In message
,
s_pickle2001@yahoo.com writes
>On May 3, 5:32 pm, Richard Miller
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <3a955e3c-f1fd-4ce0-bd2b-9b4cf5291...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> karom...@yahoo.com writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >Astaxidrivers may carry unaccompanied children, it is better if there
>> >is no suspicion that they may have any .ual interest in them,
>>
>> Taxidrivers may carry unaccompanied women too, often young, pretty and
>> drunk after a night out. Is it better if there is no suspicion that they
>> may have any .ual interest in them either? Just what .ual interest
>> is ataxidriver permitted to have in your world?
>
>Exactly my point. People who have already demonstrated that cannot
>restrain themselves in such situations should not be taxi drivers
>where they may be exposed to such temptation.
Oh, right, so you only want to ban those who have a conviction for a
.ual assault on a child, not anyone who has not been convicted, or has
only been convicted of looking at pictures.
Thanks for clarifying that.
--
Richard Miller |