Rotherham taxi drivers go on strike against child protection CCTV plans

Boring username

Taxi drivers in Rotherham have begun an "indefinite" strike over new rules requiring them to install CCTV cameras.
The new licensing policy has been imposed by the council following the Jay report into child sexual exploitation in the town.
The report said taxis had been used by abusers to traffick victims.
Taxi drivers are concerned about the cost of installing and maintaining the cameras. The council said the policy was about restoring confidence.
The town has about 50 hackney carriage taxis and 800 private hire vehicles.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-33340654


An appalling and disturbing decision by these taxi drivers. Every last one of these people should be banned from driving a taxi if this is their position. It's incredible that this can even be tolerated in this day and age, you would wonder how many of these taxi drivers have something to hide. At a time when public confidence in Rotherham taxi drivers is non-existent you would think there would be widespread support for these plans.

Council and cops **** up, taxi drivers have to pay to have CCTV installed? Sounds like they're right to me.

Bubbaclaus

If the taxi drivers need to pay for installation/maintenance then I fully agree with this action.

Boring username

Deleted User wrote: »

Council and cops **** up, taxi drivers have to pay to have CCTV installed? Sounds like they're right to me.

And look at all these taxi drivers who were doing the abuse:

Taxi drivers paid by council staff to ferry vulnerable young girls from Rotherham care homes also drove them to terrifying encounters with sex abusers, a whistleblower told the Sunday People.

More than 20 of the seedy drivers were blacklisted and reported by worried youth workers, who claim police and local authority chiefs did nothing.

In addition to transporting underage girls to be attacked by men in fast food joints and cafes, drivers are said to have abused them in their cars.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-sex-abuse-victims-ferried-4137352

http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/97698/taxi-driver-arrested-for-alleged-sexual-assault-of-17yr-old-passenger.aspx

Two taxi drivers in Rotherham who were arrested on suspicion of sexual offences against under-age girls have had their licences revoked.
The men, aged 36 and 37, were bailed after being detained on Monday.
Rotherham Borough Council said the men, who held private hire licences, could appeal against its decision.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-32166101

A TAXI driver jailed for eight years for sexually assaulting women passengers had been stripped of his licence - but twice won appeals allowing him to continue working.

Zahoor Mahmood, aged 40, was described as a ‘sexual predator’ when he was jailed yesterday for sexually assaulting two women he picked up on nights out in Sheffield.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/sheffield-crack-addict-taxi-driver-jailed-for-sex-attacks-1-4847071

Obviously the police and council need to be investigated simultaneously, but it's a start with the taxi drivers at least.

So drivers were blacklisted due to allegations while the police and council did nothing? Yeah, I think they might need to start with that rather than CCTV in taxis. Ya know, taxi drivers can get out of their car to do stuff as well.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

Seeing as how when it comes to paedophilia the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence (even if they haven't been accused of anything) Shouldn't all motorists not have to have CCTV fitted (at their own expense) to the vehicles as well -and why should we stop at motorists shouldn't the cyclists (They don't pay road tax Joe) have to do it too -Going by some of the comments on the motoring forum half of them are worse than paedophiles :pac:

Boring username

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

If the taxi drivers need to pay for installation/maintenance then I fully agree with this action.

Why? Taxi drivers have a duty of care to their customers. CCTV should be mandatory in my opinion. It would also serve to help any taxi driver falsely accused of assault, or if they are a victim of assault or robbery themselves.

Boring username

Deleted User wrote: »

So drivers were blacklisted due to allegations while the police and council did nothing? Yeah, I think they might need to start with that rather than CCTV in taxis. Ya know, taxi drivers can get out of their car to do stuff as well.

Well they are investigating the police too:

A serving police officer linked to the Rotherham child sex scandal has died after being hit by a car as he crossed the street.

PC Hassan Ali, 44, was under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission after it was alleged he twice asked a victim out on a date.

Four complaints in total were made against PC Ali to South Yorkshire Police by two members of the public.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2942899/Police-officer-investigated-probe-Rotherham-child-sex-scandal-died-hit-car-crossed-street.html

CB19Kevo

Agree with op here,It should be mandatory for all taxis.
Both to protect the drivers and the customers,Would be very useful for police in missing person cases as well.

I know of plenty drivers who already use CCTV.

