Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Taxi driver fails in bid for licence
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8022		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  JD [ Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:50 am ]
Post subject:  Taxi driver fails in bid for licence
Mr Cybro has recently done a great job of keeping us all informed of news events and he saves me an awful lot of time but sometimes news items escape us all. I'm not sure if this has been posted before but if it has you can all give me a hard time. By the way thank you Mr Cybro. lol
_______________________________

Whitby Gazette

February 8, 2008

Taxi driver fails in bid for licence

A WHITBY taxi driver with several convictions for sexual offences involving underage girls has failed in his bid to get his licence back.

Scarborough Council refused to grant Anthony Atkinson a taxi/private hire licence on the grounds he refused to carry two passengers in September last year.

They decided he was not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.

Anthony Atkinson (62), of Hawsker, has run Tony's Taxis since 1976.

It recently came to light that in May 1972 he was convicted of having intercourse with a girl under 16 years and indecent assault on a female under 16 years.

Mr Atkinson was also convicted of two counts of intercourse with a girl under 16 years in April 1979 and July 1979.

He was refused permission for a taxi/private hire licence last year, but launched an appeal which was heard by Scarborough Council's licensing sub-committee.

The committee heard the appeal behind closed doors and refused to let the Whitby Gazette attend on the grounds that the information relating to the appellant was considered to be exempt under schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Mr Atkinson's appeal was rejected by the committee and the minutes from the meeting state the main reason was the fact that in September last year, Mr Atkinson refused to take two passengers to Henrietta Street.

Mr Atkinson made it clear he would not take people in any circumstances along Henrietta Street and members considered such an approach meant there would be times when members of the public had no alternative but to walk.

It was also noted that in 1999 Mr Atkinson had been convicted of a similar offence and members found unacceptable the reasons given by Mr Atkinson for his inaccurate written response upon a declaration of previous convictions.

Scarborough Council refused to tell the Whitby Gazette why Mr Atkinson was able to work in Whitby for more than 30 years when he has previous convictions for sexual offences against underage girls.

Andy Skelton, head of environmental health services, said: "Mr Atkinson still has the right to go to court to appeal against the council's decision.

"Under those circumstances it would not be appropriate for the council to comment further on the detail of the case."

Guidance issued to the council by both the Home Office and the Department for Transport states: "As Hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers often carry unaccompanied passengers, applicants with convictions or police cautions for indecent exposure, indecent assault, importuning, or any of the more serious sexual offences, should be refused until they can show a substantial period (at least five years) free of such offences."
_________________________________
Author:  Cybro [ Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Taxi driver fails in bid for licence
JD wrote:
By the way thank you Mr Cybro. lol


Thanks, JD.

My main mission has been to highlight the dangers we are all facing in the trade, and hopefully this is not falling upon deaf ears. [-o<
While searching for articles that highlight the risks and how vulnerable we all are, I decided to post other articles I came across in the hope others might find them useful too.

If it wasn't for yourself, each and every Member and the Admins, TDO wouldn't be the BEST online community and resource for all those involved in the Taxi and PH trade.

So, thank YOU and everyone who is part of the TDO community.
Author:  hopper [ Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:54 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote: Mr Atkinson's appeal was rejected by the committee and the minutes from the meeting state the main reason was the fact that in September last year, Mr Atkinson refused to take two passengers to Henrietta Street. :shock:
Author:  JD [ Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
hopper wrote:
Quote: Mr Atkinson's appeal was rejected by the committee and the minutes from the meeting state the main reason was the fact that in September last year, Mr Atkinson refused to take two passengers to Henrietta Street. :shock:


I guess it must be pretty bad down Henrietta street. Obviously his reasonable excuse didn't work.

I understand he's not going to appeal because he has decided to retire.

Regards

JD
Author:  JD [ Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've spoken to Mr Atkinson who told me the reason he and many other drivers wont go down Henrietta street is because the road is very narrow and you have to kerb your car to get down there and if anything comes behind you then you cant get out. Obviously it must be a cul de sac from its description. I think he also said it was one of those little cobbled streets. Apart from what Mr Atkinson told me I have no way of knowing how the street is designed but he did say that they have a new licensing officer who was seconded from pub licensing and who doesn't know her backside from her elbow and that the old licensing officer was a decent chap who left because he was over worked and under paid.

I'm not sure if Mr Atkinson actually took these fares to Henrietta street then dropped them off or whether he refused point blank to take them. I forgot to ask him lol.

Anyway he is happy in his retirement, so sine die.

Regards

JD
Author:  skippy41 [ Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
Henrietta street, Is in Whitby, next to the harbour and is a Cull DE sack

http://maps.live.com/
Author:  edders23 [ Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
That worries me greatly the MAIN reason for not granting the license was for refusing to take the two passengers not the sexual offences :shock: :shock:

How did someone with a record like that get a license in the first place !!
Author:  JD [ Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
edders23 wrote:
That worries me greatly the MAIN reason for not granting the license was for refusing to take the two passengers not the sexual offences :shock: :shock:

How did someone with a record like that get a license in the first place !!


It sounds to me that they might have been going out together at the time and she consented but I really wouldn't know about both offences. She might have been 15 who knows but I assume if it was rape then that's what he would have been charged with but he wasn't. Although he was charged with indecent assault in one case.

Regards

JD
Author:  grandad [ Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
If she was under 16 that means that she was not capable of giving consent. That is why it is called the age of consent therfore it is rape or indecent assult.
Author:  JD [ Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:26 am ]
Post subject: 
grandad wrote:
If she was under 16 that means that she was not capable of giving consent. That is why it is called the age of consent therfore it is rape or indecent assult.


You say you understand the legal definition of rape. Therefore perhaps you can tell us why the gentleman was never charged with rape?

Regards

JD
Author:  JD [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:19 am ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:
grandad wrote:
If she was under 16 that means that she was not capable of giving consent. That is why it is called the age of consent therfore it is rape or indecent assult.


You say you understand the legal definition of rape. Therefore perhaps you can tell us why the gentleman was never charged with rape?

Regards

JD


Any movement on the definition of Rape Grandad? I'm waiting for you to advise us on the distinction between rape and indecent assault.

Regards

JD
Author:  gusmac [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:51 am ]
Post subject: 
This may help Grandad
http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.6.8.htm
Quote:
2. Until 1994, rape in English law was defined as non-consensual penile-vaginal penetration. This definition was then widened to include non-consensual penile-anal penetration as well as the penetration of the vagina. Buggery of women had thus been a criminal offence in itself so that these changes in the law meant that consensual anal sex between heterosexuals became legal for the first time (Lees 1997). These changes were also in line with other countries. For example, in most American states, "rape is defined more broadly as non-consensual penetration of the vagina and anus by a penis, hand or other object" (Lees 1997:91). Although rendering rape a gender-neutral act has caused concern among some feminists, who have argued that precious resources dedicated to dealing with the female survivors of sexual violence may be co-opted for the purposes of dealing with their male counterparts, rape remains a gendered act in another respect. The perpetrators of both types of sexual assault tend to be male (Groth 1979).


Scottish law is different
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... n01-46.pdf
Author:  grandad [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:14 am ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:
grandad wrote:
If she was under 16 that means that she was not capable of giving consent. That is why it is called the age of consent therfore it is rape or indecent assult.


You say you understand the legal definition of rape. Therefore perhaps you can tell us why the gentleman was never charged with rape?

Regards

JD


Don't be a pratt all your life JD, I never said that I understood the definition of rape but I do know that no one under the age of 16 can give consent to sex. Prat.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/