Topic ID 6159
This morning's MERCURY (front page) questions the council's wisdom at granting licences to taxi drivers who are/were guilty of: 1) Drink driving 2) Driving whilst useing a mobile phone 3) Driving without insurance 4) Fraud 5) Shoplifting 6) Obtaining property by deception 7) Assault to name but a few...... I wonder if they were Members of Parliament in a previous life?
Reply ID 83145
The Welwyn & Hatfield Times did a similar report a few years back, based on a Freedom of Information request, which showed that a disproportionately high number of taxi drivers had criminal records.
Reply ID 83150
Surely this is a good sign. People who have made a mistake in the past, have been caught, dealt with by the courts, taken their punishment and learned the lesson. Now they are making a worthwhile contribution to society. I for one, am glad that they were not immaturely demonized and ostracised, leaving them no alternative to a life of crime which they probably never to intended to set out upon. The council were sensible enough to recognise them as fallible human beings who like all of us, have once made poor choices. It would be truely stupid to ensure that the only options left available to someone who has made a mistake in early life, are criminal ones.
Reply ID 83153
When a taxi driver has racked up TWO convictions for drink driving in three years, it suggests they've not learned their lesson and that they have a casual attitude to not only the law but their career. Another serial offender has THREE convictions for driving whilst disqualified and two for driving without insurance. Yet another appearred before the council three years in a row for offences including drug driving and assault. These aren't isolated incidents but a pattern of offending.
Reply ID 83154
quote:So what do you suggest? Deny them even the most menial of legitimate employment so that the only option open to them is a criminal one? Grown up people accept that from time to time anyone can a make poor choice. Some people tend to make more than one. Some people make lots. So it would be stupid to only allow someone with a track record of making poor choices the opportunity only to make further poor choices. Whatever these people may have done they now have the opportunity to make living and a contribution to society. Of course, anyone who is not happy with this then we could tax you a bit more and pay these people to be idle. I know which I prefer.
Originally posted by Steve
When a taxi driver has racked up TWO convictions for drink driving in three years, it suggests they've not learned their lesson and that they have a casual attitude to not only the law but their career. Another serial offender has THREE convictions for driving whilst disqualified and two for driving without insurance. Yet another appearred before the council three years in a row for offences including drug driving and assault. These aren't isolated incidents but a pattern of offending.
Reply ID 83169
quote:Anyone making the 'poor choice' of getting in a cab if the driver is stoned may not get the opportunity to repeat the mistake.
Originally posted by Enoughofthat Grown up people accept that from time to time anyone can a make poor choice. Some people tend to make more than one.
Reply ID 83171
Anyone making the 'poor choice' of getting in a cab if the driver is stoned may not get the opportunity to repeat the mistake. Correct, but what's your point? It would be a "poor choice" to have my tackle waxed by someone smoking a crack pipe, but there is no suggestion that is likely to happen either. None of these licenced taxi drivers are reported to have committed a crime while driving a cab with a fare on board.
Reply ID 83176
quote:Put another way they might have just got away with it. If someone has a track record of prosecutions for driving whilst under the influence it clearly means they have little regard for the safety of others and as such should not be granted a licence to operate a cab.
Originally posted by Enoughofthat None of these licenced taxi drivers are reported to have committed a crime while driving a cab with a fare on board.
Reply ID 83178
So, judging by some of the posts here, some people would be quite happy to have a paedophile babysit their childen or grandchildren. I mean, after all, you have to give them a chance don't you?
Reply ID 83182
quote:To draw such a preposterous conclusion from some plainly expressed opinion shows a disturbing lack of mental acuity or a wilful determination to misunderstand and misrepresent. You're not a policeman are you? However, I have now read the article and although it tends to the sensationalist it does report that some of the crimes were committed in the course of taxi trade. If true, in these cases and assuming no mitigating circumstances renewing a licence seems hard to justify.
Originally posted by buzz
So, judging by some of the posts here, some people would be quite happy to have a paedophile babysit their childen or grandchildren. I mean, after all, you have to give them a chance don't you?
Reply ID 83184
quote:It's not preposterous at all. Allowing people who've repeatedly committed driving offences to become professional drivers is akin to allowing convicted peadophiles to work in schools. Sure. let them work, but not in roles directly associated with their crimes.
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
To draw such a preposterous conclusion from some plainly expressed opinion shows a disturbing lack of mental acuity or a wilful determination to misunderstand and misrepresent. You're not a policeman are you?
quote:You're not a taxi driver are you?
