nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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"?

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

Laneyh wrote: »

If they all agreed to install it they could increase the fare to cover the cost of installation and maintenance.

Oh yes -Please take all my money :rolleyes:

Boring username

Egginacup wrote: »

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"

Did you read the links I provided where an unusually high number of Rotherham taxi drivers were convicted of sexual assaults?
I know you're probably trolling here as usual but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Pawwed Rig

Egginacup wrote: »

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?

My point was that where do you stop when you start to monitor the daily activities of people. We are already monitored to a scary level but some people seem to want to push it into every sphere of our lives. The logical conclusion is cameras in our homes. Sure if you haven't done anything wrong ya should have nothing to worry about.

Samaris

I would make two points to this, one pro, one against.

On the one hand, I'm aware of just how close to the line taxi-drivers live in terms of making enough profit to keep themselves going. It's a tight business, and even a couple of lost fares can really hurt. Paying out to have CCTV installed would be a kick in the nuts for a lot of people, and far worse for those who are absolutely innocent of all wrong-doing and just as appalled by it as everyone else.

Anyone convicted of being part of these awful crimes should be kicked out, or if their lives are threatened elsewhere and so Human Rights forbids it, stuck in prison and left to rot. They didn't think much of the Human Rights of those girls, but thems the rules.

Perhaps with some sort of sweetener as regards monetary aid towards getting all these CCTV cameras sorted, it could be doable, and if so, should be doable. It may be possible to ensure that they're on when the meter is running, so if those cars are used as private conveyance, the drivers aren't being constantly monitored in their normal lives. Anyone picking someone up without the meter running is up to something anyway, so that should be a huge warning sign.

CCTV in taxis would in the long run protect the drivers from people that ride and run without paying as well, so overall, it does benefit everyone.

end of the road

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.

actually, no . we all know these CCTVS will be abused by the council and their installation isn't about "child protection" but most likely another scam or a way for the council to spy on people so they can scam money from them. never trust a uk local authority. if the council was genuinely concerned about child protection they would pay for the instalation and maintenence costs.

end of the road

DeadHand wrote: »

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.

well, the council can pay for installation and maintenence. they ****ed up because they were to lazy, their job to pay

end of the road

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.

absolutely. make no mistake, this isn't about child protection, but about trying to scam more money

end of the road

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

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 ?

well they turn off a lot of other things to. as long as the lot at the top get payed i suppose

DeadHand

end of the road wrote: »

well, the council can pay for installation and maintenence. they ****ed up because they were to lazy, their job to pay

No, they ****ed up because they were paralysed by political correctness.

In fact, anyone brave enough to point out the reality of the situation was promptly forced into "diversity training".

An independent report found that this was so.

Egginacup

Boring username wrote: »

Did you read the links I provided where an unusually high number of Rotherham taxi drivers were convicted of sexual assaults?
I know you're probably trolling here as usual but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

And as another poster pointed out there were years between when the assaults occurred and when they were reported/investigated. A camera in a taxi this week, an assault takes place next week, the camera has a retention time of 30 days, the incident is reported in 2017, what the fcuk has been accomplished?