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 agree. Plenty of discussion of this in the original thread.

Nothing to stop those who want to operate a taxi firm to apply for a licence.

This forum is full of threads criticising TRAs for saying the law doesn't suit them so shouldn't be implemented.

And then of a feminist forum, posters are saying a rapist shouldn't have to accept the consequences of his crime.

What next.

Not sending DV perpetrators to prison because the man was the bread winner for the family.

Let alone all those MPs who think it isn't fair that their status as an MP might be jeopardised because they've been caught out fiddling their finances.

Er, you quoted me.

You are interpreting as you like.

You are being hostile where no hostility is necessary.

Again, you aren't doing yourself any favours. I'm out.

Ive no idea if the rules are 'sufficient' whatever that would look like, Im simply answering posts that assume there could be or will be some 'extra checks' (again, whatever they would look like) on this company. The checks will be those that the LA require any of the cab firms in that area to abide by. I have no idea what they are. I dont even know what they are for my own area. We dont have uber here so we use the local cab firms.

I hear you. Very good points.

I just would like to know the full story to make a balanced decision that doesn't (eg) unnecessarily penalise innocent workers because a headline is taken out of context.

Yeah, I'm actually out now!

TBH I think they should be erring on the side of caution whether or not employees would be affected.

None of your posts make sense

The law has done its job, its convicted and sentenced the criminal The consequences of the crime are that he is banged up

Unless there is evidence that the people relying on the operators licence were co defendants/also convicted of crimes, there isnt a need to remove the operators licence which would also remove their way of earning a living.

What would be the point of that?

Exactly this. There's a real risk here, and it woudl be crazy to just assume it's ok. It's pretty much self evidence that the rules are insufficient - otherwise how is a rapist running a taxi firm?

It's really odd that so many women (I suppose) are eager to prioritise the jobs of potenaitl rapists. I mean, even if the firm closed down, the demand for taxis doesn't disappear - those drivers who have nothing to reproach themselves with can either wget a job at another taxi firm or set up on their own account.

The point would be the same point that means that a licence is needed to run a taxi firm in the first place: it's a job that puts the driver in a position to abuse vulnerable clients, so extra care is needed compared to, say, a factory employee.

And since the rules around granting licences have shown themselves to be inadequate, extra care needs to be taken before assuming that all the other drivers are honourable upstanding people who just were unfortnate enough to have been employed by a rapIst;

This shoudn't be hard to grasp.

Unless they change the law and the rules for their area for ALL the cab firms in that area, that isnt going to happen.

Have you looked up the requirements in that area? I dont know what they are.

What checks would have prevented this crime?

And I'm sucked back in...

Which laws do you think need to be changed to ensure a rapist can't work for a taxi company? The laws already exist.

I mean, I do hear you. You're suspicious, fair enough.

But reasonably, unless someone is convicted of (or even given the Enhanced DBS rules, there is intelligence of suspicious activity) what do you think should happen?

I'm asking genuinely. If you worked for a guy who turned out to be a rapist would you be happy to lose your job via guilt by association?

The original coverage of this case said the police recommended against the operator's licence being continued.

I'd like to know why the police thought the licence should be removed, before I'll agree that these councillors were doing their jobs.

This new article suggests that they voted for more than the operator's licence.

https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/five-male-councillors-voted-to-allow-rapist-to-keep-driving-taxis-month-after-attack-on-teen-passenger

The latest article suggests that it actually is much more sinister.

This is the new information:

But five men on the Highland Council committee argued that Brown was a “fit and proper person to hold a licence”.

According to the minutes of the meeting on January 9, 2024, councillor Drew Millar put forward the motion for Brown to keep driving taxis.

His amendment was seconded by Sean Kennedy and supported by John Bruce, John Grafton, and Duncan MacPherson.

Six other members of the committee voted in favour of suspending Brown’s licence – meaning it was just one vote that prevented the predator from continuing to pick up passengers as he awaited trial.

It’s not really “guilt by association”, the rapist is clearly not a fit and proper person to run a taxi firm. Anyone else affected is not really the point.

Again, it was not incidental that he was a taxi driver, it was how he preyed on women.

Gosh, it turns out that these councillors who disregarded Police Scotland's recommendations to remove the convicted rapist's taxi operator's licence last month (while the female councillors voted to follow Police Scotland's recommendations) may have a history of votes that don't prioritise women's safety.

Gosh. Look at my very shocked face. I'm more shocked than Mr Wut, five-times winner of the annual All-England Most Shocked competition.

I have been reading some of the coverage, and I'm not sure that Brown runs a firm in the sense of having multiple employees. I think it's just his family. Anyway this is an excerpt from the Scotsman.

His taxi driver’s licence, allowing him to drive, was suspended in January 2024 after his crimes came to light - however he still held a separate operator’s licence, allowing his vehicle to be used as a taxi business.

Brown’s family had requested he be allowed to keep his operator’s licence.

Members of Highland Council’s licensing committee were given three options - suspend or revoke the licence, or to do nothing.

The discussions happened in private to “protect the identities of victims” - something Rape Crisis Scotland says is “part of the problem”.

The councillors on the committee were told that allowing him to keep the operator’s licence would ensure his wife could continue to earn an income.

In the end, the committee agreed he could keep the licence after the six male councillors voted in favour and the four female councillors voted against it.

Police Scotland had recommended the licence be revoked.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/why-a-convicted-rapist-taxi-driver-was-able-to-keep-his-operating-licence-8782021

I hope this wasn't the same vehicle he'd used to rape that young woman.

Bolding mine.

This is from the Inverness Courier.

Police Scotland said: "We can confirm officers attended a Highland Council licensing committee meeting on Tuesday 23 June and submitted an objection.

“The decision on whether to grant a licence is a matter for the council.”

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/highland-council-allows-locked-up-rapist-to-keep-taxi-operat-438802/

I think it would have served his wife well to get her ducks in a row and apply for a taxi operator's licence independently during the 2 and half years between her husband being charged with rape (and losing his taxi driver's licence as a result) and his case coming to trial. The medis coverage says she's a licensed taxi driver, so she must have been keeping the business running, under his name.

Press and Journal reported on 8th July that his wife has finally applied for an operator's licence in her own name.

The most interesting paragraph of the Press and Journal coverage, to me at least, is this on 1st July, regarding Police Scotland's objection to having the original operator's licence in his name renewed:

Councillors have told us they felt physically sick when they read a police report from senior officers urging them to refuse the application.

www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/inverness/7051167/highland-council-david-brown-taxi-licence-revealed/

If they stand by their decision and it’s to do with his wife getting the licence, why have they resigned? Unless forced to I suppose, or it’s not really about supporting his wife.

Glad to hear that the wife has now applied for operators license on her own account. This sounds reasonable and no argument not to support her. It also means that the benefit of carrying on running the business is her benefit. To let her husband keep the license in his name means that his business would not be so affected. And it should be.

Press and Journal reported on 8th July that his wife has finally applied for an operator's licence in her own name.

I'm not sure that she could apply until the existing licence covering the vehicle(s) expired or was rescinded. According to the BBC report, the councillors' thinking was that "Brown's operator's licence [only] had six months to run, after which his family member could renew it in their own name". I have no idea why this would be smoother than rescinding the licence straight away though. The story is baffling, and I wish some enterprising local journo had got into it more.

It's shocking that the male councillors wanted him to keep his taxi driver's licence while he was out on bail awaiting trial. But I still don't understand exactly why the female councillors and Police Scotland wanted the operator's licence rescinded, once Brown was incarcerated. Either it was a pointless gesture, or some suspicion still attaches to other drivers operating under the licence. If the latter, why no arrests?