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
You're not a policeman are you?
Reply ID 83186
A drink-driving offence can be the result of a misjudgement or error while paedophilia is a predilection to depravity. It is both absurd and mischievous to conflate the motivation for paedophilia and drink-drink driving. You're not a taxi driver are you? I don't know about you, but I can make a case for the unfairly maligned without personal a vested interest.
Reply ID 83187
quote:To draw such a preposterous conclusion from some plainly expressed opinion shows a disturbing lack of mental acuity or a wilful determination to misunderstand and misrepresent How is this preposterous? I am merely reflecting the opinions of some people who think it's OK to allow taxi drivers who have convictions directly connected to their trade to operate with an undoubted risk to members of the public. As to 'a disturbing lack of mental acuity' what are your qualifications for such a diagnosis? Incidentally, my mental acuity was sufficient to solve a problem which you couldn't, as posted on another topic on here today.
Originally posted by Enoughofthatquote:To draw such a preposterous conclusion from some plainly expressed opinion shows a disturbing lack of mental acuity or a wilful determination to misunderstand and misrepresent. You're not a policeman are you? However, I have now read the article and although it tends to the sensationalist it does report that some of the crimes were committed in the course of taxi trade. If true, in these cases and assuming no mitigating circumstances renewing a licence seems hard to justify.
Originally posted by buzz
So, judging by some of the posts here, some people would be quite happy to have a paedophile babysit their childen or grandchildren. I mean, after all, you have to give them a chance don't you?
Reply ID 83188
I am merely reflecting the opinions of some people who think it's OK to allow taxi drivers who have convictions directly connected to their trade to operate with an undoubted risk to members of the public. We can now add disingenuous to the list. .
Reply ID 83189
quote:A quicker u-turn than you would get from a pissed taxi driver [img]http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/trave_abc/smilie_u.gif[/img]
Originally posted by Enoughofthat However, I have now read the article and although it tends to the sensationalist it does report that some of the crimes were committed in the course of taxi trade. If true, in these cases and assuming no mitigating circumstances renewing a licence seems hard to justify.
Reply ID 83190
A quicker u-turn than you would get from a pissed taxi driver A perfectly executed three-point turn making due allowance for the prevailing conditions. [:)]
Reply ID 83191
quote:Originally posted by Steve When a taxi driver has racked up TWO convictions for drink driving in three years, it suggests they've not learned their lesson and that they have a casual attitude to not only the law but their career. Another serial offender has THREE convictions for driving whilst disqualified and two for driving without insurance. Yet another appearred before the council three years in a row for offences including drug driving and assault. These aren't isolated incidents but a pattern of offending. Hardly an "error" or "misjudgement" more a prediliction to ignore the law. As to "unfairly maligned"...in what sense is it unfair to publish undisputed facts?
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
A drink-driving offence can be the result of a misjudgement or error while paedophilia is a predilection to depravity. It is both absurd and mischievous to conflate the motivation for paedophilia and drink-drink driving. You're not a taxi driver are you? I don't know about you, but I can make a case for the unfairly maligned without personal a vested interest.
Reply ID 83192
quote:The facts are far from undisputed and without knowledge of the circumstances leading to the offence we cannot make a fair and informed opinion. At least I cannot. Others seem happy to condemn on the strength of a newspaper article peddling sensationalism to the credulous. And that is my last word as too late I fear, I remember the wisdom "Arguing with a fool is losing game, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Hardly an "error" or "misjudgement" more a prediliction to ignore the law. As to "unfairly maligned"...in what sense is it unfair to publish undisputed facts?
Reply ID 83193
quote:Here are "the facts" as presented to the District Council's Licensing Committee http://online.eastherts.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=7748
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
The facts are far from undisputed and without knowledge of the circumstances leading to the offence we cannot make a fair and informed opinion. At least I cannot. Others seem happy to condemn on the strength of a newspaper article peddling sensationalism to the credulous.
Reply ID 83194
quote:Too judgemental ..... if you were a convicted criminal wanting to go straight, what other professions would give you a second look? ... not many... good on the taxi firms for keeping these guys away from temptation ...
Originally posted by Stevequote:It's not preposterous at all. Allowing people who've repeatedly committed driving offences to become professional drivers is akin to allowing convicted peadophiles to work in schools. Sure. let them work, but not in roles directly associated with their crimes.
