Taxi Driver Online

Ignoring the licensing thing, this represents another aspect of P&J elitism.

Maybe it's just me, but an absolute lack of self-awareness here - I mean, only *female* *passengers* feel unsafe in taxis, apparently

As for the licensing thing per se, possibly interesting that she's basically saying the councillors are biased based on whether they're male or female



Rebecca Buchan: Six men voted on a Highland Council taxi licence – none of them know what it’s like to fear the journey home

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/op ... i-licence/

While those men were weighing up a licensing application, countless women reading about it were remembering every precaution they've ever taken in the back of a taxi.

Getting into the back of a taxi has never been as simple as opening the door.

Not for me, anyway, or I would argue, any other woman.

Before the car has even pulled away, I’ve usually shared my live location with someone.

I’ve checked the registration plate. I’ve made sure Uber’s safety features are switched on. Sometimes I’ve even pretended to be on the phone because a fake conversation somehow feels safer than silence.

I know I’m not alone.

Almost every woman I know has her own version of these rituals. They’re so ingrained we barely think about them anymore. We just do them.

Not because we’re paranoid, but because we’ve learned to.

Women spend enough of their lives being told to think about their own safety.

Don’t walk home alone. Text when you get in. Share your location. Trust your instincts. Check the registration. Sit behind the driver. Call someone if something doesn’t feel right.

We’re constantly reminded that keeping ourselves safe is, in part, our responsibility.

Which is why I couldn’t stop thinking about all of those little precautions as I read about Highland Council’s decision to allow a taxi operator’s licence to remain in the name of David Brown – the man jailed for raping a woman in his own taxi.

There are some news stories where the facts almost become secondary.

Not because they don’t matter. They do.

But what stays with you long after the headlines have faded isn’t the nuts and bolts; it’s the message.

When I read that six male councillors had voted to support the application, I couldn’t help but think about the difference between making a decision and living with its consequences.

Because while those men were weighing up a licensing application, countless women reading about it were remembering every precaution they’ve ever taken in the back of a taxi.

I’ve read the council’s explanation. Brown cannot drive a taxi, and his driver’s licence was suspended long before his conviction.

Those male councillors will never know how it feels to fear a journey home

The operator’s licence is something different, and the decision is now being referred back to the full council for further consideration.

I understand all of that.

I also know Highland Council’s own licensing officers recommended the application be refused.

That tells me this wasn’t simply a black-and-white administrative exercise. There were people within the process who recognised that this decision carried a significance far beyond paperwork.

And that’s where I think the committee got it wrong.

For me, this was never really about the licence.

It was about the message.

As I looked at those sitting around the committee table, I couldn’t help thinking that many of the male councillors involved would never know what it feels like to take those precautions in the first place.



They’ll never scour an app to make sure every safety feature is switched or discreetly check the child lock isn’t on.

These are all things I have done, and almost every woman I know would say the same.

Perhaps those around the committee table saw a licensing matter.

Many women saw something entirely different.

They saw the name of a convicted rapist continuing to be associated, however indirectly, with a licensed taxi business.

Whether Brown ever sits behind the wheel again is almost beside the point.

Highland Council taxi licence saga highlights male privilege

For women, the damage was done the moment his name remained attached to a licensed taxi business.

If the intention is that the business continues without him, then surely the obvious course would have been to create a clean break. Encourage his wife to apply for an operator’s licence in her own name and start afresh.

Remove any lingering association between the business and the man whose crimes shattered trust.

This isn’t about punishing family members for someone else’s crimes. Quite the opposite.

A licence in her own name would have sent a powerful message that the business was moving forward independently, with no remaining connection to the man whose actions destroyed public confidence.

Instead, the message became muddled.

For many women, a vote to retain the licence feels uncomfortably close to minimising the enormity of Brown’s crimes. That may not have been the councillors’ intention, but messaging isn’t about intention.

It’s about how decisions are received.

This isn’t about arguing over the finer points of licensing law.

It’s about recognising that there are some names which, because of the unimaginable harm attached to them, should no longer appear anywhere near a business that relies so heavily on public trust.

Every decision made by elected representatives sends a message.

Sometimes those messages reassure people. Sometimes they leave them wondering whether anyone in the room stopped to think about how the decision would feel to those expected to live with it.

For me, that’s the most disappointing part, not the legal arguments, not the technicalities, the missed opportunity.

