Cambs police 1 : Overanking taxi driver 0
Calvin
What a pillock!
Rule number 1: Obey the law - don't block St. Andrews street for
everyone else because you want to get on an already full taxi rank.
Rule number 2: When a policeman politely but authoritatively asks you
to move on don't move a few inches then stop, still blocking the road.
Rule number 3: When the still calm policeman asks you your name don't
refuse to tell him.
Rule number 4: Don't keep refusing to tell him who you are and instead
tell him to take your taxi number.
Technically the guy was not actually arrested for overanking but
rather for refusing to give his details (having been asked many
times). In reality of course the *reason* for his arrest was his
inconsiderate and then downright aggressive attitude.
I know that arrest is not the same as charge but the ride to the
station in the back of a blue and white taxi along with the wasted
afternoon and the associated loss of earnings might just have got the
message across. On the other hand given his attitude maybe not.
Shame it costs so much police time to do this though.
Overall I was very impressed with the actions of the policeman. He
acted calmly and politely throughout, even though the taxi driver and
his friends were becoming aggressive and unreasonable. At one point
he was surrounded by a group of about 7 all shouting at him. Well
done.
Ian Jackson
Calvin <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>I've just had the pleasure of watching the arrest of an overanker.
Fantastic.
>Overall I was very impressed with the actions of the policeman. He
>acted calmly and politely throughout, even though the taxi driver and
>his friends were becoming aggressive and unreasonable. At one point
>he was surrounded by a group of about 7 all shouting at him. Well
>done.
Can I suggest that you (if you haven't already done so) make yourself
known to the police as a potential witness ? They may face some kind
of complaint or contrived allegations, and an independent passerby's
account may be very helpful to them.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Whatever
"Calvin" <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:84db66ff-1f91-4364...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
As I have said before I applaud action gainst the overranking, not only here
but could do with some action at Station Road as well.
However, I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for
obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence to refuse
to give your details as yet in this situation, this will obviously change
with I.D card introduction, as he was in a local authority licenced vehicle
he only has to provide his licence number on his badge which also has his
photo on it, so technically he had a point although yes, stupid to argue it
considering the situation.
1 yes
2 yes
3 commeon sense not rule
4 no
Roland Perry
02:08:16 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
> I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for
>obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence to
>refuse to give your details as yet in this situation,
Not giving your details after committing a traffic offence is surely a
very old offence?
--
Roland Perry
Paul Rudin
Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police
on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
Calvin
> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes:
> > 02:08:16 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever>
> > remarked:
> >> I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for
> >> obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence
> >> to refuse to give your details as yet in this situation,
>
> > Not giving your details after committing a traffic offence is surely a
> > very old offence?
>
> Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police
> on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can
arrest for - it is one of his areas of professional expertise after
all. Frankly I would have arrested him simply for being such a prat,
but that's probably one reason I'm not a policeman!
Whatever
lol good point well presented. :)
As stated, not disputing being arrested merely the conjecture as to offence
arrested for.
Whatever
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FaAWwiWS...@perry.co.uk...
refuse to give details, he offered his number, this number is on his licence
badge as is his name and photograph, together with the plate on his vehicle
he would be more easily traced and or identity proven than you or I saying
we are John Smith or whoever....
My point is simply that I hope it more likely he was arrested for the
offence made, how many here joind no2id or do most belong to the naive
'nothing to hide' brigade?
Whatever
"Paul Rudin" <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87wsaki...@rudin.co.uk...
"In this situation" he complied, the details offered should have been
sufficient, not saying he should not have been arrested merely the assumed
offence arrested for, in fact would you not rather it was for the offence
itself? As I would have thought it more productive as a future warning both
for himself and any other pillock overranking, than for any side issue in
any case.
Patrick Gosling
Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
>However, I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for
>obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence to refuse
>to give your details as yet in this situation,
Section 25 PACE
Section 50 Police Reform Act 2002
Sections 164,165 Road Traffic Act 1988
-patrick.
Roland Perry
12:29:27 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>You can do better Roland, "in this situation" was the clue, he did not
>refuse to give details, he offered his number, this number is on his
>licence badge as is his name and photograph, together with the plate on
>his vehicle he would be more easily traced and or identity proven than
>you or I saying we are John Smith or whoever....
Those details are for the benefit of the public, who have no powers to
demand chapter and verse, and for whom going through the taxi licencing
office is a useful additional weapon. I'm not the slightest bit
surprised the police want the normal "name and address" and driving
licence that they'd require of any other driver.
--
Roland Perry
Mike Clark
"Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
>
> "Paul Rudin" <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:87wsaki...@rudin.co.uk...
[snip]
> > Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police
> > on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
>
> "In this situation" he complied, the details offered should have been
> sufficient, not saying he should not have been arrested merely the
> assumed offence arrested for, in fact would you not rather it was for
> the offence itself? As I would have thought it more productive as a
> future warning both for himself and any other pillock overranking,
> than for any side issue in any case.
>
From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response that
he would require first would be that of any other driver of a
motor vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and
insurance (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a
motor vehicle not to provide that information to a police officer on
request is an automatic offence in itself.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Tony Raven
50119f...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, csam...@bigfoot.com
says...
>
> IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can
> arrest for - it is one of his areas of professional expertise after
> all. Frankly I would have arrested him simply for being such a prat,
> but that's probably one reason I'm not a policeman!
>
You have a touching faith in the average policeman's understanding of
the law which has been anecdotally demonstrated on this newsgroup many
times in the past.
--
Tony
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
Calvin
> In article <42aef763-ca44-4c05-97cd-
> 50119f60d...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, csambr...@bigfoot.com
> says...
>
>
>
> > IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can
> > arrest for - it is one of his areas of professional expertise after
> > all. Frankly I would have arrested him simply for being such a prat,
> > but that's probably one reason I'm not a policeman!
>
> You have a touching faith in the average policeman's understanding of
> the law which has been anecdotally demonstrated on this newsgroup many
> times in the past.
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
> taken place"
> George Bernard Shaw
You're right, I do.
In my experience policemen are professional in what they do. Like any
professional they will sometimes make mistakes and like any human they
will sometimes act inappropriately. I know I do - don't you? My
"faith" lies in the fact that all policemen I've had contact with,
both acting as policemen and socially, have appeared to me to be
reasonable people trying to do a sometimes difficult job to the best
of their ability. Of course that ability will vary between
individuals but on a very basic point such as this I would certainly
expect a trained professional to know the things for which they could
or could not arrest.
I'm quite sure that in this particular case the policeman had a choice
of reasons to arrest or could very easily have allowed the situation
to develop to a point where an offence was committed if he had so
wished. In my opinion he was very tolerant.
Roland Perry
<3ee8f851-fd1f-46af...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, at
07:21:29 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Calvin <csam...@bigfoot.com> remarked:
>I'm quite sure that in this particular case the policeman had a choice
>of reasons to arrest or could very easily have allowed the situation
>to develop to a point where an offence was committed if he had so
>wished.
