Are You Safe In His Taxi - Page 11

ClarePritchard · 19-03-2007, 20:14

I can absolutely promise you that no new information was received by the commitee on that application between then and now. I can't actually say that Brian Roberts is a liar as that would be against the councils code of conduct but draw your own conclusions.

chav1 · 19-03-2007, 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClarePritchard

I can't actually say that Brian Roberts is a liar as that would be against the councils code of conduct but draw your own conclusions.

witha little help from microsoft paint i did just that

do i have to say ALLEGEDLY or somthing coz i dont want sueing or bullying ?

g jones · 19-03-2007, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I have just received an e-mail from Councillor Brian Roberts. In it he tells me that the cross party committee made decisions on information that was available at that time....new information has come to light and the effect of this is the the licence has been suspended with immediate effect.

Now isn't that good news?

I find what Clr Roberts has to say incredulous. He is the Deputy Leader of the Council and Clr Marlene Haworth another Cabinet member.

I have read the report. It repeatedly refers to Mr Altaf as a Sex Offender. It lists all the details, dates, times, offences, as all reports do as standard. It advises the committee in plain terms he is a Sex Offender (repeatedly) and 'not to go behind the conviction', the judiciary in a court of law have already done that. Clr Roberts was, like Clr Pritchard fully aware of the all the facts and details in the case.

Clr Pritchard then left the meeting, arriving in the managing Director's office within 3 minutes. The MD said there and then it was a wrong decision and began an investigation.

I would ask Clr Roberts in that 3 minutes, what new information did he receive and how, as he claims, did he get to the Managing Director before Clare Pritchard did, discuss it with the Managing Director, all within that 3 minutes, and have the decision overturned before Clare Pritchard got through the door herself to overturn it. And what made him do that when 5 minutes earlier he argued at length that the driver should have had his license back.

And why then, did he and Marlene Haworth have Clare Pritchard in tears over the following 3 weeks saying committee members make decisions not officers and she should have been loyal to the decision of the committee and not gone complaining to the MD. Why would they do that then but now claim they actually did intervene to overturn what was their own decision.

Obviously there is a considerable amount of deception and misinformation going on that can only described as a botched cover up. I am sure the public will call it something else.

Since the report in February 19th, no new information has come out. The report itself covered all the facts. Clr Roberts and Clr Haworth have now placed themselves in a very difficult position.

cashman · 19-03-2007, 22:26

dont really know the rules in such things, but if possible i think councillor pritchard should seek advice, intimidation,victimisation, and harassment spring to mind.

g jones · 19-03-2007, 22:36

The second case, the Telegraph case

This again is turning into what appears may be another cover up and much more needs to come out to clear up confusing and contradictory statements by the Council.

The offender was taken into custody on the 4th Feb. Released soon after. The Police have given a statement in the media they advised the Council to suspend his license. The Council have replied by saying they could do that, but because of a loophole he was able to get his license back. On the 11 march he was back in custody after a 2nd taxi-sex offence.

The Council was advised by the Police to suspend him and could have done. The Council are saying the Police are not telling the truth and they were not told to suspend his licence. They claim it is a false statement (in the Lancs Telegraph) by maverick CID officers. However the Council do have a marvelous relationship with the other police officers they say.

The Councils practice for any offender not charged is not to take his licence away regardless of the offence including alleged sex offences. Licenses will only be suspended when charges have been brought.

So in this case the sex offender was allowed to keep his license and went on to re-offend.

The Council has admitted they took no action to suspend his license, despite police claims they asked the Council to. However the initial Council statement said they did not suspend his license 'because he could have appealed and got it back'. This implies they knew what was going on at the time.

This is a completely different version of events to todays statement which claims 'no information was forthcoming from the police' so we weren't aware of the situation. Furthermore The Council have stated, 'our code of practice does not suspend drivers based on allegations' so we would not have done anything about it anyway which completely contradicts the initial statement claiming a loophole in the law stopped them suspending the taxi driver.

One source admitted; "There has been a serious error of judgement". I would guess this is closest to the truth than anything else.

Clearly the driver should have been suspended on a sex allegation. If he appealed and got his license bac then at least the Council had taken the first and right step. If he had appealed, and we don't know he would, then he should have been brought in for interview, with the taxi firm and 'a serious discussion taken place'.

A press statement by Peter Britcliffe and the Tories is expected soon. I wonder where their priorities lie. A cross party decision to save their necks or an apology to the victims or more misinformation designed to mislead the public?

WillowTheWhisp · 19-03-2007, 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1

i did ask about the pervy driver and hes not mr popular amongs the drivers but i didnt fish for more info

Hardly surprising. I bet it reflects on them and people will be suspicious of all the drivers. I wouldn't be surprised if their takings have gone down since all this.

Ianto.W. · 19-03-2007, 22:41

I would dearly love our esteemed Council leader to explain this hot potato, he seems very fond of self gloryfication in the local rag, hanging baskets to you Peter.

jedimaster · 20-03-2007, 00:08

i don't know if this has been brought up as i've joined in rather late but i must admit after reading this alarm bells immediately began to ring

1. taxi driver known sex offender
2. council grants licencse

questions- does the firm have any school contracts?
What is the point of crb checks i thought legitimate taxi drivers
had to take them?
if yes to either how the hell did he get his license back
should the granting of licenses to taxi drivers not be dependant on
a clean crb check?

cashman · 20-03-2007, 00:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedimaster

i don't know if this has been brought up as i've joined in rather late but i must admit after reading this alarm bells immediately began to ring

1. taxi driver known sex offender
2. council grants licencse

questions- does the firm have any school contracts?
What is the point of crb checks i thought legitimate taxi drivers
had to take them?
if yes to either how the hell did he get his license back
should the granting of licenses to taxi drivers not be dependant on
a clean crb check?

not sure abour crb checks jedi, used to be yes for hackney license, not so for private hire, that was when moby dick was a tadpole,(when i was hackney) the other questions- PBs statement should be interesting.

jedimaster · 20-03-2007, 00:59

makes you wonder though doesn't it
i need to have one for the coach so why shouldn't a taxi driver
after all a taxi driver is more likely to end up in a 1 on 1 situation than i am

WillowTheWhisp · 20-03-2007, 08:28

I need to have one as a school governor and I'm even less likely to be in a one to one situation.

Until this came to light I rather naively thought all licensed taxi/private hire drivers were safe. My daughter used to travel alone in a taxi to LEMS in Rawtenstall when she was recovering from her road accident in 2003 - she was 12 years old. The education bods had arranged for her to be taken there by taxi and I was only allowed to accompany her on the first day to get her settled in. I dread to think what could have happened.

stanaccrington · 20-03-2007, 11:41

Couldn't the second person attacked sue the council for allowing him to have his license back? A couple of million pounds law suit would make them have to answer questions.

harwood red · 20-03-2007, 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I need to have one as a school governor and I'm even less likely to be in a one to one situation.

Until this came to light I rather naively thought all licensed taxi/private hire drivers were safe. My daughter used to travel alone in a taxi to LEMS in Rawtenstall when she was recovering from her road accident in 2003 - she was 12 years old. The education bods had arranged for her to be taken there by taxi and I was only allowed to accompany her on the first day to get her settled in. I dread to think what could have happened.

If the taxi driver is doing specific school runs then they do have to be CRB checked willow