He's a TNT driver. Gossip is that Police are pressing 3 charges - hopefully presss pick this up and shame . We need random Police checks/speed traps by our schools... the number of people on their phones trying to kill my 5 year old is staggering wtaf
I have literally put in this reg to let people know of what happened to me in this taxi and found it had already been posted on this website
Me and my wife were waiting for another taxi from another firm when this driver pulled up as to pick up a shopper at our Morrisons supermarket Newcastle
I heard someone use foul language and just thought it was another customer cursing as it was very cold and we all curse when we are cold
But to mine and the wifes amazement it was the same taxi reg as this one not sure if its the same driver but it was the same reg for sure
This guy did nothing else other than curse at the old lady who was the paying customer /passenger by the way and me and the wife told him to cut out the bad language in front of the old lady
The old lady replied PLEASE don't as he has to take her home
WHAT! the hell is wrong with these taxi drivers lately
Have you noticed that all taxi drivers are either FAT! bastards WEED! smoking faggots and they ALL! have an attitude towards anyone that speaks out at them and that's including paying passengers. Seriously they really do think that they are above the law. TIP! for all taxi passengers WHY! not record your journey in the cab maybe buy a small hidden camera and don't let the cabbie driver know and if they get out of line then report and post. HELL they are recording you already with their hidden little cameras or those so called smart phones stuck to the windscreen and they say it's for hands free lol, YEAH! pull the other. Hey i should know i have 3 brothers that work for a taxi firm and this is what they tell me what others do. By the way my brothers refuse to follow their companies guidelines as to recording passengers so lets make that clear. OKEE DOKEE
You should report him for his behaviour in public even if the other driver was in the wrong this taxi driver has a duty and from the sounds of it he totally ignored those guidelines etc
Maybe the other driver was innocent in all this but i cannot speak for him/her as i was not there at the time but the law would question both drivers and if the other driver has health issues and a disability then this taxi driver could find himself in deeper water even though hi colleagues would tell him differently as no doubt if he has taken photographs of these people he has no doubt shared them with other fellow taxi drivers
But this is where this taxi driver could find himself in more trouble than Anticipated as he now could be arrested or his colleagues for copyright etc
The intellectual property rights on photographs are protected in different jurisdictions by the laws governing copyright and moral rights. In some cases photography may be restricted by civil or criminal law. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy or other laws. Photography of certain subject matter can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.
Copyright
Copyright can subsist in an original photograph, i.e. a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film.Whilst photographs are classified as artistic works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on artistic merit] The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer – the person who creates it, by default.However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment, the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his/her work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his/her work, where a substantial part of his/her work has been copied.
Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies. A consequence of this lengthy period of existence of the copyright is that many family photographs which have no market value, but significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, even when the original photographer cannot be traced (a problem known as copyright orphan), has given up photography, or died. In the absence of a licence, it will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to copy them. When someone dies the rights will have transferred to someone else, perhaps through testamentary deposition (a will) or by inheritance. If there was no will, or if the photographer has not specified where the rights in the material should go, then the normal rules of inheritance will apply (although these rules are not specific to copyright and legal advice should be sought). Scanning old family photographs, without permission, to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright.
Certain photographs may not be protected by copyright. Section 171 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives courts jurisdiction to refrain from enforcing the copyright which subsists in works on the grounds of public interest. For example, patent diagrams are held to be in the public domain, and are thus not subject to copyright.
Infringement
"No photographs" sticker. Designed for persons at conferences who do not want any digital likeness of them taken, including video, photography, audio, etc.
Infringement of the copyright which subsists in a photograph can be performed through copying the photograph. This is because the owner of the copyright in the photograph has the exclusive right to copy the photograph. For there to be infringement of the copyright in a photograph, there must be copying of a substantial part of the photograph. A photograph can also be a mechanism of infringement of the copyright which subsists in another work. For example, a photograph which copies a substantial part of an artistic work, such as a sculpture, painting or another photograph (without permission) would infringe the copyright which subsists in those works.
However, the subject matter of a photograph is not necessarily subject to an independent copyright. For example, in the Creation Records case, a photographer, attempting to create a photograph for an album cover, set up an elaborate and artificial scene. A photographer from a newspaper covertly photographed the scene and published it in the newspaper. The court held that the newspaper photographer did not infringe the official photographer's copyright. Copyright did not subsist in the scene itself – it was too temporary to be a collage, and could not be categorised as any other form of artistic work.
The protection of photographs in this manner has been criticised on two grounds. Firstly, it is argued that photographs should not be protected as artistic works, but should instead be protected in a manner similar to that of sound recordings and films. In other words, copyright should not protect the subject matter of a photograph as a matter of course as a consequence of a photograph being taken. It is argued that protection of photographs as artistic works is anomalous, in that photography is ultimately a medium of reproduction, rather than creation. As such, it is more similar to a film, or sound recording than a painting or sculpture. Some photographers share this view. For example, Michael Reichmann described photography as an art of disclosure, as opposed to an art of inclusion. Secondly, it is argued that the protection of photographs as artistic works leads to bizarre results.Subject matter is protected irrespective of the artistic merit of a photograph. The subject matter of a photograph is protected even when it is not deserving of protection. For copyright to subsist in photographs as artistic works, the photographs must be original, since the English test for originality is based on skill, labour and judgment.That said, it is possible that the threshold of originality is very low. Essentially, by this, Arnold is arguing that whilst the subject matter of some photographs may deserve protection, it is inappropriate for the law to presume that the subject matter of all photographs is deserving of protection.
It is possible to say with a high degree of confidence that photographs of three-dimensional objects, including artistic works, will be treated by a court as themselves original artistic works, and as such, will be subject to copyright. It is likely that a photograph (including a scan – digital scanning counts as photography for the purposes of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) of a two dimensional artistic work, such as another photograph or a painting will also be subject to copyright if a significant amount of skill, labour and judgment went into its creation
Photography and privacy
A right to privacy came into existence in UK law as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.
Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy. The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality.
A very limited statutory right to privacy exists in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. This right is held, for example, by someone who hires a photographer to photograph their wedding. The commissioner, irrespective of any copyright which he does or does not hold in the photograph of a photograph which was commissioned for private and domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photograph, has the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public, the work exhibited in public or the work communicated to the public.However, this right will not be infringed if the rightholder gives permission. It will not be infringed if the photograph is incidentally included in an artistic work, film, or broadcast
Any filming with the intent of doing unlawful harm against a subject may be a violation of the law in itself.
bloody cabbies think they own the fucking roads, only thing missing is fucking blue lights as they think they are above the law, i would put this arse holes face on here and let future customers know who to avoid in future
Trolls i see B4 me