Has the Law Changed -- illegal taxi ranks etc

Losty Dublin

28064212 wrote: »

What are you talking about in your pubs example? Is the user in that case breaking the law? If they are, it has absolutely no relevance.

He's referring about steal to order types.

lucernarian

Losty Dublin wrote: »

He's referring about steal to order types.

I'm lost here.

28064212

Losty Dublin wrote: »

He's referring about steal to order types.

So the user is either commissioning a crime or handling stolen goods? I was right then, it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever

cson

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you'd take a taxi driver breaking the law Qing outside McDs and further encourage them, rather than walk 30 meters to your right to a legal rank on O'Connell Bridge or 30 meters across the road to a legal rank in Sackville Place or 50 meters to your left to a legal rank in Princes Street or even hailing a taxi down but of course it's the taxi drivers fault for pandering to your wishes....

Yup. If they break the law there thats their problem and its my convenience. They take the chance that I won't feel like walking to a rank by parking up outside the Chipper. I'm not complaining; but neither should they if they get caught.

You actually got a genuine 'lol' out of me for the pandering to my wishes part there too; of course - the taxi driver is only in it for my good isn't he? Its not like he's robbing a potential fare off another driver who used a legit rank by parking illegally, is it? :rolleyes:

End of the day; its hustling. If it works for you great; if not then you've only yourself to blame.

This "poor me" shite out of a lot of drivers here is old at this stage. Fact of the matter is cab driving is essentially a minimum wage job in virtually every other first world city bar London (and there's actually a decent qualification process in place there) so why should it be any different here?

Spook_ie

For ANY crime to be committed there needs to be a beneficiary ( unless it's a true psychopath ) in the case of goods in pubs there are two criminal beneficiaries, the thief and the purchaser of the stolen goods.

In the case of the taxis parked ( read PLYING FOR HIRE illegally there are two beneficiaries the lazy git who won't bother to take a legally plying for hire taxi and the taxi that is plying illegally.

It's like a ham n cheese sandwich you can't have it without the ham AND the cheese.

Spook_ie

cson wrote: »

Yup. If they break the law there thats their problem and its my convenience. They take the chance that I won't feel like walking to a rank by parking up outside the Chipper. I'm not complaining; but neither should they if they get caught.

You actually got a genuine 'lol' out of me for the pandering to my wishes part there too; of course - the taxi driver is only in it for my good isn't he? Its not like he's robbing a potential fare off another driver who used a legit rank by parking illegally, is it? :rolleyes:

End of the day; its hustling. If it works for you great; if not then you've only yourself to blame.

This "poor me" shite out of a lot of drivers here is old at this stage. Fact of the matter is cab driving is essentially a minimum wage job in virtually every other first world city bar London (and there's actually a decent qualification process in place there) so why should it be any different here?

AH but therein lies the point, there wouldn't be any illegal ranking/parking without people like you, it goes on simply because " You're not complaining " So as mentioned earlier, don't blame it all on the taxi drivers when it's people like you

I'm not complaining

who perpetuate it.

The Garda for their part do occasionally try to keep the streets clear but like flies around a honey pot because of

I'm not complaining

the drivers all return. Now you could ALL pay a few extra bob on your taxes and they could employ sufficient Garda to police the ranks, but somehow I don't think you'd be too happy about that either. So unless you're like

I'm not complaining

then do what you can to alleviate the problem by walking past the illegal ranks and using either a legal rank or flagging down a taxi...SIMPLE really isn't it

Spook_ie

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I'm lost here.

Well you'd make a great taxi driver then

Spook_ie

28064212 wrote: »

So the user is either commissioning a crime or handling stolen goods? I was right then, it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever

Can you not see that you don't get the one without the other....cause and effect

No customers using the illegally plying for hire taxis equals no Taxis. No illegally plying Taxis equals no customers.

Now as mentioned in the other post, taxis in town are like flies around ****e where the customers don't care about the legality or not of the taxi being there and unless you're prepared to police them constantly ( more of your money on taxes ) the only way is to educate the public not to use illegal ranks.....

28064212

Spook_ie wrote: »

Can you not see that you don't get the one without the other....cause and effect

Except the user is doing nothing illegal in the taxi example.

Spook_ie wrote: »

No customers using the illegally plying for hire taxis equals no Taxis. No illegally plying Taxis equals no customers.

Taxi drivers illegally plying creates the demand. Do you imagine a queue of people would be standing around outside Coppers waiting for an illegal rank to form if the taxi drivers didn't habitually break the law? And even if they did, the users would not be breaking the law

Spook_ie wrote: »

Now as mentioned in the other post, taxis in town are like flies around ****e where the customers don't care about the legality or not of the taxi being there and unless you're prepared to police them constantly ( more of your money on taxes ) the only way is to educate the public not to use illegal ranks.....

Police them constantly? More nonsense. The Gardaí already police illegal parking. Applying the same laws in the same way with proper punishments (as opposed to "move-along-there-lads") to taxi-drivers is not a resource hog.