Wasn't an offence committed when the taxi driver refused to give his
name and address?
--
Roland Perry
Brian Morrison
> IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can
> arrest for
These days everything is an arrestable offence, just another indication
of our slide towards becoming a police state.
--
Brian
Espen Koht
"Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
> as far as I am aware it is not an offence to refuse
> to give your details as yet in this situation, this will obviously change
> with I.D card introduction, as he was in a local authority licenced vehicle
> he only has to provide his licence number on his badge which also has his
> photo on it, so technically he had a point
Interesting theory. Have you got any evidence that being in a 'local
authority licenced vehicle' grants such a privilege? In any case, from
the description of the event, it is more likely that he didn't offer to
show his badge, as it would have his name on it, but pointed out the
'taxi number' on the vehicle, which wouldn't be sufficient as it doesn't
prove who was operating the vehicle.
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}
I'd say the details offered were not sufficient, they merely confirm who should
have been in the car. Of course, if you still have an old non-photo driving
licence (as I do), I guess even that isn't sufficient to prove it's me.
--
Dave
da v...@llondel.org (without the space)
So many gadgets, so little time.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
mr...@nospam.cam.ac.uk (Mike Clark) wrote:
> From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response that
> he would require first would be that of any other driver of a motor
> vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and insurance
> (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a motor vehicle
> not to provide that information to a police officer on request is an
> automatic offence in itself.
Not quite. Some of those details (e.g. Driving Licence, insurance and MOT)
can be produced later at a police station.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Rudin
That's the statutory defence to the offence (i.e. they won't prosecute)
- but you still commit an offence but not providing stuff in the first
place.
Whatever
Whatever
Not normally an arrestable one though.
Look, my point is not to defend this guy at all, I am equally happy as any
here that he was taken away, my concern is over the assumption to the actual
charge used.
Whatever
Exactly, he did, the obstruction caused would (and was) my guess, but some
here seem to prefer it to be for failing to produce I.D. on demand instead
of the act that, lets face it, is the reason people here are happy the guy
was caught for and the very reason he was being asked in the first place.
Whatever
"Patrick Gosling" <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:gq02ft$cd7$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
licenced vehicle driver.
More to the point then would be to ask how the police cleared the
obstruction?
As they are not licenced to drive a licenced hackney carriage did they get a
lorry to take it, or tow it, or illegally drive it themselves?
You see life does not allways mirror the black and white documents.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Rudin) wrote:
Are you saying you can be arrested for not producing those documents?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Whatever
No, they are also legally acceptable proofs of I.D. and are unable to be
held unless all other documents are in order and verified by officials, he
could still be given a producer and have to provide the other documents as
would any of us at a later date.
You all seem to miss the other point here that it was claimed by the OP that
he refused to give his name, perhaps this guy did not realise it was on the
same thing that had his number on it that was provided and has therefore
jumped ahead on the reason of arrest, as I said, I am as happy as any here
of the event, just not that we should all assume a non acceptable reason for
someone to be arrested should become acceptable by folklore, it is already a
dark future ahead of us with respect to I.D. cards etc, although I presume a
fair few reading this will just use the "nothing to hide" line.....
I have maintained from the beginning here that he was right to be arrested
and wrong to have caused obstruction, tell you what, pick over this instead
eh?
More to the point then would be to ask how the police cleared the
obstruction?
As they are not licenced to drive a licenced hackney carriage did they get a
lorry to take it, or tow it, or illegally drive it themselves? Answers on a
postcard... ( I have assumed he did not drive it round to the station
himself as OP said he had a ride in a blue and white car or somesuch from
the scene).
Whatever
"Mike Clark" <mr...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:2cbb003f50....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> In message <UOWdnSsHxsdBFl7U...@posted.plusnet>
> "Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Paul Rudin" <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:87wsaki...@rudin.co.uk...
> [snip]
>> > Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police
>> > on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
>>
>> "In this situation" he complied, the details offered should have been
>> sufficient, not saying he should not have been arrested merely the
>> assumed offence arrested for, in fact would you not rather it was for
>> the offence itself? As I would have thought it more productive as a
>> future warning both for himself and any other pillock overranking,
>> than for any side issue in any case.
>>
>
> From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response that
> he would require first would be that of any other driver of a
> motor vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and
> insurance (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a
> motor vehicle not to provide that information to a police officer on
> request is an automatic offence in itself.
No it is not, are you really saying that you expect to be arrested at the
roadside if you cannot provide your licence mot and insurance? Have you
actually ever been pulled over?
For the driver of a licenced hackney carriage, his badge and actively plated
vehicle already prove the legal requirement at the roadside, a producer
should be issued if in doubt (or a call to the licencing office, which the
police have the number I am sure), Licenced Hackney carriages are MOT
excempt BTW. (Due to having to pass a far nore stringent test every 6 months
undertaken by the council).
I think you all here just think you turn up at A1, camcab or Panther or
wherever and they give you a car and off you go? You probably do think the
cars are all supplied by the companies...... I have no sympathy for those
behaing like idiots out ther, taxi or otherwise, but some here could do well
to remember not everyone would invest there own time and money to such an
extent to provide a service that gets sniped at like it is here.
I guarantee you that if you knew what was involved to do their job, you
would not do it.
Roland Perry
21:31:45 on Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>>I'm not the slightest bit surprised the police want the normal "name
>>and address" and driving licence that they'd require of any other
>>driver.
>
>No, they are also legally acceptable proofs of I.D. and are unable to
>be held unless all other documents are in order and verified by
>officials,
I've never seen a taxi driver's badge on a list of "acceptable ID"
(however difficult they may be to get). Try getting on a plane with one.
What I'm sure it really is, is acceptable ID to a disgruntled passenger
wanting to make a complaint. And I wouldn't expect the driver to have to
produce anything else in those circumstances.
>he could still be given a producer and have to provide the other
>documents as would any of us at a later date.
Agreed, for the "others".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
21:23:45 on Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>More to the point then would be to ask how the police cleared the
>obstruction?
>As they are not licenced to drive a licenced hackney carriage did they
>get a lorry to take it, or tow it, or illegally drive it themselves?
Why would it be illegal for them to drive it? They won't be picking up
passengers en-route.
--
Roland Perry
Espen Koht
"Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
> For the driver of a licenced hackney carriage, his badge and actively plated
> vehicle already prove the legal requirement at the roadside, a producer
> should be issued if in doubt (or a call to the licencing office, which the
> police have the number I am sure), Licenced Hackney carriages are MOT
> excempt BTW. (Due to having to pass a far nore stringent test every 6 months
> undertaken by the council).
There is no evidence, and even reason to believe, that the driver in
this case offered his badge as proof of his identity or for any reason,
so I don't understand why you keep assuming he did.
Whatever
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:5cqas4lhgbflkjec9...@4ax.com...
> "Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> considered Sat, 21 Mar 2009
> in the course of their duty. Of course, the necessity would expire as
> soon as the obstruction was cleared.
