jman316 wrote:
Skull wrote:
captain cab wrote:
It wasn't licensing conditions it was the DDA / Equality Act tho - regardless of this it was the firm that sacked the driver not the LA
You've lost me. I don't think you have grasped the correct end of the stick, regarding my posts on the locked thread.

The issue was about the incompatibility of being a Muslim and picking up guide dogs subject to your licensing conditions.

I must weigh in!
There is no incompatibility. Keeping a dog as a pet and carrying one in your vehicle for a person who NEEDS it are two different things. The drivers who refuse to do so are idiots and need better information relayed to them.
In various different sects of Muslims, dogs are allowed to be kept as pets. not all Muslim sects disallow it.
The main issue is people refusing to carry dogs. When I was going through the rigmarole of doing my knowledge, as part of the disability awareness course you would not believe how many people were saying they would not like to carry dogs. Then you also have to remember that many of my co-religionists would happily carry one. It is unfair to tar everyone.
Bollocks!!
There's your incompatibility:
Quote:
In various different sects of Muslims, dogs are allowed to be kept as pets. not all Muslim sects disallow it.
"Not all sects disallow it", but some do and that's why Muslims should be forced to give an undertaking they are happy to pick up guide dogs before they are granted a licence.
Quote:
"Then you also have to remember that many of my co-religionists would happily carry one."
If I had my way, religion would be banned altogether. So think yourself lucky.