Spook_ie

28064212 wrote: »

Except the user is doing nothing illegal in the taxi example.


Taxi drivers illegally plying creates the demand. Do you imagine a queue of people would be standing around outside Coppers waiting for an illegal rank to form if the taxi drivers didn't habitually break the law? And even if they did, the users would not be breaking the law


Police them constantly? More nonsense. The Gardaí already police illegal parking. Applying the same laws in the same way with proper punishments (as opposed to "move-along-there-lads") to taxi-drivers is not a resource hog.

NEVER said the customer was breaking the law, but have said and will say again, the taxi drivers follow the custom not the other way around, remove the custom you remove the illegal rank, remove the illegal rank you remove the problem....Cause and effect


EDIT: There is a legal rank ~( 10 cars , 8.00 pm to 8.00 AM outside of CFJ's, woefully inadequate to cater with the demands of the Harcourt Street clubs emptying out

cson

Spook_ie wrote: »

AH but therein lies the point, there wouldn't be any illegal ranking/parking without people like you, it goes on simply because " You're not complaining " So as mentioned earlier, don't blame it all on the taxi drivers when it's people like you who perpetuate it.

The Garda for their part do occasionally try to keep the streets clear but like flies around a honey pot because of the drivers all return. Now you could ALL pay a few extra bob on your taxes and they could employ sufficient Garda to police the ranks, but somehow I don't think you'd be too happy about that either. So unless you're like then do what you can to alleviate the problem by walking past the illegal ranks and using either a legal rank or flagging down a taxi...SIMPLE really isn't it

Lol.

Again with the strawman argument Spooky. Nice selective quoting too; did that take long? Must have. Some effort.

Solving that problem is simple behavourial economics; remove the opportunity and people will hail taxi's the legal way.

Even you couldn't disagree that policing it effectively is a much easier avenue to a solution than changing the mentality of an entire society.

To shift the entire blame for the phenomenon onto taxi users is quite farcical tbh.

Spook_ie

cson wrote: »

Lol.

Again with the strawman argument Spooky. Nice selective quoting too; did that take long? Must have. Some effort.

Solving that problem is simple behavourial economics; remove the opportunity and people will hail taxi's the legal way.

Even you couldn't disagree that policing it effectively is a much easier avenue to a solution than changing the mentality of an entire society.

To shift the entire blame for the phenomenon onto taxi users is quite farcical tbh.

You're not going to solve the situation unless you put feet (Garda) on the street, issuing the odd fine isn't going to do anything because as soon as the Garda moves on the Q starts again, you need to move the dung heap from where you don't want the flies

BTW Don't see anywhere that I've said the entire situation is the customers, whereas it would seem that people feel able to lay the blame completely on the taxi drivers

So as mentioned earlier, don't blame it all on the taxi drivers when it's people like you who perpetuate it.

cson

Well legally the entire blame should be shouldered by the taxi drivers.

Forming an illegal rank is illegal.

Taking a cab from an illegal rank isn't.

Ergo the blame is wholly attributable to the taxi drivers forming illegal ranks from a legal standpoint.

See what I did there? Strawman.

Spook_ie

Mmmmm think I went down this path before and never got a satisfactory answer.



Specifically. could a user of an illegally ranked taxi be subject to an “inchoate offence” of conspiring with or inciting the taxi driver driver to commit an offence?

Among the key recommendations in the Commission’s Report are:

On conspiracy:

only agreements to commit a criminal offence should be criminal conspiracies. This would be a significant reform of current law. At present the crime of conspiracy includes agreements to commit civil as well as criminal wrongs. In 1881 Charles Stewart Parnell was tried for conspiring with others to encourage non-payment of rent (this arose from one of his “boycott” speeches). This charge would not be possible under the Commission’s proposals because payment of rent is a civil, not a criminal, matter.
abolition of the vague offences of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, conspiracy to effect a public mischief and conspiracy to outrage public decency.
retention of the offence of conspiracy to defraud, which is sufficiently clear in scope to remain a valuable part of the criminal law.

On attempt:

the physical aspect of an attempt should be defined as an act which is close to the completion of the target criminal offence and the mental/fault aspect of attempt should be defined as intention that an act constituting a criminal offence be completed. This ensures that the defendant really was trying to commit the target offence.

On incitement:

incitement should continue to be defined as “encouraging, commanding or requesting” the carrying out of a criminal act with the intention that the act is carried out.

And before you leap into saying people aren't aware that they might be conspiring/inciting to break a law ignorance of a law isn't generally accepted by courts as a defence

Peppa Pig

How can you incite someone to commit an offence when the offence has already taken place.
If the driver is parked he is at an illegal rank and has committed an offence.

Spook_ie

Peppa Pig wrote: »

How can you incite someone to commit an offence when the offence has already taken place.
If the driver is parked he is at an illegal rank and has committed an offence.