YSTR incorrectly then. In this case the most they should have done would be
to push it out of the way until appropriate measures could be take, I have
no idea if this is what they did, I am just going on the OP.
Whatever
Because it is illegal for anyone without the relevant local authority
licence to do so, intent of use is nothing to do with it, otherwise their
wives could take the taxi shopping or whatever could they not?
Whatever
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk considered Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:26:57
> police, and to than obstruct them in the course of their duty (by
> refusing to move on) is pretty much asking for it.
> I thought that PACE required anyone to give their details to a
> constable having reasonable cause to demand them.
> It seems that this constable had plenty of grounds by then.
And as you can see, I have applauded the actions taken in regard to the
obstruction, my point is purely about the jump to conclude that he was
arrested for failing to give his name and address as opposed to the more
likely causes which you yourself just mentioned.
For the sake of repeating myself again, he did give his details in as much
as he was legally obliged to do so at the scene, is that clear enough?
Whatever
What "others" Roland?
You do not have to carry by law in this country any form of I.D., not yet
anyway.
He could say he was basil brush and the officer would still need reasonable
doubt to demand he prove it, in this case with a photo I.D. Name and badge
number together with a linked licenced taxi with a council issued plate to
match, would I think, give little room to doubt his identity as long as said
badge said he was basil brush, the point here is he did not say he was basil
brush but was willing to hand over his badge that proved he was, where is
this failing to give a name? Is there some sort of verbal only law some of
you are aware of that I am not?
BTW I did not say simply "acceptable" but "legally acceptable" and in this
case it was, whatever you may think does not alter the facts.
Whatever
"Espen Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ehk20-CECA61....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
3 reasons really, first is the OP "Rule number 4: Don't keep refusing to
tell him who you are and instead
tell him to take your taxi number" which may be interpreted either way I
suppose (to my knowledge taxi drivers refer to themselves by number, their
badge number, as this stays with them, the car number may change over time).
Additionally it is a legal requirement for all taxi drivers in Cambridge
(private hire or hackney carriage) to provide on demand their badge, failure
to do so will mean the loss of that badge and therefore his livelihood (they
are not to work without it simple as that, no excuses), the police know this
very well, furthermore as a condition of his hackney licence it would have
had to be displayed visibly either upon hs person, so the officer could see
it anyway, or on the dash, where he could also have seen it pretty easily.
Thirdly, as the OP has not made it clear what was and what was not offered,
I asked a friend who works out there and it was the badge number offered not
the plate from the taxi according to him, obviously that is just hearsay but
so is the OP at the moment, hope that aids your understanding.
It surprises me you are so virilent in trying to prove he was arrested for a
more minor infraction than the one he obviously commited, surely if he was
arrested for obstruction that is a far better 'lesson' to learn and signal
to others?
Whatever
Interesting theory, have you got any evidence he pointed to the taxi number
on the vehicle?
Or indeed that he did not offer to show his badge? (In which case he will
have far more to worry about than wasted time at the station in regard to
loss of earnings). More likely says who? were you there either?
As stated elsewhere, there is NO requirement in this country at present
requiring you BY LAW to carry proof of I.D. for showing on demand to the
police or anyone else, it IS NOT an arrestable offence (assuming your
pockets aren't empty, and then it would not be for refusing details) and in
this case the badge would either have been produced negating your argument
or not in which case the offence would have been to be driving unlicenced as
per the byelaws, either way NOT likely (according to me :)) to have been for
refusing to give his name, it just does not stack up.
Whatever
straight away, they would not want the council taking back something that
valuable believe me, and those details would have to cross check with the
council, including photographic records, you really don't know what is
involved to do their job do you?
Moot point as I do not agree neccessarily with your interpretation, but that
is my response to it.
Paul Rudin
It doesn't really matter in this particular case, since the OP has told
us that the driver repeatedly refused to give his name. If the policeman
believes an offence (arrestable or not) has been commited and he won't
give his name (or the policeman believes he may have given a false name)
then he's perfectly entitled to arrest him anyhow.
I can't really see what the fuss is about to be honest. It sounds like
he'd commited several offences by the time he got arrested. A parking or
waiting offence, obstruction, failing to obey the traffic directions of
a police officer in uniform. Failing to produce. Failing to give his
name.
Roland Perry
01:09:24 on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>> ISTR that the police can drive damned near anything if it is necessary
>> in the course of their duty. Of course, the necessity would expire as
>> soon as the obstruction was cleared.
>
>YSTR incorrectly then.
Why is that? Do you actually think that only a taxi driver is allowed to
drive a taxi - even when not in service?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
01:20:04 on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>>>he could still be given a producer and have to provide the other
>>>documents as would any of us at a later date.
>>
>> Agreed, for the "others".
>
>What "others" Roland?
The "other" documents: tax and insurance.
>You do not have to carry by law in this country any form of I.D., not
>yet anyway.
You have to give your name in the circumstances described (and many
others). If you can't prove that's your name (because there's not an
acceptable ID to back it up) then the police are entitled to detain you
until your name and address is established to their satisfaction.
>BTW I did not say simply "acceptable" but "legally acceptable" and in
>this case it was, whatever you may think does not alter the facts.
And whatever you think (about the taxi badge's use in these
circumstances) doesn't alter things either.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
01:40:13 on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>As stated elsewhere, there is NO requirement in this country at present
>requiring you BY LAW to carry proof of I.D. for showing on demand to
>the police or anyone else, it IS NOT an arrestable offence (assuming
>your pockets aren't empty, and then it would not be for refusing details)
You need to study your law. All offences are now arrestable, for
example. And while carrying ID isn't compulsory, giving your name is (in
a wide range of circumstances).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
01:43:56 on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>a phone call to the plate holder would elicit the details straight
>away, they would not want the council taking back something that
>valuable believe me, and those details would have to cross check with
>the council, including photographic records, you really don't know what
>is involved to do their job do you?
Lots of people have complex vetting for their jobs. That doesn't exclude
them from having to give their name in appropriate circumstances.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
01:11:02 on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>>>As they are not licenced to drive a licenced hackney carriage did
>>>they get a lorry to take it, or tow it, or illegally drive it
>>>themselves?
>>
>> Why would it be illegal for them to drive it? They won't be picking
>>up passengers en-route.
>
>licence to do so, intent of use is nothing to do with it, otherwise
>their wives could take the taxi shopping or whatever could they not?
And the chap at the garage who road-tests the taxi after a service - is
he a licence cabbie too? And the council bloke who gives it the
six-month text you described earlier?
--
Roland Perry
Tony Raven
what...@whatever.whatever says...
>
> As stated elsewhere, there is NO requirement in this country at present
> requiring you BY LAW to carry proof of I.D. for showing on demand to the
> police or anyone else, it IS NOT an arrestable offence (assuming your
> pockets aren't empty, and then it would not be for refusing details) and in
> this case the badge would either have been produced negating your argument
> or not in which case the offence would have been to be driving unlicenced as
> per the byelaws, either way NOT likely (according to me :)) to have been for
> refusing to give his name, it just does not stack up.