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
To draw such a preposterous conclusion from some plainly expressed opinion shows a disturbing lack of mental acuity or a wilful determination to misunderstand and misrepresent. You're not a policeman are you?quote:You're not a taxi driver are you?
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
You're not a policeman are you?
Reply ID 83195
quote:'Wanting to go straight'? ..so you demonstrate this by having 2 convictions for drink driving, or 3 for driving whilst disqualified. Check the link that Steve posted for details of how these poor misguided individuals were trying to go straight.
Originally posted by azzzaquote:Too judgemental ..... if you were a convicted criminal wanting to go straight, what other professions would give you a second look? ... not many... good on the taxi firms for keeping these guys away from temptation ...
Originally posted by Stevequote:It's not preposterous at all. Allowing people who've repeatedly committed driving offences to become professional drivers is akin to allowing convicted peadophiles to work in schools. Sure. let them work, but not in roles directly associated with their crimes.
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
To draw such a preposterous conclusion from some plainly expressed opinion shows a disturbing lack of mental acuity or a wilful determination to misunderstand and misrepresent. You're not a policeman are you?quote:You're not a taxi driver are you?
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
You're not a policeman are you?
Reply ID 83196
quote:Yes, what better way to keep criminals with multiple motoring convictions away from temptation than offering them employment driving a car.
Originally posted by azzza
good on the taxi firms for keeping these guys away from temptation
Reply ID 83198
Rumour has it that the taxi drivers are "spitting blood" over the Mercury article and they are going to sue the Mercury....and the Council. Should be interesting !
Reply ID 83200
quote:On what grounds?
Originally posted by tiger.1000
Rumour has it that the taxi drivers are "spitting blood" over the Mercury article and they are going to sue the Mercury....and the Council. Should be interesting !
Reply ID 83202
quote:Would your views be the same if the 'Criminal' was an MP, a businessman or even a respectable member of the middle classes? .. if everyone had the view of not employing EX-criminals then the ones that WANT to get out of criminality will never be able to .. People change and mature with age and many want to grow-up ... I think we need to applaud the taxi firms for taking these guys out of the loop.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Yes, what better way to keep criminals with multiple motoring convictions away from temptation than offering them employment driving a car.
Originally posted by azzza
good on the taxi firms for keeping these guys away from temptation
Reply ID 83203
quote:taxi drivers turning to the courts over this - good luck. They can budget about 100k for the profit costs of the litigation together with (I'd say) about 40 grand for counsel's fees for advice, drafting the pleadings and appearing at any hearing of the matter. All the best to them with that - they havent got a hope in hell of winning and if they lose they will all end up bankrupt.
Originally posted by tiger.1000
Rumour has it that the taxi drivers are "spitting blood" over the Mercury article and they are going to sue the Mercury....and the Council. Should be interesting !
Reply ID 83204
I have noticed that it appears on this post that most of you are men responding to the Mercury article. I can put another side of the argument from a female perspective. I have been in a situation where I was being followed on foot and sought sanctuary with a registered taxi driver to take me to my destination (not late at night) and this he did. He/she is in a position of trust. There have been cases of taxi drivers, especially unlicensed ones, attacking their fares and raping them. I personally think most taxi drivers are honest, but we are very vulnerable when we accept a lift to our destination in their vehicles and as a female I personally would want to know that the licenced person was of a good, trustworthy character. I do think convictions for drink driving should rule you instantly out of driving a taxi but please see there are other, good and important reasons to me as a female why making sure your taxi driver is of a good integrity and character to do with personal safety, which I don't think you have touched on and one which I always think about in Hertford or in London when I use licenced cabs....
Reply ID 83205
quote:Add: They'd be lucky to find either a solicitor or counsel who would even contemplate such a lost cause. Furthermore, the subesequent publicity, with no doubt names being named, would only serve to exacerbate their problems!
Originally posted by exiled_in_Readingquote:taxi drivers turning to the courts over this - good luck. They can budget about 100k for the profit costs of the litigation together with (I'd say) about 40 grand for counsel's fees for advice, drafting the pleadings and appearing at any hearing of the matter. All the best to them with that - they havent got a hope in hell of winning and if they lose they will all end up bankrupt.
Originally posted by tiger.1000
Rumour has it that the taxi drivers are "spitting blood" over the Mercury article and they are going to sue the Mercury....and the Council. Should be interesting !
