Four councillors quit after vote for rapist taxi driver to keep operator licence (Scotland)

[IwantToRetire]

Four councillors who voted to allow a rapist taxi driver to keep his operator's licence have quit Highland Council's licensing committee.

David Brown, 50, was jailed for six years and nine months in May after attacking an 18-year-old female passenger in December 2023.
Last month, following a request from Brown's family, the committee's six male councillors voted to allow his operator's licence to continue, while its four female councillors voted against it.

Article continues at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrggzx14r5o

The SNP group on Highland Council has suspended one of its councillors after he voted to allow a rapist taxi driver to keep his operator's licence.

Chris Birt was one of six male councillors who voted to take no action on David Brown's licence after the 50-year-old was jailed for an attack on an 18-year-old female passenger.

Raymond Bremner, SNP group leader at Highland Council, confirmed Birt was suspended on Tuesday.

Bremner had earlier suggested Birt should resign from Highland licensing committee after four other councillors quit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2wkw765kwo

I dont know is things are worse in Scotland, or that somehow more reporting is done.

Just shocking.

And a big thank you to the 4 unnamed women councillors who voted against the rapist keeping his licence.

What better example of how men in power protect other men, even if they are a convicted rapist. But then look at football.

I don’t understand, is the rapist not in prison? Why would they need to even contemplate this? Were they making sure he still had his licence for when he’d served his sentence?

Thank god they've resigned, disgusting people.

Weren't they voting against because it would put lots of jobs at risk by having to halt the licence to the firm whilst they sorted out a new operator? Risk minimal because the guy was in prison?

Yes, the guy should utterly suffer, but other people being penalised and losing their jobs seems crazy.

Sorry if I've got this wrong.

From what I read, the licence was for 6 months only, so there was a suggestion that this would assist his wife. He would still be in prison.

This is what my understanding is. It allows the wife to get an operator’s licence of her own. Otherwise the taxi firm would have to stop trading until a new licence was approved.

Are we sure he hadn't employed any other rapist drivers? Taxis were one of the ways the rape gangs worked in English towns weren't they? And did his wife, who worked with him, really have no idea?
So I would want there to be proper checks of ALL the other employees, and not just grant a licence regardless.

Since when did a convicted criminal not have to serve their sentence because of their work, financial considerations.

What a complete load of bollocks.

This would create a whole new class of rapists. Men who do "essential" work will never ever have to do time in prison.

Sounds like one of Trump's more nutty (male centred) world view.

Why does his wife have anything to do with it!? Sorry so is she a driver under his firm?

Thats right there have been several threads about this. This is an operators licence and a family member (who I assume jointly owns the company or runs it or something) appealed for the operator licence to remain in place. Presumably other people would lose their livelihoods if it was removed. I dont know the rules as to how they work, if he lost his operator licence perhaps that would render the company redundant or have to close it down while another company is formed and reopened? Not sure.

This is not the story that people think it is, and it needs to keep being corrected on threads like this.

'Brown's taxi driver's licence - which allows him to drive - had been suspended in January 2024 after details of his offences emerged.
His separate operator's licence allows his vehicle to be used as a taxi business.'

he was/is in prison so I think the headline is a bit sensational imo.

I think the poster meant other drivers working for the firm should be allowed to continue, as well as the rapist's wife.
As I said just now though, I think that's a firm where all the employees would need to be carefully looked at before assuming they were all grand and it was the firm's owner who was dodgy. I woudln't be surprised if he employed dodgy mates too.

Exactly.

And in fact one of the reasons having all female taxi firms would be a far better solution.

Someone once drew up a list of areas of work that made it easier for the prominently male work force to operate as a gang. (Also true of drugs.0

Your reply to that post doesnt make any sense. He continues to serve his sentence. This isnt about whether he serves his sentence.

The names of the female councillors who voted against it are right there in the article OP, along with their photos.

How strange. For whatever reason in both articles I can only see photos of men!

I wonder if there is an updated version of the article.

Will keep checking

their photos been in the article since it was first published earlier today.

Different local authorities have different requirements for what checks are completed on cab firm employees so they'll abide by whatever the rules are for that area.

Good. Now fire the other two. 😡

The law in Scotland still says you can beat your wife with a stick and they don’t believe in coercive control and won’t charge a husband with it!

Speaking personally, I wouldn't use that particular taxi company ever again. I realise it was only one man. But the company itself would be tainted for me.

That is not remotely what I said.

You do yourself no favours, honestly. This is why when I see a thread started by you I scroll on by.

I said my understanding is because he's in prison the risk from him is minimised and other people should not be penalised because of his wrong-doing.

And because of that you compare me to Trump (for reasons unknown).

What a complete load of bollocks, right back atcha.

I can understand that. And potential risks of other people working there would be a legitimate concern, as someone mentioned upthread. I just don't think it's as black and white as first presented.

This sounds like damning with faint praise. Are the rules sufficient to keep women safe, and even if they mostly are, is there any risk that this particular firm, being owned by an actual rapist, was keeping to the letter and the spirit of those rules?
As a PP said, the company is tainted by its owner, and if I were the wife taking it over, I'd want to re examine ALL the drivers very carefully before sending them out on the road.
And actually if I were a potential client there, I'd want to know just how careful the wife herself was. I don't see any reason to assume they're all grand except him.

Thanks! I agree that the story reported isn’t anything like what the reality is.

Well you can interpret how you like.

I wasn't talking about you.

I was talking about the decision as you explained it.

Complete Trumpian bollocks.

If laws can be put aside because of commercial concerns that is not implenting the law equally.

That's not hard to grasp is it.

I don't know how black and white it is though - why did four women councillors vote against and the men all vote for? That woudl concern me. I agree we don't know any more than that - but that's something I'd need explained to me before I'd ever have anything to do with the company. And it's a bit odd that the wife just assumed it was all ok and she could just take over as if nothng had happened.