karomiow@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 3, 3:48 pm, "joe" wrote:
> > s_pickle2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On May 3, 2:16 pm, Phil Stovell wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 03 May 2008 06:10:41 -0700, s_pickle2001 wrote:
> > > > > As I remember, until fairly recently even convicted rapists
> > > > > could get taxi licences, because the councils felt that they
> > > > > would be infringing on the poor rapists' human rights or
> > > > > something like that if they refused the licences.
> >
> > > > Do you think that everybody who has committed a crime and served
> > > > their sentence should be permanently excluded from employment?
> >
> > > No, but a . offender should not be a taxi driver. Would you be
> > > happy to have your wife or daughter in a car alone with a rapist?
> >
> > To make the analogy complete, would you be happy to have your wife
> > or daughter in a car alone with a vetted driver who once looked at
> > an indecent photograph of a child?
> >
>
> As taxi drivers may carry unaccompanied children, it is better if
> there is no suspicion that they may have any .ual interest in them,
Yes of course. I should have said 'with a vetted driver who once forgot
to renew his fishing licence'
--
|