>
Moot. Section 24 5(a)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
gives a constable the authority to arrest you to enable your name and
address to be ascertained if you're suspected of committing or being
about to commit an offence. Thus you are not required to carry ID but
if you cannot prove who you are and where you live in those
circumstances you can be arrested without a warrant.
Where this may be getting confused is under the same Section 24 but
subsection 5(c)(iv) you can be arrested for obstruction of the highway.
Or you can simply be arrested under subsection 5(e) to allow the offence
or the person's conduct to be investigated. So someone may be getting
confused over which subsection of the arresting powers the driver was
arrested under.
24. Arrest without warrant: constables
(1) A constable may arrest without a warrant
(a) anyone who is about to commit an offence;
(b) anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;
(c) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to
commit an offence;
(d) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be
committing an offence.
(2) If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence
has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has
reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.
(3) If an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a
warrant
(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of
it.
(4) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1), (2) or
(3) is exercisable only if the constable has reasonable grounds for
believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (5) it is
necessary to arrest the person in question.
(5) The reasons are
(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in
the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily
ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting
whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b) correspondingly as regards the person's address;
(c) to prevent the person in question
(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii) suffering physical injury;
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property;
(iv) committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection
(6)); or
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in
question;
(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of
the conduct of the person in question;
(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by
the disappearance of the person in question.
Tony Raven
> In message <EO6dnWgD3fhBE1jU...@posted.plusnet>, at
> 01:09:24 on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
> remarked:
> >> ISTR that the police can drive damned near anything if it is necessary
> >> in the course of their duty. Of course, the necessity would expire as
> >> soon as the obstruction was cleared.
>
> Why is that? Do you actually think that only a taxi driver is allowed to
> drive a taxi - even when not in service?
>
Indeed my father in law ran a taxi firm and the taxis were frequently
used on private business including going on holiday in them.
OTOH a police officer is normally only allowed to drive a vehicle he is
licensed for and if authorised by his supervisor. Otherwise he must
call the operations room to have the vehicle removals contractor to deal
with it.
Roland Perry
on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> remarked:
>a police officer is normally only allowed to drive a vehicle he is
>licensed for and if authorised by his supervisor. Otherwise he must
>call the operations room to have the vehicle removals contractor to deal
>with it.
That's licenced as in "has a driving licence", rather than "having a
taxi licence", I presume.
I'd expect most policemen to have a driving licence that covered taxis.
--
Roland Perry
Tony Raven
Yes that's licensed as in vehicle type on their driving license.
However to correct my earlier (too early in the morning) post, a Hackney
Carriage is a Hackney Carriage all the time and requires a Hackney
Carriage license to drive it whether on or off duty. A private hire
taxi does not. So it depends what the "taxi" in question was. I
suspect the former since only Hackney Carriages can legally ply for
trade at a rank.
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Indeed, and some levels of vetting require you don't use it as a means
of identification, for obvious reasons.
Roland Perry
>Carriage is a Hackney Carriage all the time and requires a Hackney
>Carriage license to drive it whether on or off duty.
That can't possibly be true. As I posted earlier this morning, it would
mean that whenever it was serviced the mechanics would have to be
suitably licenced.
--
Roland Perry
Tony Raven
s38 and s46 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
s38: "...and every carriage standing upon any street within the
prescribed distance, having thereon any numbered plate required by this
or the special Act to be fixed upon a hackney carriage, or having
thereon any plate resembling or intended to resemble any such plate as
aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a hackney carriage within the meaning
of this Act"
s46: "No person shall act as driver of any hackney carriage licensed in
pursuance of this or the special Act to ply for hire within the
prescribed distance without first obtaining a licence from the
commissioners"
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
It's our old friend the missing comma. I do think that the drivers ply
for hire, not the vehicle so that doesn't say you have to have a licence
to drive the taxi when you aren't plying.
Roland Perry
>pursuance of this or the special Act to ply for hire within the
>prescribed distance without first obtaining a licence from the
>commissioners"
A policeman driving the car to the pound is not "plying for hire".
--
Roland Perry
_
Well, that's settled then. If the driver is not plying for hire then they
don't need the licence from the commisioners.
Tony Raven
ecc...@computer.org says...
Yes it is a complex sentence to parse but the ply for hire bit almost
certainly applies to the vehicle not the driver. Do the usual clause
removal parsing to see that.
"No person shall act as driver ... to ply for hire within..."
is not grammatical English whereas
"any hackney carriage licensed ... to ply for hire" is.
This interpretation is supported by others. e.g.
"Even when off duty it can only be driven by a person holding a current
Hackney Carriage or combined Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Drivers
Licence issued by the same local authority."
http://www.oswestrybc.gov.uk/static/page953.htm
--
Tony
"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
- John Peel
Roland Perry
>Hackney Carriage or combined Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Drivers
>Licence issued by the same local authority."
>http://www.oswestrybc.gov.uk/static/page953.htm
So how do they get serviced? I note this is the third time I've asked
this question.
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ju...@raven-family.invalid (Tony Raven) wrote:
That would only bar people without a Taxi licence from plying for hire,
not from driving the vehicle.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Tony Raven
Dunno. And my answer is the same for the first two times you asked if
that helps. But then Usenet is not a personal research service that is
required to provide answers to all your questions in case you hadn't
noticed.
Tony Raven
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk says...
I'm sure you'll catch up eventually with my subsequent post explaining
why that is not the case.
--
Tony
"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably end up
somewhere else."
- Laurence J. Peter
Roland Perry
>why that is not the case.
.. why you claim it's not the case.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>> this question.
>>
>
>Dunno. And my answer is the same for the first two times you asked if
>that helps. But then Usenet is not a personal research service that is
>required to provide answers to all your questions in case you hadn't
>noticed.
Although you seem quite happy to do some research to attempt to show
that a licence is always required. I've just raised a simple
counter-example which throws doubt upon the interpretation of that
research.
--
Roland Perry
Tony Raven
Me and others. Another example from motoring law specialists...
"It is an offence to drive a Hackney Carriage (taxi with a yellow or
white plate at the rear of the vehicle stating that it is a Hackney
Carriage, usually with a sign on top, which can be hailed in the street)
without a valid licence issued by the local authority. It is also an
offence for a proprietor of a Hackney Carriage company to employ a
driver who does not have a valid Hackney Carriage licence."
http://www.motordefenceteam.co.uk/offence-guide/taxi-guides/taxis-
unlicensed-hackney-carriage-drivers.htm
Tony Raven
Not at all. The answer to your question would seem to be in the
following, the legal basis for which I don't know, which confirms its an
offence to drive a vehicle licensed as a Hackney Carriage within the
operating area without a license:
"Unlicensed drivers
Under no circumstances can a hackney carriage (TAXI) or private
hire vehicle be driven by an unlicensed driver when the vehicle is
being used to carry passengers or even while it is being used for the
licensed purpose.
