In message , Periander
<4rubbish@britwar.co.uk> writes
>Richard Miller wrote in
>news:b4lw94BF3iHIFwj8@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>"Only looking at pictures", come on Richard.
>
Come on yourself.
What is the issue here? It is that taxi drivers should be able to
control themselves with their passengers. Their passengers will cover
the whole gamut, so whatever the driver's .uality, they will be left
alone with someone who turns them on at some time in their career.
That being the case, it is entirely impractical to ban anyone who might
ever have a .ual interest in one of their fares. Therefore on what
basis do you say that people should be banned, other than as a result of
a conviction for an actual .ual assault?
--
Richard Miller |