Taxi Driver Online

This is behind a paywall, so just the first few paragraphs available.

Couldn't find the video in the usual places, so I suspect it's been taken down, although I'd guess it's easy enough to find in the darker recesses of the internet if anyone's particularly interested. But from what I can see I suspect it's an, er, digital image

But there's a few still images easily found, and it's broad daylight, and the male and female punters would be easily identifiable, as is the driver.

So shows the dangers of 'sharing' stuff like this online, and indeed demonstrates the rationale for many authorities not allowing drivers to access footage.

But would be interesting to find out if the punters and/or the driver have committed any sort of offence, or if the driver could be in trouble with the licensing authorities.


Video of Northern Ireland taxi passenger in sex act goes viral – police launch investigation

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 74331.html

A man filmed engaging in a sex act with a woman in the back of a taxi says he has contacted police after footage of the incident appeared on social media.

The man said the images, believed to be have been taken at the weekend, were shared without his consent.

And he claimed he had been subjected to racist abuse online after the footage went viral.

If you was the fella at it in the back of a cab, would you really go to the press to say how bad the driver was?

Everyone in that cab at the time should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope all three get into trouble one way or the other.

_________________
IDFIMH

If it's from the in-cab CCTV, then there's a clear breach of the Data Protection Act or whatever it's called these days.

Indeed, it seems that the driver has been sacked and charged. Can only find stuff that's behind paywalls, and most of what is accessible is just rehash, so these are just very brief extracts:

I suspect the driver is the only person on this earth who thought the above wouldn't be a consequence of his actions.

A prise numpty if ever there was one.

_________________
IDFIMH

So what precisely can be 'shared' on social media, or put in the public domain more generally?

I assume it's axiomatic that the recording here has been made in a private space rather than in a public place. And that as it was posted online the pair in the back seat could be readily identified.

But I'm sure there's been in-car recordings etc posted on here via newspaper websites that would identify the people involved.

And interesting that it doesn't look like a data protection-related charge, but the 'improper use of a public electronic communications network'. Certainly not an expert on this kind of stuff, but that sounds to me more like the kind of law that's used against those posting threats of violence or extreme porn on social media, for example.

I'm not convinced anything can be shared online from our cabs without the agreement of the punters, and then I'm not sure a driver should be putting it up themselves.

Clearly if the driver has been robbed or attacked then the police can put the footage up in an attempt to catch the baddies, but it's not really our place to put anything up without the punters firstly agreeing to it.

_________________
IDFIMH

A prime example of not doing it in the correct manner can be found in the link below.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... g-21226622

The driver sent the video to the press, who in turn appear to have sent it on to the police.

The driver should have sent it straight to the police.

_________________
IDFIMH

For various reasons I'm a bit more on the driver's side with the kind of thing in the Echo's story, but of course it would depend on the circumstances of the case.

Could babble on for hours about this kind of stuff, but remember that one when quite a bad incident was effectively brushed off by police, but they took a bit more interest when it was 'shared' online and in the press, and the perp ended up getting a prison sentence?

So to that degree there's maybe a public interest in 'sharing' stuff like that occasionaly, and by the same token it's maybe in the public interest for someone to say (with regard to 'sex act' video above, for example), that the authorities often seem more interested in the driver's conduct with regard to stuff like that than those who are up to whatever in the taxi.

And, here was another interesting recent one which Sussex praised, but which would I think identify two of the passengers criticised in the video, namely the woman who was coming onto the driver, and the headbanger in the Asda car park who was hollering abuse at the driver (the links below are both from the same video, but hopefully the links should start at the relevant part).

Not sure of the precise law with regard to what's shown (and heard) in the clips, but in my opinion there's a legitimate public interest here, but I'd have maybe blurred the woman's face, which isn't really necessary to make the point, although maybe the audio is

https://youtu.be/bbpVQL7mNkE?t=95

https://youtu.be/bbpVQL7mNkE?t=185

Portadown taxi driver appears in court over passenger sex act video

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/nort ... t-21342435

A Co Armagh taxi driver has appeared in court charged with sharing an image of a couple engaging in a sex act in the back seat of a vehicle last month.

Andrew Peter Quinn Tortolani, 54, of Sandringham in Portadown appeared before Craigavon Magistrates Court on Wednesday.

He is charged with improper use of a public electronic communications network on July 18 this year.

The charge relates to an online video, which was shared widely, showing a man and woman engaging in a sex act in a taxi last month.

The graphic images were recorded from a dashcam and showed a driver in uniform, with the male and female passenger in the back seat.

The man pictured claimed the images were shared without his consent and reported the matter to the PSNI.

He also alleged that he had been subjected to racist abuse online after the footage went viral.

During today's brief hearing in Craigavon, a police officer confirmed they could connect Tortolani to the charge.

Judge Bernie Kelly adjourned the case for four weeks.

_________________
IDFIMH

This is a bit like those incidents where a driver runs over a cat, dog or human being. The authorities and media take a side (usually not the driver's) and a relatively minor transgression by the driver is made to sound like the most heinous of crimes by all concerned.

So now this driver's photo is published in the press, he's up in court over something that the vast majority would get away with scot free, and it looks like he's been forced to move out of his home as well


NI taxi driver charged over viral sex video showing back seat passengers engaged in explicit act

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sund ... 74724.html


Image: Belfast Telegraph/Sunday Life

This is the taxi driver charged with sharing graphic video footage of a couple engaging in a sex act in the back seat of his cab.

Andy Tortolani (54) appeared at Craigavon Magistrates Court charged with improper use of a public communication network by sending a “message or other matter was indecent.”

