Vier Stadträte traten zurück, nachdem sie dafür gestimmt hatten, dass der vergewaltigende Taxifahrer seine Fahrerlaubnis behält
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrggzx14r5o
Von Twenty_Ten
Vier Stadträte traten zurück, nachdem sie dafür gestimmt hatten, dass der vergewaltigende Taxifahrer seine Fahrerlaubnis behält
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrggzx14r5o
Von Twenty_Ten
12 Kommentare
I have read the replies and I now understand the full story. And it makes sense. The article did not do a good job of providing more context.
So, not resigned as Councillors, just from that committee. They will get voted onto other committees.
[deleted]
Honestly, it’s kind of a difficult decision.
The guy was sentenced to prison by a judge. If someone were on a council committee voting to also chop his balls off, it would be tempting to vote yes, but at the same time, you’d realise you also weren’t a judge and trust the legal system to, if appropriate, chop his balls off.
So I can *kind of* understand voting against this, even though my natural reaction would be to do so.
Edit: Don’t just downvote, point out the flaw in the logic. I’m agreeing with the inclination to revoke while pointing to the need to have proper justice.
There is a long thread on what actually happened here
https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/s/QDyceBkAKb
Tldr; they didn’t vote to keep his licence. His wife appeared and asked them not to revoke the operator licence, because she is now a single mother using the taxi to earn money. She is in the process of transferring the licence.
It’s mentioned in the article that the license would have expired before he’s released from prison so there’s literally no reason not to revoke it. I don’t get this, I can’t think of any reason at all for them to vote this way.
Edit: Found the reason, it makes total sense and the women were being performative. His wife was using the taxi under his license which hadn’t yet been transferred. He would never have the ability to use it as it was due to expire before he’d have been released from prison.
I’m local and this has been quite a bit of drama here. So at first nearly everyone was rightly outraged by this and then it transpires that the rapist’s wife attended the committee meeting and requested that the operator licence in her husband’s name not be revoked (note that his taxi driver licence was revoked some time ago) as she needs to continue driving her taxi to earn a living and support her kids.
That all seems reasonable, but what I’d like to know is why she can’t just get her own operator licence. The council have come out and said that the operator licence cannot legally be transferred to another person, but that doesn’t prevent her from getting her own. What’s more, the police attended the meeting as I understand it, and objected to the licence continuing. Then there’s the four councillors who voted for it to not continue. So if it’s just a bit of a formality as we’re being told, and was all in aid of his innocent wife, then why the objection on the part of the police and four female councillors? They’re certainly not doing it out of spite.
Ohh wow fuck the people that voted to strip the licence
https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/1umkds3/comment/ovd43rl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
> There’s several other things that have been misreported as well.
>The licencing committee voted to take no action, not to approve the licence. It’s been reported that they approved the licence, which is incorrect.
>Taking no action means that the licence expires at the end of its normal term, but until it expires, the vehicle is still permitted to be operated as a taxi.
>The committee heard things in private, because it’s the law that things are heard in private when sensitive information, such as an individuals personal circumstances, is to be discussed. Since that’s now been leaked by a non-councillor, we all now know that it’s this woman whose personal and financial circumstances are dire.
>Councillors can’t publicly talk openly about these decisions, because that’s the law. Talking about them means that the council’s decisions can be challenged in the Court of Session.
>And the licence in question isn’t the „booking office“ licence which is needed to take bookings from members of the public, which would have customers names and addresses and other such information that you wouldn’t want a rapist to have. It’s the vehicle licence that allows the vehicle to be used as a taxi – giving it a taxi plate with a licence number on it, allowing stickers that say „taxi“ on it, and so on. It’s not transferrable.
>A vehicle can’t have multiple taxi licences applicable to it. Taxi licences can’t be transferred between people either. So the taxi licence has to cease, for this woman to apply for a new one in her own name. But she can’t apply for a new taxi licence until the vehicle is transferred to her ownership, which takes time. In the meantime, by driving the vehicle, if this guy decides to be a dick, he could accuse her of „taking without owners consent“, i.e. car theft. Which would continue to be a risk until the vehicle is transferred. And to transfer the vehicle, he has to sign the V5C registration certificate. Which if he wants to be a dick, he won’t.
Credit to u/Synthia_of_Kaztropol
Its funny
You can tell who understands what actually happened and who just read the headline
My town had a real problem with taxi rape, revoke the licence!
No if’s no buts, we need to stop this. Women do not feel safe in taxi’s when events like this happen, it’s a joke that such a violation of trust can happen and the licence is not revoked. Id be all for a ban from driving, he’s lost the trust.
Okay, so, a timeline:
1. Committee votes not to revoke licence so that wife can use it
2. World gets mad because they don’t know about the wife being the reason
3. It emerges that the wife is the reason yet lots of people are still mad (either performatively or lack of comprehension)
4. A bunch of the councillors who voted to not revoke the licence resign and one of them says that with information that wasn’t available to them on the day, they could have made an alternative decision
What’s that last part all about? What information wasn’t available to them and what alternative decision would it have led to? Why would they resign when the information that is currently publicly available suggests keeping the licence only helps an innocent woman and children and can never be used by the rapist?