Accrington Web - View Single Post

g jones · 18-03-2007, 11:13

Telegraph Sex Offender

He was arrested for 1st sex offence on 4 Feb. The police asked the Council to suspend his licence. He committed the 2nd offence, again in a taxi, on the 11 march if the LT is correct. HBC said they did suspend him, though this is not quite clear, and an appeal by him entitled to him to carry on, 'innocent until proven guilty'. This law changed on 16 March - 2 days ago.

Was he suspended? That is the first big question or did the Council just back off?

Secondly was he, and CB Taxis brought in for interview and told in the clearest of terms, whilst you can appeal and remain eligible to drive, do you not think for both the business and the alleged offender it might be better to take 'gardening leave'. As it is now CB Taxis was closed yesterday and the business and other drivers adversly affected.

The Councils Constitution

Last year, The Council (not being political but I am not being tarred with the brush) which is the Conservatives, voted to politicise licensing. All appeals and suspensions were taken from officers and now have to be channelled through the Chair and Vice Chair. Councillors Allah Dad and Peter Britcliffe. This of course was a very dangerous course of action should there every be a risk of interference or personal/prejudial interest, such as relatives or votes.

We don't know yet the details of the exact handling of this second case yet, but we do know under the Councils revised Constitution who is responsible for handling it.

Did we do enough - LT case

My questions remain. Did we do enough to stop this guy because I don't accept the legislation is th end of it, we have enough other powers to have pulled out all the stops to keep this guy off the road? The statement by the Council was weak and if there was a cover up, the type of statement I would expect to read, sheltering by one piece of law. I remain unconvinced as yet that we did anywhere near enough. As a result of events, a second woman has now been assaulted.

No-one from the Council has thought of publically apologising to the victims which I thought would have been the first thing to do inthe Observer and the Telegraph, even if it was not in the second case to accept liability, an apology would have been right. PB's only comment so far has been; "It was cross party". Obviously a damage limitation statement by the Council.

In the Observer case, the parent of the woman is up in arms. Events could possibly have been much worse had this case not come out now by the 'mole/whistle blower'. An apology would have been right in my view.

Decision making process

Various decisions have been condemned by Committee members who have approached me as being 'dubious', even when passed with a majority. I have never been approached by a Conservative, they may well have taken their issues to Clr Britcliffe. It is important to point out that Councillors have not turned a blind eye.

PB said that to me back in 2005 when he was Chair (he's now Vice Chair) when I sat in on that Committee I was not fit to be on the Committee and what I personally experienced was bullying and intimidation. I would not back down from my view to his, and it has affected our working relationship. I am one of several Labour Councillors who has been subjected to intimidation and emotional blackmail.

In the end it shouldn't be politics. We just want the right people to make the right decisions. I know deep down and however unpleasant, this one is. I suppose Councillors get accused of throwing mud at each other and this creates a climate where Councillors are reluctant to go against the majority for fear of 'not seen working together'. However sometimes, as with this issue, you have to stand your ground.

Between the decision (19 Feb) and the Observer (16 March), Councillor Clare Pritchard was humiliated in private and in public by certain Councillors who I have no political control over. Barracked, shouted out, called at, in front of other people, for reporting the Observer case to the Managing Director. One day she was in floods of tears with the level of intimidation she had received.

The way forward

We now need a full review of Taxi Licensing, but we will be asking for an independent chair probably from another authority because we cannot turn our backs on the politics of it, people who say politics should come second are obviously putting putting taxi customer's third because, if there is proven political interference, we want to know about. Not shuffled under the carpet so that the same mistales can be made again. No stone should be left unturned.

As well as a public apology we also need to protect the hard working lads who drive taxis and have done no wrong. Their profession in Hyndburn has been dragged through the mud.

18-03-2007, 11:13	#100
g jones Senior Member+ Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,125 Liked: 14 times Rep Power: 732	Re: Are You Safe In His Taxi Telegraph Sex Offender He was arrested for 1st sex offence on 4 Feb. The police asked the Council to suspend his licence. He committed the 2nd offence, again in a taxi, on the 11 march if the LT is correct. HBC said they did suspend him, though this is not quite clear, and an appeal by him entitled to him to carry on, 'innocent until proven guilty'. This law changed on 16 March - 2 days ago. Was he suspended? That is the first big question or did the Council just back off? Secondly was he, and CB Taxis brought in for interview and told in the clearest of terms, whilst you can appeal and remain eligible to drive, do you not think for both the business and the alleged offender it might be better to take 'gardening leave'. As it is now CB Taxis was closed yesterday and the business and other drivers adversly affected. The Councils Constitution Last year, The Council (not being political but I am not being tarred with the brush) which is the Conservatives, voted to politicise licensing. All appeals and suspensions were taken from officers and now have to be channelled through the Chair and Vice Chair. Councillors Allah Dad and Peter Britcliffe. This of course was a very dangerous course of action should there every be a risk of interference or personal/prejudial interest, such as relatives or votes. We don't know yet the details of the exact handling of this second case yet, but we do know under the Councils revised Constitution who is responsible for handling it. Did we do enough - LT case My questions remain. Did we do enough to stop this guy because I don't accept the legislation is th end of it, we have enough other powers to have pulled out all the stops to keep this guy off the road? The statement by the Council was weak and if there was a cover up, the type of statement I would expect to read, sheltering by one piece of law. I remain unconvinced as yet that we did anywhere near enough. As a result of events, a second woman has now been assaulted. No-one from the Council has thought of publically apologising to the victims which I thought would have been the first thing to do inthe Observer and the Telegraph, even if it was not in the second case to accept liability, an apology would have been right. PB's only comment so far has been; "It was cross party". Obviously a damage limitation statement by the Council. In the Observer case, the parent of the woman is up in arms. Events could possibly have been much worse had this case not come out now by the 'mole/whistle blower'. An apology would have been right in my view. Decision making process Various decisions have been condemned by Committee members who have approached me as being 'dubious', even when passed with a majority. I have never been approached by a Conservative, they may well have taken their issues to Clr Britcliffe. It is important to point out that Councillors have not turned a blind eye. PB said that to me back in 2005 when he was Chair (he's now Vice Chair) when I sat in on that Committee I was not fit to be on the Committee and what I personally experienced was bullying and intimidation. I would not back down from my view to his, and it has affected our working relationship. I am one of several Labour Councillors who has been subjected to intimidation and emotional blackmail. In the end it shouldn't be politics. We just want the right people to make the right decisions. I know deep down and however unpleasant, this one is. I suppose Councillors get accused of throwing mud at each other and this creates a climate where Councillors are reluctant to go against the majority for fear of 'not seen working together'. However sometimes, as with this issue, you have to stand your ground. Between the decision (19 Feb) and the Observer (16 March), Councillor Clare Pritchard was humiliated in private and in public by certain Councillors who I have no political control over. Barracked, shouted out, called at, in front of other people, for reporting the Observer case to the Managing Director. One day she was in floods of tears with the level of intimidation she had received. The way forward We now need a full review of Taxi Licensing, but we will be asking for an independent chair probably from another authority because we cannot turn our backs on the politics of it, people who say politics should come second are obviously putting putting taxi customer's third because, if there is proven political interference, we want to know about. Not shuffled under the carpet so that the same mistales can be made again. No stone should be left unturned. As well as a public apology we also need to protect the hard working lads who drive taxis and have done no wrong. Their profession in Hyndburn has been dragged through the mud. Last edited by g jones; 18-03-2007 at 11:18.