On Mon, 5 May 2008 00:02:18 +0100, Richard Miller
wrote:
>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?
Or a conviction for other .ual offences involving that group pf
people.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Press all the keys at once to continue...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |