Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Four councillors quit after vote for rapist taxi driver to keep operator licence (Scotland)

63 replies

IwantToRetire · 08/07/2026 19:23

Four councillors who voted to allow a rapist taxi driver to keep his operator's licence have quit Highland Council's licensing committee.

David Brown, 50, was jailed for six years and nine months in May after attacking an 18-year-old female passenger in December 2023.
Last month, following a request from Brown's family, the committee's six male councillors voted to allow his operator's licence to continue, while its four female councillors voted against it.

Article continues at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrggzx14r5o

The SNP group on Highland Council has suspended one of its councillors after he voted to allow a rapist taxi driver to keep his operator's licence.

Chris Birt was one of six male councillors who voted to take no action on David Brown's licence after the 50-year-old was jailed for an attack on an 18-year-old female passenger.

Raymond Bremner, SNP group leader at Highland Council, confirmed Birt was suspended on Tuesday.

Bremner had earlier suggested Birt should resign from Highland licensing committee after four other councillors quit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2wkw765kwo

I dont know is things are worse in Scotland, or that somehow more reporting is done.

Just shocking.

And a big thank you to the 4 unnamed women councillors who voted against the rapist keeping his licence.

What better example of how men in power protect other men, even if they are a convicted rapist. But then look at football.

The four male councilors show in a composite image

Four councillors quit after vote for rapist taxi driver to keep operator licence

The four have resigned from Highland licensing committee after voting to allow David Brown to keep an operator's licence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrggzx14r5o

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/07/2026 17:01

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 09/07/2026 12:36

I do not believe that there were absolutely no red flags for those that worked for him, I'm sure his attitude to women was shitty.

I think that losing your livelihood because you worked for a shitty misogynist rapist is exactly the kind of consequence we need to get societal change where men (and women) call out the gateway low level abuse that escalates and leads to rape.

Maybe if they lost their license it would create a market opportunity for another company and experienced drivers could transfer to that. Perhaps they'd ensure they recruited more female drivers to that women could choose to avoid the risk of rape when ordering a taxi. This prioritising jobs over women's lives needs to stop.

Edited to add: Yes, it's about safeguarding. There have to be consequences for safeguarding failures.

Edited

Absolutely this.

Meadowfinch · 09/07/2026 16:53

Good riddance. None of them were fit to be councillors, and were an embarrassment to their town and their families.

Now there can be a new intake of councillors, with values that aren't stuck in the 1800s.

Good news all round.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 09/07/2026 16:47

Found the bit on taxis in Casey report. TL:DR - best practice does include video recording in taxis, implemented in Rotherham following the problems with grooming gangs there. Why this isn't the case everywhere is a mystery (other than those in charge not caring much about women or girls).

There is no excuse, none at all for these safeguards not to be an absolute mandatory requirement everywhere in the UK - to stop rapes in taxis. Burnham comes out of this quite well, at least (some good news).

Below is cut and pasted from here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-audit-on-group-based-child-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse/national-audit-on-group-based-child-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse-accessible#chapter-7-taxi-licensing

Chapter 7: Taxi licensing
Chapter summary:

  • As a key part of the nighttime economy, taxis have historically been identified as a way children can be at risk of sexual exploitation.
  • Local authorities issue taxi licences in line with statutory guidance issued by the government. Some go above and beyond this statutory guidance as a means of combating child sexual exploitation but they are being hindered by a lack of stringency in other local authorities, and legal loopholes which mean drivers can apply for a licence anywhere in the country.
  • Proper safeguards in the licensing of taxis is as much about protecting the drivers as the passengers.
  • The Department for Transport should close this loophole immediately and introduce more rigorous standards.
In chapter 5 we looked at the ways in which children who are at risk of or come to harm from sexual exploitation come to the attention of police, children’s services and health services. We concluded that their presence was often not visible and, in these circumstances, it is much harder for local authorities, health and police to see where children are and if they are at risk. This is particularly the case with children who are looked after by the state but also for other adolescent children who become more vulnerable to exploitation whether that is online, in parks or shopping centres, in takeaways, buses or in taxis. While the subject of taxi licensing might seem to be just one dimension of local authority responsibility, which could have been placed into chapter 5 of this audit, the ability of local authorities to control and regulate who is a fit and proper person to drive a taxi in their area has the potential to be an important lever to safeguard children and others who are vulnerable to child sexual exploitation. In this audit’s visits to police forces and local authorities, we found that issues around taxi licensing – which have featured in several past reviews as a facilitator of child sexual exploitation, and on which some action has been taken - continued to be of concern and warranted the attention we give it here. To be absolutely clear, most taxi drivers are law-abiding people providing an important service to the public. There are many occasions where taxi drivers have gone above and beyond to protect members of the public and to support the police and other emergency services in their duties. As a key part of the nighttime economy, taxis have historically been identified in a minority of cases as a way children can be at risk of sexual exploitation, both as a potential way for perpetrators to meet their victims, as well as a means of trafficking victims to different locations and introducing them to other perpetrators. Many cases of group-based child sexual exploitation have highlighted links with taxis. In her 2014 report, Professor Jay said the role of taxi drivers was a ‘common thread’ in child sexual exploitation cases across England and noted that their involvement was evident from an early stage in Rotherham[footnote 205]. The same concerns have been highlighted in independent reports into child sexual exploitation cases across the country including Telford, Oldham and Newcastle, and repeated to this audit. Taxi licences are issued by local authorities who are required to make sure that taxis and private hire vehicle services are safe and accessible for all passengers. Proper safeguards also protects drivers. The Department for Transport sets the statutory guidance local authorities must have regard to when issuing taxi licences[footnote 206]. The Department for Transport also complements this with best practice guidance which is encouraged but not mandatory[footnote 207]. Some areas have gone far beyond this guidance in efforts to ensure taxis cannot be used to commit group-based child sexual exploitation again. Rotherham Borough Council told us that, since the Jay report and Casey inspection, it had transformed its approach to taxi licencing, introducing new, more rigorous approaches that went beyond the statutory and good practice guides and were applied retrospectively to ensure all drivers on their books met the same standard. In some cases, their good practice improvements had been included in updated statutory guidance. Improvements included:
  • Introduction of taxi cameras which must be capable of capturing every passenger and driver from the chest upwards.
  • Setting out a clear definition of a ‘fit and proper person’.
  • Proper training and a knowledge test on 3-year refresh.
  • A 100% pass mark requirement for the safeguarding test.
  • Using novel legal approaches to ensure those accused of serious sexual offences have their licences repealed if the evidence available meets the civil threshold.
Rotherham council applied the new standards retrospectively and revoked a number of licences as a result. Their hope was that the higher standards they applied could be mandated nationally. However, several areas we visited which were imposing rigorous standards were left frustrated by seeing taxi drivers freely operating in their areas having been licensed by other authorities who were perceived to operate less rigorous processes. This is allowed to happen as, under existing legislation, taxi drivers do not need to apply to the local authority area in which they live or work to obtain a license. Taxi drivers may operate in areas well beyond the area in which a licence has been issued. In 2023, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, expressed concerns that a high proportion of taxis operating across Greater Manchester were licensed outside the area and were undermining public safety. He was reported to have said that other authorities’ checks were not as stringent. In 2025, he launched a campaign ‘Backing our taxis: Local. Licensed. Trusted’[footnote 208] with aims to put a stop to ‘out of area’ licensing amid figures which GMCA said showed that more than 11% of England’s private hire vehicles are licensed by a single local authority, up from below 0.5% less than a decade ago. A BBC news report in on 2 October 2024[footnote 209] said, based on figures obtained by the GMB Union, that the same single local authority had issued 8,563 new taxi licences in the first five months of the year, over 30 times more than all of its neighbouring authorities over the same period; and that up to 96% of the taxi driver licences issued by that local authority in in the 2023-24 financial year were for drivers who lived elsewhere. The local authority was reported to have said that they did not actively encourage applications from drivers outside the city, and that existing legislation required that if an application is submitted and requirements are met, then the application must be granted, adding that it supported further standardisation but that government legislation would be required to introduce any changes. Given the extent of the reporting on the role taxis can play in child sexual exploitation, it is unacceptable that local areas are unable to oversee and account for the taxis on their streets. A lack of stringency means that drivers who are unscrupulous can apply to a lax neighbouring borough. The Department for Transport should close these loopholes urgently.
Emilesgran · 09/07/2026 16:13

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 09/07/2026 15:53

I find it entirely unsurprising, yet horrific, that safeguarding female passengers against rape is not a requirement for taxi firms. It should be. They SHOULD lose their license if any of their drivers is convicted of rape, that's an incentive to do safer recruitment and check attitudes and biases of their drivers. To have systems in place where red flags can be raised. There should be a requirement to suspend driving if an allegation is made, again an incentive to ensure you don't employ rapist misogynists. This might have the great side effect of a similar number of female drivers as there are passengers. Of course they'd need protection from rapist male passengers, it's not impossible to do this either.