The charge relates to an incident on July 18 when videos were circulated on social media depicting a couple in the back seat of a Value Cabs taxi engaging in a prolonged sex act.

Tortolani, from Sandringham in Portadown, spoke only to confirm he understood the charge against him.

None of the facts were opened in court last week but it is understood the offence relates to Tortolani allegedly releasing to social media a three-part video
of the couple in the back of his taxi.

Granting legal aid District Judge Bernie Kelly adjourned the case to September 15.

There was no sign of Mr Tortolani at his bail address when Sunday Life called to the door last week, with the house emptied of furniture and possessions.

Numerous pictures of the family man appear on social media accounts.

Footage emerged last month of a man and a woman engaging in a prolonged sex act in the back of a Value Cabs taxi and quickly went viral after being shared on social media.

Following the widespread distribution of the video the man in the back seat in the footage contacted the PSNI and said the images were taken without his consent.

He also claimed to have been subjected to racist abuse online after the footage went viral.

Value Cabs later confirmed one of their drivers had been sacked following the incident.

In a statement issued to concerned customers Value Cabs said: “This self-employed taxi driver breached his driver guidelines and is no longer affiliated to Value Cabs.

“This incident is now in the hands of the PSNI.”

The viral images were recorded from the front of the taxi and show the driver in a Value Cabs uniform with the couple in the back seat.

The driver appears to keep his eyes on the road throughout most of the journey while the couple begin kissing before engaging in an explicit sex act.

An awkward exchange follows at the end of the journey when the male passenger pays the £17.80 fare, plus a £2.20 tip, and the driver quips “cheaper than a room”, before chuckling to himself as he tucks away a £20 note.

Three separate clips of the incident, two at around a minute long and one lasting 20 seconds, have been shared widely across social media sparking jokes, derision and disgust online.

It is unclear how the footage ended up on social media and Value Cabs have so far refused to comment to the press.

When contacted by Sunday Life the alleged male victim declined to comment and directed our reporter to his legal representatives who said there was “no comment” to make.

The PSNI and members of the public, including friends of the woman involved, have appealed to people on social media to stop sharing the footage.

I think you are underplaying the seriousness of the offence.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/of ... ised-2017/

The above guidelines relate to England and Wales, but I would assume the Northern Irish ones aren't a million miles different.

Because of the wide distribution I would put it at higher culpability, and greater harm due to the effect it appears to have had on at least one of the victims.

The starting point for a not guilty plea is 9 weeks in custody.

_________________
IDFIMH

I don't doubt that the establishment views this as a serious crime, particularly as viewed from the pen-pushers in the police and prosecution services, and from the courtroom, as all this indeed demonstrates

But there are all kinds of theoretically tough penalties for a multitude of crimes that the powers that be aren't interested in.

So what's different here? Because it's all over the press? Because maybe the 'victims' are some kind of celebrities?

The driver was stupid to post the video, but as far as I'm concerned he's paid enough of a price already, by the looks of it.

As for the 'victims', maybe they'll get a room next time

But there is only an online fuss because the numpty posted it online.

What on earth did he expect, other than a storm?

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm guessing he *didn't* expect to lose his job, be charged with a criminal offence, have his photo splattered all over the press, and be driven from his home?

Anyway, looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree about this, but in my opinion I'd say there are a million and one more important things PSNI could be attending to, particularly in the likes of Belfast.


And indeed this looks like a driver more worthy of attention, in my opinion at least.

Bet there's not many UK mainland night drivers subject to a curfew like this, though


Dundonald taxi driver David Matthews – who prosecutors claim is linked to east Belfast UVF – fails to have electric tag scrapped

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/crime ... ed-3358383

A taxi driver accused of taking part in a loyalist show of strength in east Belfast has failed in a legal bid to have his electronic tag removed.

A taxi driver accused of taking part in a loyalist show of strength in east Belfast has failed in a legal bid to have his electronic tag removed.

David Matthews, 35, sought permission to ditch the monitoring device while on bail over his alleged involvement in a gathering of up to 60 masked men at Pitt Park.

Belfast Magistrates’ Court heard it has wrongly exposed him to the threat of arrest because he is out at night working.

But ruling that the tag must remain, a judge instead declared that a security company who checks on his whereabouts should “get their act together”.

Matthews, of Millreagh in Dundonald, is on bail charged with unlawful assembly and affray in connection with the high-profile incident on February 2 this year.

His 58-year-old father, Stephen Matthews, of Pansy Street in Belfast, and Derek Lammey, 56, from Spring Place in the city, are accused of the same offences.

The three defendants deny involvement and have not been charged with any paramilitary offences.

But according to prosecutors the masked men who arrived at Pitt Park are believed to be linked to the East Belfast UVF.

Disputed claims have been made that 11 people living in the area were forced to flee their homes and shelter in the nearby Ballymac community centre for up to eight days.

In court today a Crown lawyer contended: “It had all the hallmarks and overtones of a paramilitary gathering.

“Mr Matthews, along with his father and co-accused, had leadership roles within the formation.”

Defence lawyers sought to vary the bail terms due to his job as a taxi driver.

Solicitor Darragh Mackin argued that despite David Matthews’ curfew being suspended when he is on a night shift, his family are being woken by calls to check where he is.

“The system isn’t working,” Mr Mackin claimed.

Prosecution counsel accepted the situation “isn’t ideal”, but maintained that it has enabled Matthews to continue in his job.

Denying the application, District Judge Rosie Watters held that the electronic tag was better than requiring police to carry out checks at his address.

“I do think G4S have to really get their act together so this doesn’t happen again,” she added.