Because taking or intending to take a taxi parked outside would be incitment to get them to park there,

Peppa Pig

So a shop opening its doors for a few hours a day is an incitement for a robber to come in with a gun and the shopkeeper should also be charged in the event of a robbery.
If the shop was closed the robber couldn't commit his crime.

Spook_ie

Peppa Pig wrote: »

So a shop opening its doors for a few hours a day is an incitement for a robber to come in with a gun and the shopkeeper should also be charged in the event of a robbery.
If the shop was closed the robber couldn't commit his crime.

Now you're being silly

However, if taxi drivers were so used to customers NOT using the legal ranks and NOT hailing down passing taxis then it could indeed be construed that all the previous people who had used taxis parked illegally outside were inciting the drivers to carry on, as they wouldn't be getting the custom unless they did break the law

Cause and Effect

foggy_lad

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because taking or intending to take a taxi parked outside would be incitment to get them to park there,

How would the taxi know that the passenger is intending to take any taxi parked outside without some psychic intervention? They don't know so the passenger is not to blame for drivers acting illegally.

Spook_ie

foggy_lad wrote: »

How would the taxi know that the passenger is intending to take any taxi parked outside without some psychic intervention? They don't know so the passenger is not to blame for drivers acting illegally.

Simple observation would show that the majority of people exiting McDs on O'Connell Street facilitate the use of an illegally ranked taxi. The evidence that would be required to pursue a case would be most interesting, something along the lines of the taxi being stopped by armed members of the ERU the passengers cuffed, frog marched to the nearest Garda station and charged, of course the taxi driver would be subjected to the €60 fine for parking on yellow lines but hey they are all criminals

foggy_lad

Spook_ie wrote: »

Simple observation would show that the majority of people exiting McDs on O'Connell Street facilitate the use of an illegally ranked taxi. The evidence that would be required to pursue a case would be most interesting, something along the lines of the taxi being stopped by armed members of the ERU the passengers cuffed, frog marched to the nearest Garda station and charged, of course the taxi driver would be subjected to the €60 fine for parking on yellow lines but hey they are all criminals

Please tell us exactly what law the poor passengers have broken apart from self harming by eating in Mcdonalds?

Spook_ie

foggy_lad wrote: »

Please tell us exactly what law the poor passengers have broken apart from self harming by eating in Mcdonalds?

Would you ever read the thread. It's not as though its the length of War and Peace!

foggy_lad

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would you ever read the thread. It's not as though its the length of War and Peace!

I have read the thread and still don't see where it is against any law to get into an illegally parked/ranked taxi. If a driver wants to break the law he can't claim that potential passengers he has not picked up yet made him break the law.

Peppa Pig

If I come outside Mickey Ds and there are five taxis parked there and I raise my hand and then get into the first car on the "rank", have I committed a crime seeing as I have flagged down a taxi?

lucernarian

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would you ever read the thread. It's not as though its the length of War and Peace!

Of course Mr. Psychic, you would know exactly how much of the thread we've all read....

Spook_ie

Peppa Pig wrote: »

If I come outside Mickey Ds and there are five taxis parked there and I raise my hand and then get into the first car on the "rank", have I committed a crime seeing as I have flagged down a taxi?

But you haven't flagged down a taxi because the taxi isn't moving, the taxi is Q'd illegally forming an illegal rank outside McDs, so the question is have you incited that taxi to commit an act of illegality by the act of not actually hailing the taxi that is driving and thereby legally plying for hire.

Now if you were to walk a few meters past the car and raise your hand, so that the taxi had to drive to pick you up, then you would have indeed hailed a taxi rather than took one of an illegal rank.....See the difference

Spook_ie

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Of course Mr. Psychic, you would know exactly how much of the thread we've all read....

If you haven't bothered to read the thread and want to just jump in willynilly then expect to be chastised

Uriel.

I don't know why posters are continuing to fuel this complete muppetry tbh.

Gardai and/or the Regulator should enforce current laws & when the time comes the relevant new Regs for taxi drivers. Penalty points and/or demerits for those breaching Taxi Regs/code of practice or RTA. Users or potential users of Taxis won't face enforcement actions for committing a "crime" or being an "accessory"

foggy_lad

Spook_ie wrote: »

But you haven't flagged down a taxi because the taxi isn't moving, the taxi is Q'd illegally forming an illegal rank outside McDs, so the question is have you incited that taxi to commit an act of illegality by the act of not actually hailing the taxi that is driving and thereby legally plying for hire.

There is no way a passenger can be guilty of incitment for a crime that has already been committed by another person before they are a party to the situation.

Maybe, just maybe If passengers were obliged by law/statute to report or not to use taxis acting illegally then there might be a case if it could be proven that the passenger knew without doubt that the driver was illegally parked/plying for hire.

lucernarian

Spook_ie wrote: »

If you haven't bothered to read the thread and want to just jump in willynilly then expect to be chastised

What you did wasn't chastisement, it was self-righteous and presumptuous. And we're still waiting on what makes you say that someone hasn't read the thread?? How the hell would you know this?

Or is it just another way to attack someone's post because it happens to disagree with you? Classy.