Reply ID 83206
quote:As has been said, it is not suggested that taxi drivers with criminal records shouldn't be able to work, but NOT driving members of the public for hire or reward. As Drama Queen point out, it's not only driving convictions that can make someone unsuitable to be a cab driver. If you had an accountant who was convicted of fraud would you use him/her to look after your financial affairs? If, (and I refer to a previous comment I made), you were looking for a babysitter would you employ a convicted paedophile?
Originally posted by azzzaquote:Would your views be the same if the 'Criminal' was an MP, a businessman or even a respectable member of the middle classes? .. if everyone had the view of not employing EX-criminals then the ones that WANT to get out of criminality will never be able to .. People change and mature with age and many want to grow-up ... I think we need to applaud the taxi firms for taking these guys out of the loop.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Yes, what better way to keep criminals with multiple motoring convictions away from temptation than offering them employment driving a car.
Originally posted by azzza
good on the taxi firms for keeping these guys away from temptation
Reply ID 83207
On what grounds ? Well one could speculate on the omission of their mug-shots...
Reply ID 83208
quote:You make a valid point and I accept that your fears are genuinely held but nevertheless they are irrational.Irrational because the incidence is vanishingly rare. Just because one sex offender who drove a cab for a living and abused his position doesn't mean that all cab drivers are potentially similar. Likewise for dentists, doctors, firemen, policemen etc. all of whom have had sex offenders in their ranks. Having read the doc that Steve post to I can see nothing to raise concern. Certainly there are some startling and emotionally charged terms on the page but careful reading reveals that there are no current local cabbies with current serious offences. Those that have applied with such have not been granted a licence. The worst offenders to my mind, with two convictions for drink driving occurred over ten years ago. Ten years is a long enough period to establish a record of "going straight". Especially if the offender was young man at the time. Young men do a lot of growing up in their twenties and thirties and the process of growing involves making cringing errors. Luckily for most us the consequences of our errors are insignificant but sometimes a small misjudgement has knock on effects massively out of proportion to the intent. My strongest feelings are reserved for the Mercury reporter and editor. The article is a scurrilous and disgraceful piece of lazy journalism. To my mind it is cheap scaremongering which sows unfounded fears in the minds of taxi users especially those who take a cab to feel safe. I haven't bought the Mercury for years and see no reason to do so. Local papers are closing in numbers when the time comes for the Mercury I won't miss it.
Originally posted by Drama Queen
...There have been cases of taxi drivers, especially unlicensed ones, attacking their fares and raping them. I personally think most taxi drivers are honest, but we are very vulnerable when we accept a lift to our destination in their vehicles and as a female ...
Reply ID 83209
quote:Just because one sex offender who drove a cab for a living and abused his position doesn't mean that all cab drivers are potentially similar. Likewise for dentists, doctors, firemen, policemen etc. all of whom have had sex offenders in their ranks. Agreed. However when dentists and doctors are convicted of such offences they are invariable struck off their respective registers and not allowed to practice. Fireman and most certainly policemen will be sacked. This doesn't seem to hold true for taxi drivers.
Originally posted by Enoughofthatquote:You make a valid point and I accept that your fears are genuinely held but nevertheless they are irrational.Irrational because the incidence is vanishingly rare. Just because one sex offender who drove a cab for a living and abused his position doesn't mean that all cab drivers are potentially similar. Likewise for dentists, doctors, firemen, policemen etc. all of whom have had sex offenders in their ranks. Having read the doc that Steve post to I can see nothing to raise concern. Certainly there are some startling and emotionally charged terms on the page but careful reading reveals that there are no current local cabbies with current serious offences. Those that have applied with such have not been granted a licence. The worst offenders to my mind, with two convictions for drink driving occurred over ten years ago. Ten years is a long enough period to establish a record of "going straight". Especially if the offender was young man at the time. Young men do a lot of growing up in their twenties and thirties and the process of growing involves making cringing errors. Luckily for most us the consequences of our errors are insignificant but sometimes a small misjudgement has knock on effects massively out of proportion to the intent. My strongest feelings are reserved for the Mercury reporter and editor. The article is a scurrilous and disgraceful piece of lazy journalism. To my mind it is cheap scaremongering which sows unfounded fears in the minds of taxi users especially those who take a cab to feel safe. I haven't bought the Mercury for years and see no reason to do so. Local papers are closing in numbers when the time comes for the Mercury I won't miss it.
