Accrington Web - View Single Post

g jones · 19-03-2007, 21:36

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?

19-03-2007, 21:36	#155
g jones Senior Member+ Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,125 Liked: 14 times Rep Power: 732	Re: Are You Safe In His Taxi 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? Last edited by g jones; 19-03-2007 at 21:43.