In addition, the licensed hackney carriage must not be driven at any
time by an unlicensed driver within this Council?s area unless it is
for:-
a) any test of the mechanical condition or fitness for the
purpose of the law.
b) Any test of a person's competence to drive, carried out for
the purpose of an application to drive a hackney carriage.
http://www.fdean.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=2786
(you need to add .pdf to the downloaded file to be able to open it)
Happy now?
Roland Perry
>Under no circumstances can a hackney carriage (TAXI) or private
>hire vehicle be driven by an unlicensed driver when the vehicle is
>being used to carry passengers or even while it is
- surely there's a "not" missing here -
>being used for the licensed purpose.
>In addition, the licensed hackney carriage must not be driven at any
>time by an unlicensed driver within this Council?s area unless it is
>for:-
>a) any test of the mechanical condition or fitness for the
>purpose of the law.
So the police are taking it to the car pound to check if it's
mechanically sound. (I still don't believe there isn't also a general
exemption they've missed out, for police purposes.)
>http://www.fdean.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=2786
>(you need to add .pdf to the downloaded file to be able to open it)
Err, it opened OK in my browser.
"The booklet is not meant to be authoritative in relation to the law"
and
"The vehicle must be submitted to one of the designated
testing stations (as listed on page 13), by prior arrangement,
for a combined MOT test and vehicle fitness certificate. The
fee must be paid at the time of inspection."
... and there was someone insisting that an MOT wasn't required.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>employ a driver who does not have a valid Hackney Carriage licence."
>http://www.motordefenceteam.co.uk/offence-guide/taxi-guides/taxis-
>unlicensed-hackney-carriage-drivers.htm
The police are not "employed" by the proprietor.
The advice in question is clearly aimed at the situation where the
vehicle is plying for hire.
--
Roland Perry
Tony Raven
Why?
--
Tony
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Tony Raven
>
> >In addition, the licensed hackney carriage must not be driven at any
> >time by an unlicensed driver within this Council?s area unless it is
> >for:-
> >a) any test of the mechanical condition or fitness for the
> >purpose of the law.
>
> So the police are taking it to the car pound to check if it's
> mechanically sound. (I still don't believe there isn't also a general
> exemption they've missed out, for police purposes.)
There may well be but you can do the work to find it. And driving it to
the pound is not a test of the mechanical condition unless the police
driver is a qualified mechanic able to test its condition by driving it.
>
> "The booklet is not meant to be authoritative in relation to the law"
>
Just like the Highway Code you mean?
> and
>
> "The vehicle must be submitted to one of the designated
> testing stations (as listed on page 13), by prior arrangement,
> for a combined MOT test and vehicle fitness certificate. The
> fee must be paid at the time of inspection."
>
> ... and there was someone insisting that an MOT wasn't required.
>
Not me.
Here's a few more straws to clutch at. |||
Roland Perry
>>
>> >In addition, the licensed hackney carriage must not be driven at any
>> >time by an unlicensed driver within this Council?s area unless it is
>> >for:-
>> >a) any test of the mechanical condition or fitness for the
>> >purpose of the law.
>>
>> So the police are taking it to the car pound to check if it's
>> mechanically sound. (I still don't believe there isn't also a general
>> exemption they've missed out, for police purposes.)
>
>There may well be but you can do the work to find it.
It might be in an entirely different Act[1] (and I've not yet looked to
see if there's a section near the one you quoted, giving additional
exemptions).
>And driving it to the pound is not a test of the mechanical condition
>unless the police driver is a qualified mechanic able to test its
>condition by driving it.
You seem very sure about that. The exemption in question seems worded so
as to exempt anyone doing the "MOT and whatever else" test. It won't
exempt a garage which has been servicing the vehicle from delivering it
to the MOT centre. And there's no public policy objective in banning
such a thing.
>> "The booklet is not meant to be authoritative in relation to the law"
>
>Just like the Highway Code you mean?
Yes, that has porkies in it too - especially in the kind of corner cases
we are discussing here.
>> "The vehicle must be submitted to one of the designated
>> testing stations (as listed on page 13), by prior arrangement,
>> for a combined MOT test and vehicle fitness certificate. The
>> fee must be paid at the time of inspection."
>>
>> ... and there was someone insisting that an MOT wasn't required.
>
>Not me.
No, but it shows the degree of inconsistency with regard to
understanding what the "taxi law" really is.
[1] Like allowing police to drive *anything* if the mood takes them.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>> >unlicensed-hackney-carriage-drivers.htm
>>
>> The police are not "employed" by the proprietor.
>>
>> The advice in question is clearly aimed at the situation where the
>> vehicle is plying for hire.
>
>Why?
Because they think it's useful to have advice of that kind? If you have
a better reason why they've published it, please tell.
--
Roland Perry
Tony Raven
You misunderstand. Why is the advice CLEARLY aimed at situations where
the vehicle is plying for hire. It could be drivers employed to take
them to the garage for an MOT or to move them between depots. Plying
for hire without a license is a separate offence from employing an
unlicensed driver.
Whatever
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DVnnD3AI...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <EO6dnWgD3fhBE1jU...@posted.plusnet>, at 01:09:24
> on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever> remarked:
>>> ISTR that the police can drive damned near anything if it is necessary
>>> in the course of their duty. Of course, the necessity would expire as
>>> soon as the obstruction was cleared.
>>
>
> Why is that? Do you actually think that only a taxi driver is allowed to
> drive a taxi - even when not in service?
> Roland Perry
No, I do not think that, I know that is the case.
Whatever
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.2430036d6...@news.nildram.co.uk...
> In article <DVnnD3AI...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
>> In message <EO6dnWgD3fhBE1jU...@posted.plusnet>, at
>> 01:09:24 on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
>> remarked:
>
>> >> ISTR that the police can drive damned near anything if it is necessary
>> >> in the course of their duty. Of course, the necessity would expire as
>> >> soon as the obstruction was cleared.
>
>>
>> drive a taxi - even when not in service?
>>
>
> used on private business including going on holiday in them.
In Cambridge? You do all realise that a lot of the regulations and byelaws
are purely localised to your own authorities? (I say all as you must know
this as your father ran a taxi firm)
If driven by a non licenced person, he was breaking the law then.
You could in theory also have the car MOT'd to enable the removal of plates
and another to drive, HOWEVER you would then have 2 major issues, firstly
you would need it insured as a private car again, and this would not be
allowed to be concurrent with the taxi plying for hire insurance, so you
would need to lose any no claims etc in both directions and only have one
use at a time.
Secondly, and more a problem I think, once plates are removed, unless in the
process of replacing expired for replacement i.e. a few minutes, then that
vehicle is no longer considered as licenced by the council and would have to
be fully retested with all fees and delays applicable, additionally if that
vehicle were private hire and over 4 years old it would have to be replaced
with a less than 4 year old vehicle.
> OTOH a police officer is normally only allowed to drive a vehicle he is
> licensed for and if authorised by his supervisor. Otherwise he must
> call the operations room to have the vehicle removals contractor to deal
> with it.
Oddly, that is what I said, sort of.