Gatling

I wonder if it's to do with the extra background checks been brought in too.
Personally I believe all taxis and Hackneys operating should have cctv installed and and secured to prevent tampering with any evidence .

nokia69

I'm surprised any of these people are still in the taxi business, the same with the takeaways

why anyone would give them money is beyond me

Nodin

CB19Kevo wrote: »

Agree with op here,It should be mandatory for all taxis.
Both to protect the drivers and the customers,Would be very useful for police in missing person cases as well.

I know of plenty drivers who already use CCTV.

There are indeed a few. It would be good if one of them on here told us how much it costs to run the kind of system required. Nothing wrong with background checks as long as they're done by the cops. No idea what the notion of a "dress code" is about. As long as the driver doesn't smell, who gives a crap what he's in, tbh.

Nodin

nokia69 wrote: »

I'm surprised any of these people are still in the taxi business, the same with the takeaways

why anyone would give them money is beyond me

Bit confused here. Who are "these people" and what the fuck have "takeaways" got to do with installing security in a taxi?

nokia69

Nodin wrote: »

Bit confused here. Who are "these people" and what the fuck have "takeaways" got to do with installing security in a taxi?

In addition to transporting underage girls to be attacked by men in fast food joints and cafes, drivers are said to have abused them in their cars.

the taxi drivers and the people working in the fast food joints were working together to rape the underage girls

Gatling

Should a simple case of cctv installation and deeper background checks any refusals should be met with revolking of carriage licenses and heavy fines for companies that don't comply

The Backwards Man

CCTV is getting cheaper all the time, a decent two way system with night vision shouldn't cost much more than €100-€150. Every car should have cameras, not just taxis.

DeadHand

Seems a solid idea to me now that TBM has helpfully pointed out the relative cheapness of these systems.

It may seem like an extreme measure but it is an extreme situation, one largely downplayed by the media for the usual, craven reasons.

Local taxi drivers were integral to the sordid activities of these Muslim rape gangs.

Zamboni

No brainer investment for a taxi driver to get a competitive advantage and install one.

Nodin

nokia69 wrote: »

the taxi drivers and the people working in the fast food joints were working together to rape the underage girls

Some taxi drivers and some people who worked in "fast food joints" were involved yes. What has this to do with the taxi drivers here and "takeaways" generally?

Nodin

The Backwards Man wrote: »

CCTV is getting cheaper all the time, a decent two way system with night vision shouldn't cost much more than €100-€150. Every car should have cameras, not just taxis.

Does that include audio?

Vincent Vega

Travis Bickle must be turning in his grave.

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

Some taxi drivers and some people who worked in "fast food joints" were involved yes. What has this to do with the taxi drivers here and "takeaways" generally?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-abuse-scandal--4120569

She said it was common knowledge there was a “massive problem” with married Asian taxi drivers - some as old as 70 - who had been abusing young girls.

“It was one particular taxi firm in Rotherham and back then it was about 20 of the drivers involved. The firm is still going now,” she said.

“They would pick up the girls and then deliver them to various takeaways. The girls got a ride out of it, free food and were given clothes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401119/46966_Rotherham_Report_PRINT.pdf

Tackling CSE effectively requires a council and its partners to mobilise their services and powers together. The Council has a duty to safeguard the victims. It also governs the landscape in which CSE is played out including many schools, care homes, parks, taxis and take away food shops. Councils have powers of licensing and regulation which can be used to disrupt illegal activity in these places and keep the community safe. This is in addition to the duties and powers of the police.

All you had to do was a quick google search, instead you decided to make some snide replies.

The Backwards Man

Nodin wrote: »

Does that include audio?

Yep, you can get ones that record audio for a tenner

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-abuse-scandal--4120569

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401119/46966_Rotherham_Report_PRINT.pdf

All you had to do was a quick google search, instead you decided to make some snide replies.

I'm fully aware of what happened, thanks bunches. That doesn't explain his remarks however?

So these 20 people are still involved? Or are the other "50 hackney carriage taxis and 800 private hire vehicles" just to be presumed guilty as well? Does the same apply to the "takeaway" staff he mentioned?

Nodin

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Yep, you can get ones that record audio for a tenner

Seems reasonable enough price. Thought it would be far worse tbh.

Pawwed Rig

The Backwards Man wrote: »

CCTV is getting cheaper all the time, a decent two way system with night vision shouldn't cost much more than €100-€150. Every car should have cameras, not just taxis.

Every house as well because that's where most abuse takes place.

mikemac1

A camera is a wise investment anyway.