Originally posted by Drama Queen
...There have been cases of taxi drivers, especially unlicensed ones, attacking their fares and raping them. I personally think most taxi drivers are honest, but we are very vulnerable when we accept a lift to our destination in their vehicles and as a female ...
Reply ID 83213
It takes a special kind of person to take on the Saturday night fares...... drunkards;the bilious; the violent;the non-payers;the knife-at-your-throaters. I take my hat off to most of 'em ! The taxi drivers that is...
Reply ID 83214
quote:judging by some of the convictions listed on the list Steve linked to, they should be very comfortable with the above
Originally posted by tiger.1000
drunkards;the bilious; the violent;the non-payers;the knife-at-your-throaters.
Reply ID 83215
As an ex Hertford cabbie, I know how difficult the job can be. The vast majority of local cab drivers are decent, hard working people & this news will feel like a kick in the teeth to them. There are bad eggs in every profession, plain & simple, & unfortunately the taxi trade is no exception. One of the reasons I gave up the job was the general lack of respect I suffered on a daily basis, not to mention the sickening abuse & violence, often from people who really should know better. Being called Dick Turpin, or a robbing bastard, or worse (much, much worse!) even if it is said as a drunken joke, it just wears you down in the end. Sadly, even the police seemed to regard cabbies as scum - that's how I felt anyway. And from the tone of some of the posts on this thread, I think there might be one or two people here that think the same perhaps?
Reply ID 83216
At no point has this discussion condemned all taxi drivers as scum or otherwise.
Reply ID 83217
quote:Sorry, I was just reading between the lines.
Originally posted by Leo Densian
At no point has this discussion condemned all taxi drivers as scum or otherwise.
Reply ID 83218
quote:Agreed. The point here is that the system for issuing and reviewing licences is faulty, not that all taxi drivers are miscreants. Unfortunately, though, the innocent get tarred by association as a consequence. Whilst I agree with the rehabilitation of offenders, I also agree that crimes committed at any age should preclude employment in a field where a clear conflict of interest arises. Repetitive motoring offences and violence, for example, should directly impact being allowed to ply one's trade where you are entrusted with passenger safety in a vehicle. Even more so when that passenger may be vulnerable through age, sex or drink. Whilst Hertford's taxi drivers are upset, their anger might better be directed at challenging the local authority to tighten up the criteria for granting licences.
Originally posted by Moz
. . . The vast majority of local cab drivers are decent, hard working people & this news will feel like a kick in the teeth to them. There are bad eggs in every profession, plain & simple, & unfortunately the taxi trade is no exception. . .
Reply ID 83219
quote:Pointless I'm afraid. Many drivers have tried to get the council to listen to their views over the years, but they always give up in the end. Nothing ever really changes.
Originally posted by Woody
Whilst Hertford's taxi drivers are upset, their anger might better be directed at challenging the local authority to tighten up the criteria for granting licences.
Reply ID 83242
I have today presented a petition to the licensing committee, asking them to support us taxi drivers. The article in the Mercury has reflected poorly on us as a whole, and the public should be reassured that the greater majority of us are decent, law abiding hardworking people. We have to endure CRB checks in order to get our licences, the results of which are used to ascertain whether or not we are 'fit and proper' enough to hold such a license. At a time where trade is down, due to the economy, and the ever increasing number of licences issued, the last thing we needed is a boot in the nuts like this. I think if individual drivers have committed an offence of the nature outlined, the Mercury should publish it, and let the individual be named and shamed. To punish all of us and portray all of us as criminals is wrong. The licensing committee make the decisions on who is granted a licence, not us. so maybe the powers that be should look at the licensing system. Thank you for all of your supportive comments, and the recognition that our job can be challenging at times, by drunk and abusive individuals, whilst the 99% are decent people. Its a good job we as drivers don't categorise all of our fares in this manner; if we did, who knows, maybe we can get a job at the Mercury too!!!
Reply ID 83243
quote:What kind of support are taxi-drivers looking for?
Originally posted by sipukka
I have today presented a petition to the licensing committee, asking them to support us taxi drivers.
quote:Endure? Are you suggesting that requiring taxi-drivers to have a CRB check is unnecessary?
Originally posted by sipukka
We have to endure CRB checks in order to get our licences, the results of which are used to ascertain whether or not we are 'fit and proper' enough to hold such a license.
quote:I'm not sure the taxi-drivers concerned would agree with that, especially as it could impact their trade and the companies they work for.