As Is aid before I have no idea what they actually did and the OP that
witnessed proceedings has not told us so who knows...
Whatever
> In message <MPG.2430036d6...@news.nildram.co.uk>, at 08:14:56 on
> Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> remarked:
>>a police officer is normally only allowed to drive a vehicle he is
>>licensed for and if authorised by his supervisor. Otherwise he must
>>call the operations room to have the vehicle removals contractor to deal
>>with it.
>
> licence", I presume.
>
> I'd expect most policemen to have a driving licence that covered taxis.
> Roland Perry
You presume incorrectly again then Roland.
Expect away, meantime welcome to reality.
Whatever
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <RJPjERJq...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
>> In message <MPG.2430036d6...@news.nildram.co.uk>, at 08:14:56
>> on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> remarked:
>> >a police officer is normally only allowed to drive a vehicle he is
>> >licensed for and if authorised by his supervisor. Otherwise he must
>> >call the operations room to have the vehicle removals contractor to deal
>> >with it.
>>
>> That's licenced as in "has a driving licence", rather than "having a
>> taxi licence", I presume.
>>
>> I'd expect most policemen to have a driving licence that covered taxis.
>>
>
>
> However to correct my earlier (too early in the morning) post, a Hackney
> Carriage is a Hackney Carriage all the time and requires a Hackney
> taxi does not. So it depends what the "taxi" in question was.
In Cambridge they are considered the same in this respect so unfortunately I
do not agree, however as this car was 'overranking' it was a hackney
carriage in any case.
In Cambridge all taxis are 'licenced' not just Hackneys.
> suspect the former since only Hackney Carriages can legally ply for
> trade at a rank.
Correct. (as you know)
Whatever
If they drive it on the highway outside there own yard, then yes, they
would.
Do you have evidence to the contrary that they are publicly driving around?
You should find that either drivers self-service, or undertake road tests
themselves (another unseen thing they have to put up with as opposed to
'normal' motorists), there are some places locally that have mechanics with
taxi licences that could do it but they are few and far between.
So why can it not possibly be true?
Tim Ward
news:fLmdneRRn6o4X1vU...@posted.plusnet...
>
>> ... Hackney Carriage ... private hire
>
> In Cambridge they are considered the same in this respect ...
Given that the main difference is that you can't hail a private hire car on
the street ... instead you have to get out your mobile, call the number
painted on the side of the taxi, and demand they send the driver who happens
to be stopped at the kerbside in front of you and has just told you his name
... in other words there's little practical difference, there's no obvious
good reason to keep them separate, the regulation has simply failed to keep
up with the mobile phone technology.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Whatever
> In message <OKSdnSLYLLqFC1jU...@posted.plusnet>, at 01:40:13
> on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever> remarked:
>>As stated elsewhere, there is NO requirement in this country at present
>>requiring you BY LAW to carry proof of I.D. for showing on demand to the
>>police or anyone else, it IS NOT an arrestable offence (assuming your
>>pockets aren't empty, and then it would not be for refusing details)
>
> You need to study your law. All offences are now arrestable, for example.
> And while carrying ID isn't compulsory, giving your name is (in a wide
> range of circumstances).
> --
> Roland Perry
So are you saying that it is,, or is not an arrestable offence to not carry
I.D. as your post would indicate both, i.e. you argue with me when this is
my point, then you say it is not compulsary?
I am tired of repeating this, he would have by default given his name with
his number IF it was his badge number he offered.
Whatever
> In message <MPG.24306426b...@news.nildram.co.uk>, at 15:06:28 on
> Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> remarked:
>
>>Under no circumstances can a hackney carriage (TAXI) or private
>>hire vehicle be driven by an unlicensed driver when the vehicle is
>>being used to carry passengers or even while it is
>
> - surely there's a "not" missing here -
Why do you think that Roland?
>>being used for the licensed purpose.
>
>>In addition, the licensed hackney carriage must not be driven at any
>>time by an unlicensed driver within this Council?s area unless it is
>>for:-
>>a) any test of the mechanical condition or fitness for the
>>purpose of the law.
>
> So the police are taking it to the car pound to check if it's mechanically
> sound. (I still don't believe there isn't also a general exemption they've
> missed out, for police purposes.)
Are they? Don't think so, and believe what you like, you are still wrong.
Whatever
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <3Ih6kmZS...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
>>
>> >In addition, the licensed hackney carriage must not be driven at any
>> >time by an unlicensed driver within this Council?s area unless it is
>> >for:-
>> >a) any test of the mechanical condition or fitness for the
>> >purpose of the law.
>>
>> So the police are taking it to the car pound to check if it's
>> mechanically sound. (I still don't believe there isn't also a general
>> exemption they've missed out, for police purposes.)
>
> There may well be but you can do the work to find it. And driving it to
> the pound is not a test of the mechanical condition unless the police
> driver is a qualified mechanic able to test its condition by driving it.
>
>>
>> "The booklet is not meant to be authoritative in relation to the law"
>>
>
> Just like the Highway Code you mean?
>
>> and
>>
>> "The vehicle must be submitted to one of the designated
>> testing stations (as listed on page 13), by prior arrangement,
>> for a combined MOT test and vehicle fitness certificate. The
>> fee must be paid at the time of inspection."
>>
>> ... and there was someone insisting that an MOT wasn't required.
>>
>
> Not me.
Nope, that was me, and IN CAMBRIDGE Roland, there is an MOT exemption, keep
on digging you should be nr china soon :)
The quote you are using is NOT from Cambridge, understand yet?
Whatever
> In message <MPG.24307e248...@news.nildram.co.uk>, at 16:56:58 on
> Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> remarked:
>>In article <3Ih6kmZS...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
>>>
>>> >In addition, the licensed hackney carriage must not be driven at any
>>> >time by an unlicensed driver within this Council?s area unless it is
>>> >for:-
>>> >a) any test of the mechanical condition or fitness for the
>>> >purpose of the law.
>>>
>>> So the police are taking it to the car pound to check if it's
>>> mechanically sound. (I still don't believe there isn't also a general
>>> exemption they've missed out, for police purposes.)
>>
>>There may well be but you can do the work to find it.
>
> It might be in an entirely different Act[1] (and I've not yet looked to
> see if there's a section near the one you quoted, giving additional
> exemptions).
There isn't, there that saved you some time.
>>And driving it to the pound is not a test of the mechanical condition
>>unless the police driver is a qualified mechanic able to test its
>>condition by driving it.
>
> You seem very sure about that. The exemption in question seems worded so
> as to exempt anyone doing the "MOT and whatever else" test. It won't
> exempt a garage which has been servicing the vehicle from delivering it to
> the MOT centre. And there's no public policy objective in banning such a
> thing.
He would be as it based on more fact than supposition unlike some.
Other points answered in my earlier reply to you.
>>> "The booklet is not meant to be authoritative in relation to the law"
>>
>>Just like the Highway Code you mean?
>
> Yes, that has porkies in it too - especially in the kind of corner cases
> we are discussing here.