Irish taxi drivers were obliged to buy first aid kits and a fire extinguisher.They moaned and then they bought them

wp_rathead

mikemac1 wrote: »

A camera is a wise investment anyway.

Irish taxi drivers were obliged to buy first aid kits and a fire extinguisher.They moaned and then they bought them

Wouldn't be like them to moan :pac:

Hunterbiker

There's more CCTV in the UK than you can shake a stick at.
It seems to be 'the go to response' for everything.
They seem to be using the Child Protection issue as just an excuse for more CCTV.

frostyjacks

Rotherham sounds like an absolutely horrible place to live. The Asian gangs are still active apparently, so there has to some action taken. The authorities can't get away with doing nothing anymore.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11712599/Rotherham-paedophile-gangs-are-still-abusing-young-girls.html

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

Hunterbiker wrote: »

There's more CCTV in the UK than you can shake a stick at.
It seems to be 'the go to response' for everything.
They seem to be using the Child Protection issue as just an excuse for more CCTV.

Funny thing is with the cut backs a lot of councils are turning OFF their CCTV systems. They mustn't think they help much in reducing crime ?

Laneyh

CCTV would be useful in the case of missing persons, last seen taking a taxi.
In case of assault allegations made by passengers or assaults / thefts carried out by passengers.
If they all agreed to install it they could increase the fare to cover the cost of installation and maintenance.

CCTV is not the solution to any social problems but I don't see why they would have a strong objection to it

Perhaps if they're not supposed to be working or they sometimes switch off the meter this is what their real objection is

ohnonotgmail

would CCTV in taxis have helped with the cases that have prompted this call for CCTV? the cases were only reported a long time after they happened. Any cctv footage would have been well overwritten by that stage. CCTV is only useful for any offences that are reported immediately.

folamh

Deleted User wrote: »

Council and cops **** up, taxi drivers have to pay to have CCTV installed? Sounds like they're right to me.

Where does it say that the drivers have to pay for it? I would have thought that's the responsibility of either the taxi company or the council.

Nodin

Laneyh wrote: »

CCTV would be useful in the case of missing persons, last seen taking a taxi.
In case of assault allegations made by passengers or assaults / thefts carried out by passengers.
If they all agreed to install it they could increase the fare to cover the cost of installation and maintenance.

CCTV is not the solution to any social problems but I don't see why they would have a strong objection to it

Perhaps if they're not supposed to be working or they sometimes switch off the meter this is what their real objection is

Or the fact this seems to be a 'Rotherham only' measure, rather than something that's mandatory across England.

fedor.2.

Nodin wrote: »

Or the fact this seems to be a 'Rotherham only' measure, rather than something that's mandatory across England.

Rotherham is an excellent place to start

folamh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

would CCTV in taxis have helped with the cases that have prompted this call for CCTV? the cases were only reported a long time after they happened. Any cctv footage would have been well overwritten by that stage. CCTV is only useful for any offences that are reported immediately.

The public independent enquiry was conducted a long time after the events began, but individual cases were being investigated (albeit poorly) since 1999. Having CCTV throughout all of that might have prompted local authorities to take those cases more seriously. And the larger institutional scandal might have been prevented or mitigated, especially if the CCTV picked up conspirational conversations/footage.

folamh

Then again, I suppose the same would go for CCTV in hotels and surrounding areas which was available. And that wasn't very helpful.

Mesrine65

In a newly revised CCTV code of practice the Information Commissioner's Office said that sound recording is intrusive & unnecessary in most circumstances, & that the use of sound recording could undermine any public support there is for CCTV.

Source... http://www.out-law.com/page-8833

biko

Tbh, the kind of person that would drive children around to be abused must have something seriously wrong with them.

These people are not underprivileged. Rape/grooming is not an underprivileged crime.
It's the crime of a predator group and these people have no place in modern society,
Prison and deportation where possible is the only way forward.

ohnonotgmail

folamh wrote: »

The public independent enquiry was conducted a long time after the events began, but individual cases were being investigated (albeit poorly) since 1999. Having CCTV throughout all of that might have prompted local authorities to take those cases more seriously. And the larger institutional scandal might have been prevented or mitigated, especially if the CCTV picked up conspirational conversations/footage.

you missed my point. Unless a complaint is made immediately then cctv is of no use. It is my understanding, and i am open to correction on this, that the complaints were not made immediately.

Laneyh

Nodin wrote: »

Or the fact this seems to be a 'Rotherham only' measure, rather than something that's mandatory across England.

