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

How strange. For whatever reason in both articles I can only see photos of men!

I wonder if there is an updated version of the article.

Will keep checking

The point would be the same point that means that a licence is needed to run a taxi firm in the first place: it's a job that puts the driver in a position to abuse vulnerable clients, so extra care is needed compared to, say, a factory employee.

And since the rules around granting licences have shown themselves to be inadequate, extra care needs to be taken before assuming that all the other drivers are honourable upstanding people who just were unfortnate enough to have been employed by a rapIst;

This shoudn't be hard to grasp.

The point would be the same point that means that a licence is needed to run a taxi firm in the first place: it's a job that puts the driver in a position to abuse vulnerable clients, so extra care is needed compared to, say, a factory employee.

And since the rules around granting licences have shown themselves to be inadequate, extra care needs to be taken before assuming that all the other drivers are honourable upstanding people who just were unfortnate enough to have been employed by a rapIst;

This shoudn't be hard to grasp.

None of your posts make sense

The law has done its job, its convicted and sentenced the criminal The consequences of the crime are that he is banged up

Unless there is evidence that the people relying on the operators licence were co defendants/also convicted of crimes, there isnt a need to remove the operators licence which would also remove their way of earning a living.

What would be the point of that?

TBH I think they should be erring on the side of caution whether or not employees would be affected.

Nothing to stop those who want to operate a taxi firm to apply for a licence.

This forum is full of threads criticising TRAs for saying the law doesn't suit them so shouldn't be implemented.

And then of a feminist forum, posters are saying a rapist shouldn't have to accept the consequences of his crime.

What next.

Not sending DV perpetrators to prison because the man was the bread winner for the family.

Let alone all those MPs who think it isn't fair that their status as an MP might be jeopardised because they've been caught out fiddling their finances.

I don't know how black and white it is though - why did four women councillors vote against and the men all vote for? That woudl concern me. I agree we don't know any more than that - but that's something I'd need explained to me before I'd ever have anything to do with the company. And it's a bit odd that the wife just assumed it was all ok and she could just take over as if nothng had happened.

This sounds like damning with faint praise. Are the rules sufficient to keep women safe, and even if they mostly are, is there any risk that this particular firm, being owned by an actual rapist, was keeping to the letter and the spirit of those rules?
As a PP said, the company is tainted by its owner, and if I were the wife taking it over, I'd want to re examine ALL the drivers very carefully before sending them out on the road.
And actually if I were a potential client there, I'd want to know just how careful the wife herself was. I don't see any reason to assume they're all grand except him.

Well you can interpret how you like.

I wasn't talking about you.

I was talking about the decision as you explained it.

Complete Trumpian bollocks.

If laws can be put aside because of commercial concerns that is not implenting the law equally.

That's not hard to grasp is it.

I don't know how black and white it is though - why did four women councillors vote against and the men all vote for? That woudl concern me. I agree we don't know any more than that - but that's something I'd need explained to me before I'd ever have anything to do with the company. And it's a bit odd that the wife just assumed it was all ok and she could just take over as if nothng had happened.

I can understand that. And potential risks of other people working there would be a legitimate concern, as someone mentioned upthread. I just don't think it's as black and white as first presented.

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.

Different local authorities have different requirements for what checks are completed on cab firm employees so they'll abide by whatever the rules are for that area.

Speaking personally, I wouldn't use that particular taxi company ever again. I realise it was only one man. But the company itself would be tainted for me.

Since when did a convicted criminal not have to serve their sentence because of their work, financial considerations.

What a complete load of bollocks.

This would create a whole new class of rapists. Men who do "essential" work will never ever have to do time in prison.

Sounds like one of Trump's more nutty (male centred) world view.

Weren't they voting against because it would put lots of jobs at risk by having to halt the licence to the firm whilst they sorted out a new operator? Risk minimal because the guy was in prison?

Yes, the guy should utterly suffer, but other people being penalised and losing their jobs seems crazy.

Sorry if I've got this wrong.

I think the poster meant other drivers working for the firm should be allowed to continue, as well as the rapist's wife.
As I said just now though, I think that's a firm where all the employees would need to be carefully looked at before assuming they were all grand and it was the firm's owner who was dodgy. I woudln't be surprised if he employed dodgy mates too.