Taxi licencing issues are discussed in depth in that are they? or do you
mean some other discussion.
>>> "The vehicle must be submitted to one of the designated
>>> testing stations (as listed on page 13), by prior arrangement,
>>> for a combined MOT test and vehicle fitness certificate. The
>>> fee must be paid at the time of inspection."
>>>
>>> ... and there was someone insisting that an MOT wasn't required.
>>
>>Not me.
>
> No, but it shows the degree of inconsistency with regard to understanding
> what the "taxi law" really is.
>
> [1] Like allowing police to drive *anything* if the mood takes them.
> --
With regard to your understanding of it certainly.
Keep saying they can if it makes you feel happy, the truth will out.
Whatever
> In message <MPG.243036908...@news.nildram.co.uk>, at 11:53:13 on
>>pursuance of this or the special Act to ply for hire within the
>>prescribed distance without first obtaining a licence from the
>>commissioners"
>
> --
> Roland Perry
"This or" Roland "This or", I used to have time for your posts, but this
thread has put me right off.
Whatever
"_" <jtayNO...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote in message
news:ikx5l4mxcfzv.16uqvp9uvan3d$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:53:13 -0000, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> In article <uY68Q8K$yhxJ...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
>>>>Carriage is a Hackney Carriage all the time and requires a Hackney
>>>>Carriage license to drive it whether on or off duty.
>>>
>>> That can't possibly be true. As I posted earlier this morning, it would
>>> mean that whenever it was serviced the mechanics would have to be
>>> suitably licenced.
>>>
>>
>>
>> s38: "...and every carriage standing upon any street within the
>> or the special Act to be fixed upon a hackney carriage, or having
>> thereon any plate resembling or intended to resemble any such plate as
>> aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a hackney carriage within the meaning
>> of this Act"
>>
>> pursuance of this or the special Act to ply for hire within the
>> prescribed distance without first obtaining a licence from the
>> commissioners"
>
> don't need the licence from the commisioners.
If you only read the second paragraph, are you related to Roland? ;)
Whatever
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:08mdnapa3bPj3VvU...@giganews.com...
> In article <MPG.243036908...@news.nildram.co.uk>,
> ju...@raven-family.invalid (Tony Raven) wrote:
>
>> In article <uY68Q8K$yhxJ...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk
>> says...
>> > In message <MPG.243021f84...@news.nildram.co.uk>, at
>> > 10:23:43 on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Tony Raven
>> > <ju...@raven-family.invalid> remarked:
>> > >However to correct my earlier (too early in the morning) post, a
>> > >Hackney Carriage is a Hackney Carriage all the time and requires a
>> > >Hackney Carriage license to drive it whether on or off duty.
>> >
>> > That can't possibly be true. As I posted earlier this morning, it
>> > would mean that whenever it was serviced the mechanics would have
>> > to be suitably licenced.
>>
>> s38 and s46 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
>>
>> s38: "...and every carriage standing upon any street within the
>> prescribed distance, having thereon any numbered plate required by
>> this or the special Act to be fixed upon a hackney carriage, or
>> having thereon any plate resembling or intended to resemble any
>> such plate as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a hackney carriage
>> within the meaning of this Act"
>>
>> s46: "No person shall act as driver of any hackney carriage
>> licensed in pursuance of this or the special Act to ply for hire
>> within the prescribed distance without first obtaining a licence
>> from the commissioners"
>
> not from driving the vehicle.
>
> Colin Rosenstiel
Not you as well Colin, and you used to sit for the authority for taxis here
did you not?
Read the first paragraph again together with the "this or" in the second and
you may see the deliberate mistake?
Must say, of all people here I am surprised you think it ok to drive a
licenced vehicle unlicenced in Cambridge lol.
Be good news if so, as your council and police have succesfully prosecuted
at least one drivers wife I know of for using a cab to do the shopping, how
much compensation will she get for wrongful prosecution then?
I also have somewhere a copy of the council directive pointing out that this
type of use is totally illegal and unacceptable, I believe the governing
authority may have been headed up by a Joy someone or other of your
acquinatance at the time, ask your wife if she recalls the situation could
you?
Whatever
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote in message
May as well give up Tony, Roland will see only what Roland sees, the whole
world is just a figment of his imagination so we must be also and therefore
cannot possibly know more than he.
Whatever
> In message <qLmdnY5VcpCjEljU...@posted.plusnet>, at 01:11:02
> on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever> remarked:
>>>>As they are not licenced to drive a licenced hackney carriage did they
>>>>get a lorry to take it, or tow it, or illegally drive it themselves?
>>>
>>> Why would it be illegal for them to drive it? They won't be picking up
>>> passengers en-route.
>>
>>Because it is illegal for anyone without the relevant local authority
>>licence to do so, intent of use is nothing to do with it, otherwise their
>>wives could take the taxi shopping or whatever could they not?
>
> And the chap at the garage who road-tests the taxi after a service - is he
> a licence cabbie too? And the council bloke who gives it the six-month
> text you described earlier?
> --
> Roland Perry
*sigh* this is getting tedious, who road tests them? have you witnessed it?
In most counties excemptions are in place for mechanical fitness, not here
though.
"The bloke" sits in the passenger seat and the driver has to take them out,
for this very reason, you obviously have no knowledge of these procedures
yet are happy to snipe about them.
Whatever
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <OKSdnSLYLLqFC1jU...@posted.plusnet>,
> what...@whatever.whatever says...
>>
>> As stated elsewhere, there is NO requirement in this country at present
>> requiring you BY LAW to carry proof of I.D. for showing on demand to the
>> police or anyone else, it IS NOT an arrestable offence (assuming your
>> in
>> this case the badge would either have been produced negating your
>> argument
>> or not in which case the offence would have been to be driving unlicenced
>> as
>> per the byelaws, either way NOT likely (according to me :)) to have been
>> for
>> refusing to give his name, it just does not stack up.
>>
>
> Moot. Section 24 5(a)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
> gives a constable the authority to arrest you to enable your name and
> address to be ascertained if you're suspected of committing or being
> about to commit an offence. Thus you are not required to carry ID but
> if you cannot prove who you are and where you live in those
> circumstances you can be arrested without a warrant.
>
> Where this may be getting confused is under the same Section 24 but
> subsection 5(c)(iv) you can be arrested for obstruction of the highway.
> Or you can simply be arrested under subsection 5(e) to allow the offence
> or the person's conduct to be investigated.
>So someone may be getting
> confused over which subsection of the arresting powers the driver was
> arrested under.
My original point exactly. Not that Roland will ever see it.
Whatever
> In message <DNmdnTwm2dxpC1jU...@posted.plusnet>, at 01:43:56
>>they would not want the council taking back something that valuable
>>believe me, and those details would have to cross check with the council,
>>including photographic records, you really don't know what is involved to
>>do their job do you?
>
> Lots of people have complex vetting for their jobs. That doesn't exclude
> them from having to give their name in appropriate circumstances.
