On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:48:13 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Mon, 5 May 2008 00:02:18 +0100, Richard Miller
> wrote:
>>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.
Presumably you include looking at (indecent) pictures of "that group
of people" which would only be relevant (currently) if the "group of
people" is children.
You would have to show that looking at pictures of *any* group of
people is likely to increase the chance of a person attacking a member
of that group.
--
Dissenter |