I know someone who was raped by a taxi driver, it ruined her life. Do you know what really ruined her life more than it needed to be ruined? Walking around the town she lived in seeing the same rapist driving around in his taxi. She said he enjoyed it when he saw her. The power of knowing what had happened and he'd suffered no consequence. Yes, she went to police, they said there was insufficient proof to proceed to prosecution. That was traumatising too.

Maybe, I don't know, there should be some system in taxis so there IS evidence? FFS it's not fucking rocket science to protect women with technology as it is these days, e.g. having some kind of auto-record system if someone cries out in distress or just maybe recording interactions in a taxi. Or CCTV, or the equivalent of ring doorbells. They're hardly expensive. This would protect the non criminal drivers too.

Yes, taxi drivers were a key part of the grooming gangs IIRC there were recommendations about disrupting this in the Casey report (I can't remember what they were though).

The system as it is is a massive great big honey pot of opportunity for rapists.

Edited

Carrie Johnson (nee Symonds) is a victim of the black cab rapist John Worboys - she didn't get much attention from the police at the time either, which goes to show how taxi drivers are a real threat even to the most privileged of women.

Women are blamed for supposed recklessness in not taking a taxi, yet when even those who have the money to do so are attacked they are still not believed.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 09/07/2026 15:53

I find it entirely unsurprising, yet horrific, that safeguarding female passengers against rape is not a requirement for taxi firms. It should be. They SHOULD lose their license if any of their drivers is convicted of rape, that's an incentive to do safer recruitment and check attitudes and biases of their drivers. To have systems in place where red flags can be raised. There should be a requirement to suspend driving if an allegation is made, again an incentive to ensure you don't employ rapist misogynists. This might have the great side effect of a similar number of female drivers as there are passengers. Of course they'd need protection from rapist male passengers, it's not impossible to do this either.

I know someone who was raped by a taxi driver, it ruined her life. Do you know what really ruined her life more than it needed to be ruined? Walking around the town she lived in seeing the same rapist driving around in his taxi. She said he enjoyed it when he saw her. The power of knowing what had happened and he'd suffered no consequence. Yes, she went to police, they said there was insufficient proof to proceed to prosecution. That was traumatising too.

Maybe, I don't know, there should be some system in taxis so there IS evidence? FFS it's not fucking rocket science to protect women with technology as it is these days, e.g. having some kind of auto-record system if someone cries out in distress or just maybe recording interactions in a taxi. Or CCTV, or the equivalent of ring doorbells. They're hardly expensive. This would protect the non criminal drivers too.

Yes, taxi drivers were a key part of the grooming gangs IIRC there were recommendations about disrupting this in the Casey report (I can't remember what they were though).

The system as it is is a massive great big honey pot of opportunity for rapists.

Emilesgran · 09/07/2026 15:41

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 09/07/2026 12:36

I do not believe that there were absolutely no red flags for those that worked for him, I'm sure his attitude to women was shitty.

I think that losing your livelihood because you worked for a shitty misogynist rapist is exactly the kind of consequence we need to get societal change where men (and women) call out the gateway low level abuse that escalates and leads to rape.

Maybe if they lost their license it would create a market opportunity for another company and experienced drivers could transfer to that. Perhaps they'd ensure they recruited more female drivers to that women could choose to avoid the risk of rape when ordering a taxi. This prioritising jobs over women's lives needs to stop.

Edited to add: Yes, it's about safeguarding. There have to be consequences for safeguarding failures.

Edited

Yes exactly - all of this.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 09/07/2026 12:36

likelysuspect · 08/07/2026 19:48

Thats right there have been several threads about this. This is an operators licence and a family member (who I assume jointly owns the company or runs it or something) appealed for the operator licence to remain in place. Presumably other people would lose their livelihoods if it was removed. I dont know the rules as to how they work, if he lost his operator licence perhaps that would render the company redundant or have to close it down while another company is formed and reopened? Not sure.