Originally posted by sipukka
I think if individual drivers have committed an offence of the nature outlined, the Mercury should publish it, and let the individual be named and shamed.
quote:I completely agree, although I can't see anywhere you've all been labelled criminals or punished. And whilst we're talking about taxi-drivers who break the law, why do some think it's OK to obstruct the pedestrianised area of Railway Street by parking illegally? And then to be abusive to parking attendants and council officials who point this out? This has led to a number being called to appear before the licensing committee. This behaviour only adds to the bad image that taxi-drivers can attract.
Originally posted by sipukka
To punish all of us and portray all of us as criminals is wrong.
Reply ID 83244
If someone has committed a crime and then served time, surely the point of them being released is that they have served their penance and have been rehabilitated and therefore fit to rejoin society. If they have not been rehabilitated then the problem is with the justice system for allocating punishments.
Reply ID 83245
quote:There is a difference between "committing a crime" and "committing a series of crimes". The fact that so many people who've been to prison re-offend suggests to me that the prison service is failing in it's role to rehabilitate. There's also the question about whether or not convicted criminals should be allowed employment in roles that are directly associated with their crimes, especially given the failure to rehabilitate and the potential for re-offending. Let me state at this point that I'm sure most taxi-drivers are honest and decent people trying to make a living in difficult times. However, there are a number out there that many people would argue should not be allowed to drive taxis because of their criminal past and the nature of their crimes. Certainly these people need to be rehabilitated and given gainful employment, but not in a role where they could be tempted to break the law again. The comparison with convicted paedophiles working with children is a valid one (albeit emotive).
Originally posted by Kateg28
If someone has committed a crime and then served time, surely the point of them being released is that they have served their penance and have been rehabilitated and therefore fit to rejoin society. If they have not been rehabilitated then the problem is with the justice system for allocating punishments.
Reply ID 83246
Steve, to answer your questions; We are looking to the council to reassure the public that the greater majority of us are in fact decent, law abiding people. We ask the council because they are our governing body, and a letter from them may carry more weight than one from us, after all, the Mercury will only print what they want to. I have never indicated that the CRB check is pointless, quite the contuary. My belief is if certain drivers have committed serious crimes in the past relative to this employ, then the information given to them should be more carefully considered when assessing ones suitability to hold a taxi licence, in the same way as a money lender would use a cerdit reference agency, if you had not repaid an amount of money owed within the last 6 years, they probably would not lend you any. As for the point about individuals being persecuted for their crimes by the papers, sure, it may damage their reputation and that of a company, but they should think of this and their responsibilities before commiting crimes. It is therefore in the public interest to publish such incidents, but not to generalise as the mercury have clearly done. ie) If driver Joe Bloggs has been imprisoned for drink driving, then driver Joe Bloggs loses his taxi licence and carries the humiliation and stigma related to it. Serves him right. But don't tar all of us with the same brush. I hope this clarifies.
Reply ID 83247
quote:We're in agreement! [:)] And at this point, I'd like to acknowledge the boys who staff the taxi office at Hertford East station, providing a valuable presence into the early hours.
Originally posted by sipukka
Steve, to answer your questions; We are looking to the council to reassure the public that the greater majority of us are in fact decent, law abiding people. We ask the council because they are our governing body, and a letter from them may carry more weight than one from us, after all, the Mercury will only print what they want to. I have never indicated that the CRB check is pointless, quite the contuary. My belief is if certain drivers have committed serious crimes in the past relative to this employ, then the information given to them should be more carefully considered when assessing ones suitability to hold a taxi licence, in the same way as a money lender would use a cerdit reference agency, if you had not repaid an amount of money owed within the last 6 years, they probably would not lend you any. As for the point about individuals being persecuted for their crimes by the papers, sure, it may damage their reputation and that of a company, but they should think of this and their responsibilities before commiting crimes. It is therefore in the public interest to publish such incidents, but not to generalise as the mercury have clearly done. ie) If driver Joe Bloggs has been imprisoned for drink driving, then driver Joe Bloggs loses his taxi licence and carries the humiliation and stigma related to it. Serves him right. But don't tar all of us with the same brush. I hope this clarifies.
Reply ID 83248
Thank you for your support.
Reply ID 83256
There's to be a review of how licences are granted: http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Review-of-taxi-licences-ordered-by-East-Herts-Council-leader-12092011.htm
![http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/trave_abc/smilie_u.gif[/img]](http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/trave_abc/smilie_u.gif[/img]){kind=link}