> --
> Roland Perry
Blimey Roland you do go on don't you, my preposition is that he DID give his
name albeit not verbally, I may be wrong, you may be wrong, either way not
carrying I.D. in itself is not an offence no matter what you say or think.
You will be happy I suppose when I.D. cards are mandatory? You wish to live
in such a society? As said before, be careful what you wish for, you just
might get it.
Whatever
"Rupert Moss-Eccardt" <r.moss-...@computer.org> wrote in message
news:PGoxl.232139$WX2....@newsfe23.ams2...
> Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <DNmdnTwm2dxpC1jU...@posted.plusnet>, at 01:43:56
>> on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever> remarked:
>>> a phone call to the plate holder would elicit the details straight away,
>>> they would not want the council taking back something that valuable
>>> believe me, and those details would have to cross check with the
>>> council, including photographic records, you really don't know what is
>>> involved to do their job do you?
>>
>> Lots of people have complex vetting for their jobs. That doesn't exclude
>> them from having to give their name in appropriate circumstances.
>
> identification, for obvious reasons.
But not this one, or are you insinuating differently?
Whatever
> In message <yJGdnaZInvDBDFjU...@posted.plusnet>, at 01:20:04
>
>>>>documents as would any of us at a later date.
>>>
>>> Agreed, for the "others".
>>
>>What "others" Roland?
>
> The "other" documents: tax and insurance.
>
>>You do not have to carry by law in this country any form of I.D., not yet
>>anyway.
>
> You have to give your name in the circumstances described (and many
> others). If you can't prove that's your name (because there's not an
> acceptable ID to back it up)
But there was as has been repeated.
then the police are entitled to detain you
> until your name and address is established to their satisfaction.
Correct, and would that detainement be for the charge of failing to carry
I.D.? Don't think so.
>
>>BTW I did not say simply "acceptable" but "legally acceptable" and in this
>>case it was, whatever you may think does not alter the facts.
>
> And whatever you think (about the taxi badge's use in these circumstances)
> doesn't alter things either.
> --
> Roland Perry
It wouldn't? Even though it would contain the name you say he would not
produce?
So IF he produced his badge with his name on, you are saying that would not
change the fact that he had not given his name? Really? Are you drunk?
Daniel...@googlemail.com
> Blimey Roland you do go on don't you, my preposition is that he DID give his
> name albeit not verbally, I may be wrong, you may be wrong, either way not
> carrying I.D. in itself is not an offence no matter what you say or think.
> You will be happy I suppose when I.D. cards are mandatory? You wish to live
> in such a society? As said before, be careful what you wish for, you just
> might get it.
Quoting Pc Hink, the arresting officer
"I did arrest a taxi driver because he refused to show his details and
I took him to the police station. He was released after he gave us the
details."
--
Dan
Tony Raven
@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Daniel...@googlemail.com says...
Does the taxi driver's badge contain his address which he is also
required to give if asked, or is it just his name?
--
--
Tony
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
Paul Oldham
> I've just had the pleasure of watching the arrest of an overanker.
This is the lead story in Cambridge News today with taxi drivers
threatening to "blockade the city". See
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=401941
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://news.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"The sky is falling ... no, I'm tipping over backwards."
TimB
> Blimey Roland you do go on don't you,
You can talk.
Snore....
Roland Perry
>> >> >http://www.motordefenceteam.co.uk/offence-guide/taxi-guides/taxis-
>> >> >unlicensed-hackney-carriage-drivers.htm
>> >>
>> >> The police are not "employed" by the proprietor.
>> >>
>> >> The advice in question is clearly aimed at the situation where the
>> >> vehicle is plying for hire.
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>> Because they think it's useful to have advice of that kind? If you have
>> a better reason why they've published it, please tell.
>
>You misunderstand. Why is the advice CLEARLY aimed at situations where
>the vehicle is plying for hire.
The first sentence of the advice is clearly about plying for hire.
>It could be drivers employed to take them to the garage for an MOT or
>to move them between depots.
Now who is clutching at straws? "Employing" a driver is clearly in the
sense of "getting someone to drive your taxi and ply for hire".
>Plying for hire without a license is a separate offence from employing
>an unlicensed driver.
And is "driving a taxi" (eg between a garage and the MOT centre) without
a taxi driver's licence a third offence? Why does public policy dictate
three offences, when the first two cover the consumer protection angle
completely?
--
Roland Perry
Tony Raven
> Calvin wrote:
>
> > I've just had the pleasure of watching the arrest of an overanker.
>
> This is the lead story in Cambridge News today with taxi drivers
> threatening to "blockade the city".
Will we notice any difference? ;-)
Roland Perry
00:33:35 on Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>>>a phone call to the plate holder would elicit the details straight
>>>away, they would not want the council taking back something that
>>>valuable believe me, and those details would have to cross check with
>>>the council, including photographic records, you really don't know
>>>what is involved to do their job do you?
>>
>> Lots of people have complex vetting for their jobs. That doesn't
>>exclude them from having to give their name in appropriate
>>circumstances.
>> -- Roland Perry
>
>Blimey Roland you do go on don't you, my preposition is that he DID
>give his name albeit not verbally, I may be wrong, you may be wrong,
>either way not carrying I.D. in itself is not an offence no matter what
>you say or think.
I have never said that carrying ID is compulsory. I explained in some
detail how the process of providing ID will facilitate the process of
the police verifying your name and address after they have been lawfully
requested.
>You will be happy I suppose when I.D. cards are mandatory? You wish to
>live in such a society? As said before, be careful what you wish for,
>you just might get it.
This is not about ID cards (except to the extent that a photo driving
licence is a stealth ID card).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2009, Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> remarked:
>This is the lead story in Cambridge News today with taxi drivers
>threatening to "blockade the city". See
>
>http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=40194
>1
The story demonstrates how the taxi drivers just don't "get it", when it
comes to illegal parking, and how they believe they should have immunity
from traffic offences (aka a "good relationship" with the police).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
22:51:26 on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>>Do you actually think that only a taxi driver is allowed to drive a
>>taxi - even when not in service?
>No, I do not think that, I know that is the case.
I refer yo to my conversation with Tony Raven.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
23:36:03 on Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
>>>As stated elsewhere, there is NO requirement in this country at
>>>present requiring you BY LAW to carry proof of I.D. for showing on
>>>demand to the police or anyone else, it IS NOT an arrestable offence
>>>(assuming your pockets aren't empty, and then it would not be for
>>>refusing details)
>>
>> You need to study your law. All offences are now arrestable, for
>>example. And while carrying ID isn't compulsory, giving your name is
>>(in a wide range of circumstances).
>So are you saying that it is,, or is not an arrestable offence to not
>carry I.D. as your post would indicate both, i.e. you argue with me
>when this is my point, then you say it is not compulsary?
>I am tired of repeating this, he would have by default given his name
>with his number IF it was his badge number he offered.
The offence is not providing name and address. I'm not sure why you
think the taxi badge (which is so customers can make a complaint easily)
is sufficient for police purposes.
--
Roland Perry