This is not the story that people think it is, and it needs to keep being corrected on threads like this.

I do not believe that there were absolutely no red flags for those that worked for him, I'm sure his attitude to women was shitty.

I think that losing your livelihood because you worked for a shitty misogynist rapist is exactly the kind of consequence we need to get societal change where men (and women) call out the gateway low level abuse that escalates and leads to rape.

Maybe if they lost their license it would create a market opportunity for another company and experienced drivers could transfer to that. Perhaps they'd ensure they recruited more female drivers to that women could choose to avoid the risk of rape when ordering a taxi. This prioritising jobs over women's lives needs to stop.

Edited to add: Yes, it's about safeguarding. There have to be consequences for safeguarding failures.

Yapper73 · 09/07/2026 10:00

Is his wife not divorcing him? Will he then have a taxi sitting on his doorstep when he serves his term?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/07/2026 09:56

I agree @PrizedPickledPopcorn

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 09/07/2026 09:52

Perhaps there was a lack of safeguarding understanding- not anything criminal, but a failure to recognise patterns of behaviour, patterns of complaints for example- that made them concerned about the business continuing unchanged.

And I imagine the initial decision about him being allowed to drive while bailed will have been about presumption of innocence. Safeguarding relies on people being stepped back after complaints, until the investigation is concluded.

In this case men favoured presumption of innocence over safeguarding. I can see why they might- but it’s a failure of training on that council. And perhaps a failure of the officers who advise the councillors.

likelysuspect · 09/07/2026 09:22

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

My posts have been factual and respectful to everyone on this thread, there is no need to make personal comments to me by making things up about what I would or wouldnt do and using rolling eyes. That is inappropriate

This is a discussion forum where Im asking questions to engage in your points. Either engage respecfully or ignore my posts.

likelysuspect · 09/07/2026 09:19

WearyAuldWumman · 08/07/2026 21:54

This is the new information:

But five men on the Highland Council committee argued that Brown was a “fit and proper person to hold a licence”.

According to the minutes of the meeting on January 9, 2024, councillor Drew Millar put forward the motion for Brown to keep driving taxis.

His amendment was seconded by Sean Kennedy and supported by John Bruce, John Grafton, and Duncan MacPherson.

Six other members of the committee voted in favour of suspending Brown’s licence – meaning it was just one vote that prevented the predator from continuing to pick up passengers as he awaited trial.

Well obviously that is a completely different matter, he isnt a fit and proper person, although I dont know what the laws are around awaiting trial. You've been charged but not been found guilty.

I wouldnt be able to do my job if I had a charge hanging over me like that I dont think, I think I would be suspended until the trial, but I need an enhanced DBS as I work with vulnerable children and families.

theilltemperedamateur · 09/07/2026 09:13

Press and Journal reported on 8th July that his wife has finally applied for an operator's licence in her own name.

I'm not sure that she could apply until the existing licence covering the vehicle(s) expired or was rescinded. According to the BBC report, the councillors' thinking was that "Brown's operator's licence [only] had six months to run, after which his family member could renew it in their own name". I have no idea why this would be smoother than rescinding the licence straight away though. The story is baffling, and I wish some enterprising local journo had got into it more.

It's shocking that the male councillors wanted him to keep his taxi driver's licence while he was out on bail awaiting trial. But I still don't understand exactly why the female councillors and Police Scotland wanted the operator's licence rescinded, once Brown was incarcerated. Either it was a pointless gesture, or some suspicion still attaches to other drivers operating under the licence. If the latter, why no arrests?

Retiredfromthere · 09/07/2026 08:44

Glad to hear that the wife has now applied for operators license on her own account. This sounds reasonable and no argument not to support her. It also means that the benefit of carrying on running the business is her benefit. To let her husband keep the license in his name means that his business would not be so affected. And it should be.

testmatchspecial · 09/07/2026 08:33

If they stand by their decision and it’s to do with his wife getting the licence, why have they resigned? Unless forced to I suppose, or it’s not really about supporting his wife.

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 09/07/2026 00:50

Press and Journal reported on 8th July that his wife has finally applied for an operator's licence in her own name.

The most interesting paragraph of the Press and Journal coverage, to me at least, is this on 1st July, regarding Police Scotland's objection to having the original operator's licence in his name renewed:

Councillors have told us they felt physically sick when they read a police report from senior officers urging them to refuse the application.

www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/inverness/7051167/highland-council-david-brown-taxi-licence-revealed/

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 09/07/2026 00:25

This is from the Inverness Courier.