Their carriage license would be for the Rotherham area. The council only have local jurisdiction.
It's probably something that would be piloted in Rotherham and then rolled out elsewhere if deemed a success.

I can understand that they might object to it for reasons of expense and a feeling that they're being profiled.
Realistically it doesn't offer protection to vulnerable children but it would offer
protection to both driver and passenger in case of any incident / allegations.

I don't see why they would have a strong objection to it

Pumpkinseeds

Do we honestly believe that installing cctv in taxis will stop child sex abuse in Rotherham? Seriously? Rotherham seems to have an ingrained problem with child abuse and it'll take a hell of a lot more than cctv in taxis to stop it. Forcing taxi drivers to install it would only mean that the abusers would use private cars instead.

ohnonotgmail

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Do we honestly believe that installing cctv in taxis will stop child sex abuse in Rotherham? Seriously? Rotherham seems to have an ingrained problem with child abuse and it'll take a hell of a lot more than cctv in taxis to stop it. Forcing taxi drivers to install it would only mean that the abusers would use private cars instead.

but something must be done. Or at least seen to be done. Its just optics, nothing more.

Egginacup

Boring username wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-33340654


An appalling and disturbing decision by these taxi drivers. Every last one of these people should be banned from driving a taxi if this is their position. It's incredible that this can even be tolerated in this day and age, you would wonder how many of these taxi drivers have something to hide. At a time when public confidence in Rotherham taxi drivers is non-existent you would think there would be widespread support for these plans.

Oh Christ!

Always the "what have you got to hide" shit when people want to put you under constant surveillance.

Just have to allege that a pedo brought a victim to a pub and bought crisps and cola and the brigade screaming for every pub in the land to be on camera and bugged will be in everyone's face with "What have you got to hide? You must be guilty of something. What is it?"

Egginacup

Boring username wrote: »

Why? Taxi drivers have a duty of care to their customers. CCTV should be mandatory in my opinion. It would also serve to help any taxi driver falsely accused of assault, or if they are a victim of assault or robbery themselves.

If a taxi driver wants to install a security camera for his own safety he's free to do so. Your frothing at the mouth about how it should be mandatory may be your opinion but it's a crap opinion.

You hear the word child-abuse and commonsense just goes out the window. Cameras everywhere. Cameras in the toilet. Cameras in dressing rooms. Cameras in churches and libraries at every single fcuking point. Put a camera on every tree in every park. Listening devices on every lampost.

Anyone who objects is a pedo with something to hide. Later to be classified as "enemy of the state"

Egginacup

nokia69 wrote: »

I'm surprised any of these people are still in the taxi business, the same with the takeaways

why anyone would give them money is beyond me

20:36 and you're already sloshed out of your head?

Magico Gonzalez

Perhaps Rotheram County Council should have a proper transfer service that didnt rely on taxi drivers.

A wider debate on public spending I suppose, but if you cant get proper service from the private sector then it should be in house.

Egginacup

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Every house as well because that's where most abuse takes place.

Have you even thought about what you just said?

So an abuser is going to abuse a victim on camera in his or someone's house? Or are you suggesting all houses be fitted with hidden cameras at construction time unbeknownst to the future owner?

Egginacup

Laneyh wrote: »

CCTV would be useful in the case of missing persons, last seen taking a taxi.
In case of assault allegations made by passengers or assaults / thefts carried out by passengers.
If they all agreed to install it they could increase the fare to cover the cost of installation and maintenance.

CCTV is not the solution to any social problems but I don't see why they would have a strong objection to it

Perhaps if they're not supposed to be working or they sometimes switch off the meter this is what their real objection is

Well the taxi IS most likely the driver's private mode of conveyance outside of work. He may object to being filmed when he's getting busy with his mistress in the back seat.

Also while the camera itself is fairly cheap and small, the DVR to store, say, 30 or 60 day's worth of footage is fairly beefy.

Egginacup

Laneyh wrote: »

Their carriage license would be for the Rotherham area. The council only have local jurisdiction.
It's probably something that would be piloted in Rotherham and then rolled out elsewhere if deemed a success.

I can understand that they might object to it for reasons of expense and a feeling that they're being profiled.
Realistically it doesn't offer protection to vulnerable children but it would offer
protection to both driver and passenger in case of any incident / allegations.

I don't see why they would have a strong objection to it

What on Earth is your definition of a "success"?