Taxi?????

Royboy39 · 08-08-2007, 14:40

Not for this guy............Should he have been jailed?

Sex Attack Cabbie Avoids Prison Sentence (from Lancashire Telegraph)

flashy · 08-08-2007, 14:53

oh another one who got away with it, tut, pathetic, its like that bloke who did that hit and run on that kid in blackburn, he got away with it too, coincidence i see GGGGGRRRRRRRR

panther · 09-08-2007, 07:49

Arshad, said to have a mental age of 12!!!
what on earth was he doing driving a taxi, cant have been that slow he knew what he was doing!! the pervy bastard!!...sorry for the language, it just gets me so mad!!!!!!!!!!!

grego · 09-08-2007, 07:58

Yeah, mental age of 12, yet able to drive a cab, what an excuse and one that would be very difficult to prove otherwise, anyway doesn't surprise me that he hasn't been jailed, people get away with a lot worse these days, not that that makes it right.

magpie · 09-08-2007, 13:38

I wonder if all cab drivers are checked out via CRB ( makes one think )

Lilly · 09-08-2007, 15:03

Is this the same fella that caused all the hoo hah in the other taxi driver thread a few months back?

cmonstanley · 10-08-2007, 19:33

yea just shows you all taxi drivers should be crb checked and go through a test like they are in london .we are supposed to put our trust in them

slinky · 10-08-2007, 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

yea just shows you all taxi drivers should be crb checked and go through a test like they are in london .we are supposed to put our trust in them

All Taxi drivers are CRB checked!!!

OR at least that is the LAW

g jones · 10-08-2007, 21:08

This is the case where the police asked the Council to take his licence away following the first case and the Council lied twice, firstly by saying they could not take his licence away until a recent (but too late) change in the law laws and secondly saying the Police had not been in touch (a story they later changed). In fact the Council could have suspended a licence any time it felt under the old law, if they believe the person to not be a 'fit and proper person'.

What would have happened under the old law is he would have appealed and got it back until the appeal was heard - not under the new law. Crucially that could have been enough and was the right course of action. What did the Council do - NOTHING.

Clr Britcliffe some 12 months ago removed such immediate decisions from Officers and gave them to the chair of Taxi Licensing. Allah Dad and Clr Britcliffe must carry a huge proportion of responsibility for this second attack.

It's in my view a disgrace and those two Councillors should resign. 1) for gross incompetence AND gross negligence and 2) for lying to (I think they call it misleading) the public afterwards to cover their own backs.

What should have happened is;
1) Police refer first incident (which they did).
2) Officers in consultation with councillors call in the accused and read the riot act, suspend his licence and discuss the serious implications with the taxi firm and the companies taxi licence. (The Council failed to do)
3) If he appeals and get's his badge back, work intensely with the police and with officers to monitor the company and individual.(The Council failed to do)
4) get the appeal through as fast as possible (The Council failed to do)

accymel · 10-08-2007, 21:10

Is there enough evidence to support getting these 2 to resign Graham????

SPUGGIE J · 10-08-2007, 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by accymel

Is there enough evidence to support getting these 2 to resign Graham????

They would find a way to wiggle out of it.

cmonstanley · 10-08-2007, 21:28

that was a bit weird taking the power off the officers is that not against the law.if its not i can see a letter written to the ombudsmen asking why its not?you would at least the taxi firm would suspend him straight away and cover their own back or were the advised otherwise

: confused:

Lilly · 10-08-2007, 21:33

[quote=g jones;458748]This is the case where the police asked the Council to take his licence away following the first case and the Council lied twice, firstly by saying they could not take his licence away until a recent (but too late) change in the law laws and secondly saying the Police had not been in touch (a story they later changed). In fact the Council could have suspended a licence any time it felt under the old law, if they believe the person to not be a 'fit and proper person'. quote]

Would the taxi driver not have had to be charged with an offence before having his license taken away?

I thought there would have to be some proof that an offence had been committed,not just a hunch.
Don't get me wrong,I'm glad he has now been banned but anyone could accuse anyone else of a crime and I'd like to think if someone accused me of something that I wouldn't just be assumed guilty before it had been proved.

jimmi5bellies · 10-08-2007, 22:09

A mental age of 12 ??? how has he manage to pass a driving test in the first place ??
Did he tell his insurance company he had a mental age of 12. Somehow i dont think so........

g jones · 12-08-2007, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilly

Would the taxi driver not have had to be charged with an offence before having his license taken away?

No. The test is simply a moral one, a 'fit and proper person'. And the Police REQUESTED the Council to remove his licence after the first incidence. It's not like it slipped under the radar.

The problem with the Council is 2000-3000 people (out of 17,000) use the local elections to vote against Tony Blair and don't vote on local issues, so the current Council have a mandate to be as incompetent (and morally corrupt) as they want.