Police Scotland said: "We can confirm officers attended a Highland Council licensing committee meeting on Tuesday 23 June and submitted an objection.

“The decision on whether to grant a licence is a matter for the council.”

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/highland-council-allows-locked-up-rapist-to-keep-taxi-operat-438802/

I think it would have served his wife well to get her ducks in a row and apply for a taxi operator's licence independently during the 2 and half years between her husband being charged with rape (and losing his taxi driver's licence as a result) and his case coming to trial. The medis coverage says she's a licensed taxi driver, so she must have been keeping the business running, under his name.

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 09/07/2026 00:14

I have been reading some of the coverage, and I'm not sure that Brown runs a firm in the sense of having multiple employees. I think it's just his family. Anyway this is an excerpt from the Scotsman.

His taxi driver’s licence, allowing him to drive, was suspended in January 2024 after his crimes came to light - however he still held a separate operator’s licence, allowing his vehicle to be used as a taxi business.

Brown’s family had requested he be allowed to keep his operator’s licence.

Members of Highland Council’s licensing committee were given three options - suspend or revoke the licence, or to do nothing.

The discussions happened in private to “protect the identities of victims” - something Rape Crisis Scotland says is “part of the problem”.

The councillors on the committee were told that allowing him to keep the operator’s licence would ensure his wife could continue to earn an income.

In the end, the committee agreed he could keep the licence after the six male councillors voted in favour and the four female councillors voted against it.

Police Scotland had recommended the licence be revoked.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/why-a-convicted-rapist-taxi-driver-was-able-to-keep-his-operating-licence-8782021

I hope this wasn't the same vehicle he'd used to rape that young woman.

Bolding mine.

Emilesgran · 08/07/2026 23:52

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 08/07/2026 22:50

WearyAuldWumman · 08/07/2026 21:36

Gosh, it turns out that these councillors who disregarded Police Scotland's recommendations to remove the convicted rapist's taxi operator's licence last month (while the female councillors voted to follow Police Scotland's recommendations) may have a history of votes that don't prioritise women's safety.

Gosh. Look at my very shocked face. I'm more shocked than Mr Wut, five-times winner of the annual All-England Most Shocked competition.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/07/2026 22:38

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/07/2026 22:37

It’s not really “guilt by association”, the rapist is clearly not a fit and proper person to run a taxi firm. Anyone else affected is not really the point.

Again, it was not incidental that he was a taxi driver, it was how he preyed on women.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/07/2026 22:37

BettyBooper · 08/07/2026 21:16

And I'm sucked back in...

Which laws do you think need to be changed to ensure a rapist can't work for a taxi company? The laws already exist.

I mean, I do hear you. You're suspicious, fair enough.

But reasonably, unless someone is convicted of (or even given the Enhanced DBS rules, there is intelligence of suspicious activity) what do you think should happen?

I'm asking genuinely. If you worked for a guy who turned out to be a rapist would you be happy to lose your job via guilt by association?

It’s not really “guilt by association”, the rapist is clearly not a fit and proper person to run a taxi firm. Anyone else affected is not really the point.

WearyAuldWumman · 08/07/2026 21:54

This is the new information:

But five men on the Highland Council committee argued that Brown was a “fit and proper person to hold a licence”.

According to the minutes of the meeting on January 9, 2024, councillor Drew Millar put forward the motion for Brown to keep driving taxis.

His amendment was seconded by Sean Kennedy and supported by John Bruce, John Grafton, and Duncan MacPherson.

Six other members of the committee voted in favour of suspending Brown’s licence – meaning it was just one vote that prevented the predator from continuing to pick up passengers as he awaited trial.

WearyAuldWumman · 08/07/2026 21:37

likelysuspect · 08/07/2026 19:48

Thats right there have been several threads about this. This is an operators licence and a family member (who I assume jointly owns the company or runs it or something) appealed for the operator licence to remain in place. Presumably other people would lose their livelihoods if it was removed. I dont know the rules as to how they work, if he lost his operator licence perhaps that would render the company redundant or have to close it down while another company is formed and reopened? Not sure.

This is not the story that people think it is, and it needs to keep being corrected on threads like this.

The latest article suggests that it actually is much more sinister.