AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

IN YOUR OPINION

15th May 1964, Page 93
15th May 1964
Page 93
Page 94
Page 93, 15th May 1964 — IN YOUR OPINION
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

anker Applications—Mr. Hatter's View PERSONALLY will adhere to the statement in your "Licensing Casebook ", April 24, that Mr. Muir is one the most careful and able L.A.s. in the land. He is irticularly non-aggressive and kindly in his attitude and rupulously fair, He did all he could at the trial to help As regards Mr. Tilsley's remark about objectors' unsel (Mr. Jackson-Lipkin) acting properly and adoptg tactics which are so well known to the Licensing Courts, sting credibility of evidence, bringing to light matters hich the Licensing Authority ought to know about the )plication and the participants, we suggest it is because you .e continually involved in these courts throughout the nd that you make such a statement.

It was because it was Mr. Delargy's first Visit to the Leensing Court on this day that he felt so concerned about hat he saw. It was because of what I had seen on my Am first visit that I brought my local M.P, on this, my cond day.

On the way from the court on the first day, the Q.C. ling for me on that day made the following comment: I think it is high time that some M.P.s visited these courts iannounced."

I am glad to see you admit that these objectors operate ; a unified opposition; you have found a suitable expres3n, Mr. Delargy thinks another is more appropriate. They save expense by all having the same barrister. This kse cost me £1,000. What is £1,000 among that lot? Some hope of a small man's intentions to start up a business when he has to spend £1,000 a time at these inquiries.

You remark about the customer calling the tune; we

have evidence to refute this. You say that two of the companies are old-established companies; what nonsense, are not Crow Carrying, for instance, connected with some of the biggest insurance companies, finance companies and banks, etc., in the world, plus the banks in this country? It was proven beyond all doubt that very rarely do these firms object to one another, and I have evidence that on the odd occasion that they do, it is only window dressing.

We are glad to see you admit that there was some strong opposition. Mr. Muir said that these objectors are not only big; they are very big.

I am glad to see that you say Hatters admitted a certain amount of illegal operation. The then transport manager admitted, under the pressure of cross-examination, that there had been a certain amount of running outside the normal user.

We were so concerned about this at that time, that we consulted a legal adviser. He said there was some doubt, so we withdrew these vehicles immediately from service.

It is untrue to say many of the public present were drivers. There were two drivers (names can be supplied).

On the following day two drivers of ours were at the court, for ironically enough, at the time when they were busy taking notes of us with no discs, our drivers were doing the very same thing to them.

You say Mr. Jackson-Lipkin decided not to call them because of our admissions. We consider that they were not called because their evidence would not have upheld the allegations made against us.

Mr. Delargy heard Mr. Fay say the following: "This is a case which has been blown up by the objectors in a trial of matters for which this kind of hearing is not the place ".

It has been embittered, no doubt, by the underlying financial considerations.

Mr. Fay also slated that the present system has the effect of dividing the rich from the poor.

The extent of the financial interest in the case is caused by the occurrence of something which I do not ever remember happening in a case of this kind before, and which I for one hope will never see again.

Mr. Delargy will, I am sure, not only bear in mind what you have said, but more important still,the things and matter which you failed to state. Your article, in my humble opinion, has a curious twist. I wonder why. No

doubt Mr. Delargy has his impressions too. .

While these firms were objecting to my application on the grounds that if I were granted licences they would have vehicles idle, they already had applications in for many, many more licences.

During the year, to each and every application by me, this very same group have objected. (Excepting Tyburn.)

When my case was turned down in the Metropolitan Area, for lack of evidence, Mr. Muir, in his wisdom, and I think he is a very just. kind gentleman, said he thought there were enough A-licensed vehicles available. The very same week at Bristol, one of the largest firms in this country were given 16 for bulk liquid, Great Britain. Yes, sir, there was an awful lot more to this case that Mr. Delargy took into consideration, including the following which I hope you -will print.

These two partners had never been prosecuted for any licensing offences during their lifetime. During this last eight years they have sold thousands of vehicles, carried out a lot of repairs, etc., yet never written a guarantee out in their lives, have always unconditionally guaranteed everything sold or done.

Grays, Essex. E. R. HATTER. A Good Cause I WAS very interested to read The Hawk's" item heath "A Good Cause" which appeared in your April 10 issu Several transport firms have commented most favourab on this piece and we have had considerable further hel You will be interested to learn that transport people hal been so helpful that our transport services, costs are on about £10. This figure is excluding the cost of hirir coaches for the collecting campaign in the borders.

Edinburgh, S. A. DOUGLAS JACK,

Transport manager, Edinburgh Students' Charities Appeal.


comments powered by Disqus