers and anyone else you may come into contact with. Just stick to watching the telly, you have no idea on Taxi/PH law.[/p][/quote]You'd better read the small print. You can only carry passengers that have booked in advance - anyone else nullifies the insurance. If it states personal (which i very much doubt) then I presume there are clauses as to what and what not should be installed when in personal use - as it is I knwo of no major insurance company that allows personal and business use for the same vehicle employed in the PH business!!! As regards to the law with PH ID's I think you'd better refresh yourself as it is a law and you have to show it!!![/p][/quote]OK Goldmember, just stick to the Dutch waffle and the telly. Donkey Stone
  • Score: 13

2:17pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Replytohatersandscum says...

while we are here can we also check the local churches scout clubs teachers vicars for the thousand of white pedos like uncle jimmy that are grroming white girls/ boys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
while we are here can we also check the local churches scout clubs teachers vicars for the thousand of white pedos like uncle jimmy that are grroming white girls/ boys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Replytohatersandscum
  • Score: -25

2:22pm Sat 1 Mar 14

thomas222 says...

Replytohatersandscum wrote:
while we are here can we also check the local churches scout clubs teachers vicars for the thousand of white pedos like uncle jimmy that are grroming white girls/ boys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They do now. Welcome to the real world we all live in except some.
[quote][p][bold]Replytohatersandscum[/bold] wrote: while we are here can we also check the local churches scout clubs teachers vicars for the thousand of white pedos like uncle jimmy that are grroming white girls/ boys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]They do now. Welcome to the real world we all live in except some. thomas222
  • Score: 10

12:36pm Tue 4 Mar 14

getajob123 says...

The Righteous One wrote:
Mick England wrote:
Our courts impose their will on us using the ‘legal fiction’ and it is
through this imposition that governments are able to control every facet of our lives. Without the ‘legal fiction’ governments and an array of authorities have no power over us whatsoever and with this in mind it is perfectly clear that understanding the ‘legal fiction’ is a prerequisite to understanding how the world around us really works as distinct from how we think it does. Knowledge and understanding of the legal fiction is the first step on the road of freedom. Get to know who your Strawman really is!
Therefore what you are saying is, then, that we ought to go with the written word!

In that case isn't the Ten Commandments, actually older and, therefore, supercedes any future constitution because they are the word of God on how we should be!!!! And we know that God is higher that any power on this earth!
are you a drug addict ????

serious question

its the only way i can explain your general low intelligence
[quote][p][bold]The Righteous One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mick England[/bold] wrote: Our courts impose their will on us using the ‘legal fiction’ and it is through this imposition that governments are able to control every facet of our lives. Without the ‘legal fiction’ governments and an array of authorities have no power over us whatsoever and with this in mind it is perfectly clear that understanding the ‘legal fiction’ is a prerequisite to understanding how the world around us really works as distinct from how we think it does. Knowledge and understanding of the legal fiction is the first step on the road of freedom. Get to know who your Strawman really is![/p][/quote]Therefore what you are saying is, then, that we ought to go with the written word! In that case isn't the Ten Commandments, actually older and, therefore, supercedes any future constitution because they are the word of God on how we should be!!!! And we know that God is higher that any power on this earth![/p][/quote]are you a drug addict ???? serious question its the only way i can explain your general low intelligence getajob123
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree