Are You Safe In His Taxi

[lettie]

Originally Posted by gondola

Lettie,


Please keep your contributions germane to the title of this thread.

Just as you did????

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by chav1

and even though gayle knight at times has her moments of lunarcy she uses her real name

Thank you yes, moments of lunacy when I actually thought you were a nice person


Gondola, you have managed to alienate the very people that you came on line to get support from in three short pages.

This is why politics is a nasty business - point scoring and name calling. So, you say you're not a councillor, well ok, that's fine but you clearly have some additional agenda here. You have facts that some people are not privvy to and you clearly have issues with a certain councillor. Whilst we all applaud you coming on and informing us about these issues your style is offensive.

As I have said a few times, I doubt that Roy wanted to create a political forum. Although I can't speak for him, I suspect he wanted somewhere were people could air their views fairly and respectfully. Yes, there are times when people have a go at the council but it is often tongue in cheek most of the time we discuss an issue from all angles and enjoy the debate.

Gondola, get yourself back to Italy or show respect for other members of this board.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Gayle

So, you say you're not a councillor, well ok, that's fine but you clearly have some additional agenda here. You have facts that some people are not privvy to and you clearly have issues with a certain councillor.

If not Councillor then maybe a Council Officer. If so I am not surprised he/she is not using their own name.

You do have moments of lunacy Gayle, like when you try and have a sensible conversation on here

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by Neil

If not Councillor then maybe a Council Officer. If so I am not surprised he/she is not using their own name.

You do have moments of lunacy Gayle, like when you try and have a sensible conversation on here

...yeah, with you.

[katex]

Just wondered if a driver with a convicted sexual offence had been a newby and applied for a taxi licence, would he have been granted one ?
I can't see that he/she would, do you ?

Is it just because he was re-applying and the committee saw it differently ? (how they could is beyond me however).

[grego]

Wouldn't you think that as soon as he was convicted his license should've automatically been removed?

[katex]

Originally Posted by grego

Wouldn't you think that as soon as he was convicted his license should've automatically been removed?

You would think so Grego, wouldn't you? probably summat to do with the liaison between courts and council and not really the courts/police duty to inform .. oh hek ! I don't know. Just, as we all feel, things not right.

[chav1]

well most taxis display a no smoking sticker so maybe they shoudl also display one of these

[Ianto.W.]

Anyone dealing with the general public even 'suspected' of a sexual offence should, if they do not do it on a voluntary basis, be made to take 'gardening leave', till the matter is cleared up.

[gondola]

At the risk of getting shouted down I wish to raise a point that is slightly off topic. Councillor Jones yesterday suggested that there existed 'other skeletons in the cupboard'. He may have a point, and readers have commended him for his tenacity in persevering with this issue, as well as his integrity in ensuring that this issue was not swept under the carpet.
However, I would like to draw his attention, if I might, to another issue where his judgement has to be questioned, especially since in that matter it appeared that he was seeking to score 'political points' (something, absurd though the suggestion may be, I was accused of). I refer to his comments in the Accrington Observer, dated the 9th of March, 2007. For the benefit of readers this article referred to the candidate for the Church Ward, Mr Safdar, who had conveniently switched sides from Labour to the Conservative Party. Councillor Jones questioned his motives and stated ''We [the Labour Party] found out that he had approachedthe Conservatives three months earlier, offering to stand for them if he was'nt selected as a Labour Canadidate. Based on that I think the public can make up their own minds about Safdar. That was part of the reason why he was not selected by Labour and good luck to him''.
My question is this. If the Labour Party were aware three months earlier about Mr Safdar's motives, why then did they allow him a couple of months later to contest the candidacy? Moreover, at the time a candidate had already been selected by the Labour Party (who later stepped aside), and thus Mr Safdar had known back then that he had not been selected and thus approached the Conservatives. Yet when the other candidate stepped aside, with the knowledge that Safdar had attempted to switch sides the Labour Party considered it right and proper to potentailly select as a candidate a man who they now suggest has a lack of integrity. Surely had he won the internal selection when the vote took place (several months after Councillor Jones had become aware of his attempt to switch sides), that would have meant that the Labour Party would have been asking memebers of the public to vote for a man they knew had sought to side with the Tories. Surely that is not morally justifiable?
More distrubing than that, is that according to the community grapevine, Safdar has been campaigning in the Church Ward assited by a former Labour Councillor and still current member of the Labour Party.
It makes a mockery of the principle of Party politics.
Councillor Jones should, if he knew that Safdar had changed sides several months earlier, have raised the issue with his Party and Safdar ought not to have been put forward as a candidate for an internal vote.

The only reason he has reported it in now is to dent Safdar's campaign.

[chav1]

Originally Posted by gondola

The only reason he has reported it in now is to dent Safdar's campaign.

good i hope it works out for him , ime pretty sure the conservatives have done their fair share of dodgy shananigans in the past including going on to a local website anonomously and slinging sh1t

me been as thick as crap can see whats going on here so i would take it that the rest of the people here can figure out whats going on

you lost all credability the second you started name calling and no one takes you seriously at all now

i wouldnt mind your aggressive attitude toward me but i was actualy sticking up for you earlier on , people were saying you arnt fit to eat with pigs, i said you are

cool down , join under a new username and behave better and people will listen but insulting people wont do your credibility any good

ps:

crack a joke occasionaly you may find you like smiling

[gondola]

Yesterday I was accused of being affiliated to the Labour Party, now you suggest I'm with the conservatives.
Make your mind up. You may wish to go 50:50 or even ask the audience.

You write ''people were saying you arnt fit to eat with pigs, i said you are''.

In which case you ought to invite yourself to the dinner table.

[chav1]

just eaten but thanx

safe me a space at the trough for supper

[g jones]

Originally Posted by gondola

At the risk of getting shouted down I wish to raise a point that is slightly off topic. Councillor Jones yesterday suggested that there existed 'other skeletons in the cupboard'. He may have a point, and readers have commended him for his tenacity in persevering with this issue, as well as his integrity in ensuring that this issue was not swept under the carpet.
However, I would like to draw his attention, if I might, to another issue where his judgement has to be questioned, especially since in that matter it appeared that he was seeking to score 'political points' (something, absurd though the suggestion may be, I was accused of). I refer to his comments in the Accrington Observer, dated the 9th of March, 2007. For the benefit of readers this article referred to the candidate for the Church Ward, Mr Safdar, who had conveniently switched sides from Labour to the Conservative Party. Councillor Jones questioned his motives and stated ''We [the Labour Party] found out that he had approachedthe Conservatives three months earlier, offering to stand for them if he was'nt selected as a Labour Canadidate. Based on that I think the public can make up their own minds about Safdar. That was part of the reason why he was not selected by Labour and good luck to him''.
My question is this. If the Labour Party were aware three months earlier about Mr Safdar's motives, why then did they allow him a couple of months later to contest the candidacy? Moreover, at the time a candidate had already been selected by the Labour Party (who later stepped aside), and thus Mr Safdar had known back then that he had not been selected and thus approached the Conservatives. Yet when the other candidate stepped aside, with the knowledge that Safdar had attempted to switch sides the Labour Party considered it right and proper to potentailly select as a candidate a man who they now suggest has a lack of integrity. Surely had he won the internal selection when the vote took place (several months after Councillor Jones had become aware of his attempt to switch sides), that would have meant that the Labour Party would have been asking memebers of the public to vote for a man they knew had sought to side with the Tories. Surely that is not morally justifiable?
More distrubing than that, is that according to the community grapevine, Safdar has been campaigning in the Church Ward assited by a former Labour Councillor and still current member of the Labour Party.
It makes a mockery of the principle of Party politics.
Councillor Jones should, if he knew that Safdar had changed sides several months earlier, have raised the issue with his Party and Safdar ought not to have been put forward as a candidate for an internal vote.

The only reason he has reported it in now is to dent Safdar's campaign.

off topic but quickly

The papers print bits of what is usually said.

Safdar was behaving funnily and associating himself with Conservatives. He had done some bleating about selection. I was not told this until the day of selection when I raised the matter with Central Ward members because Safdar had issued threats to me the day before about the selection. "If the Labour Party don't select me I will get my own back, you'll see"

I was told Safdar's behaviour had been one of disloyalty to his colleagues and there was no chance he would be selected. Central Ward members had an idea of what Safdar was up to. He wasn't selected. About a week later a Tory told me they he had done a deal with them (with Peter Britcliffe) about 3 months earlier. To defect if labour did not select him.

In fact that Tory told me then that he had hinted at the deal to me about a month before and I wasn't quick on the up take. PB had been running around for about 2 months boasting of a another defector (last year it was Dennis Baron). So in the end it all came out.

Hope that clears it up Gondola.

[entwisi]

Wow, Like Lettie I missed a cracking thread.

Gondola, I think I found your Wine gums, you must have dropped them somewhere.

The point of this thread is about visibilty of which drivers and firms should be avoided by people who prefer not to be driven by convicted (or even accused wich whilst Innocent till proven guilty should in all respects not put themselves in a position where they are open for attck) sex offenders.

I would not want Julie in a cab with someone like that.

How teh council should reconsider its policies and whether teh current comitee should keep their positions is something I would like undertaken by an outside non political authority to ensure fair open and rational consideration