An opportunity to send a clear, unequivocal message that when it comes to women’s safety: perception matters.

Women don’t need institutions to explain the difference between a driver’s licence and an operator’s licence.

We understand perfectly well.

What we want is to know that the people making these decisions understand us.

Rebecca Buchan is deputy head of news and sport for The Press and Journal and Evening Express.

That's not what you are a licensing councillor for. That option is not one that you had.

The decision was whether the rapist was a fit and proper person to have a license to operate a taxi. It's a yes, or it's a no.

The fact that a no decision would have an adverse effect on his wife is 100% irrelevant.

_________________
IDFIMH

Councillor resigns after row over rapist taxi driver's licence decision

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9q2dqzl12zo



One of the Highland councillors who voted in favour of a rapist taxi driver keeping his operating licence has resigned from the local authority's licensing committee.

Scottish Liberal Democrat councillor John Grafton said he now realised it was not the right decision and apologised for the distress caused.

David Brown, 50, of Croy, near Inverness, was sentenced to six years and nine months in May following his attack on an 18-year-old female passenger in December 2023.

Highland licensing committee voted in private last month to take no action on Brown's operator's licence following a request from his family, but the decision has been criticised by rape charities.

Police Scotland had objected to the operator's licence continuing in Brown's name.

Highland Council said the decision would be referred to a future meeting of full council for further consideration.

Rape and Sexual Abuse Service Highland and Rape Crisis Scotland said it had sent a "harmful message" on women's safety.

In a statement, Grafton said he had voted in favour of taking no action to "protect" Brown's family.

He said that with the benefit of hindsight and information that was not available on the day of the meeting, an alternative decision could have been taken.

Grafton said he asked officials if there were any legal implications around the licence, and had assured himself that Brown "presented no current threat".

He added: "The remaining vehicle licence would expire well before he was due for release.

"It is my compassion and my processing which led me to this decision on the day. We have been told in licensing several times that we are not here to punish – that is the job of the courts."

Grafton said he had not taken the decision to resign from Highland Council's licensing committee and board lightly, and had lost sleep thinking about it.

An operator's licence covers a vehicle, allowing it to be driven by someone holding a taxi driver's licence.

Brown's taxi driver's licence was suspended in January 2024.

Rape and Sexual Abuse Service Highland chief executive, Romy Rehfeld, told BBC Scotland News on Wednesday that decisions like the licensing committee's could cause additional distress to survivors.

She added: "A convicted rapist who used his professional position to attack a young woman should not be permitted to hold a licence in that same industry."

Rape Crisis Scotland and Highlands and Islands MSP Maree Todd also criticised the decision.

Brown picked up the 18-year-old woman after a night out in Inverness. She wanted to go back to her Highland village.

Instead he drove past her destination before pulling into a lay-by near a farm, somewhere between Strathpeffer and Dingwall, and sexually assaulting her.

He then left her in Dingwall in sub-zero temperatures.

Brown had denied the charge of rape and claimed he had a consensual sexual encounter, but was found guilty after a three-day trial in Edinburgh in April.

_________________
IDFIMH

I wonder if the legal team will resign as well.

_________________
IDFIMH

And now the Chair of Licensing has resigned.

Chairman resigns over taxi rapist operator’s licence as Sean Kennedy says the thought of making things worse for the victim ‘haunts’ him

https://www.strathspey-herald.co.uk/new ... ce-439213/



The chairman of the committee at the centre of the scandal surrounding the taxi operator licence for convicted rapist David Brown has resigned from his role.

Councillor Sean Kennedy expressed regret at the impact the issue must have had on Brown’s victim and said that, given the public outcry since the issue came to light, felt he had no other option but to quit the licensing committee.

But he also called on Highland Council to investigate the leak that saw The Inverness Courier break the story on Monday, triggering the fall-out that has made national headlines.

The revelation that all of those who backed the continuation of the licence in a private hearing were male while those who opposed it were female sparked a fierce - and ongoing - online backlash, with two councillors going on the record with us to refute claims of misogyny.

Yesterday we reported claims that the decision to continue the taxi operator’s licence (separate from a taxi driver’s licence) was about not penalising Brown’s wife, who would lose her income without the licence.

Sources also claimed that council officials could have acted years ago to remove the operator’s licence from Brown, but failed to do so.

Now after days of unfolding controversy, Cllr Kennedy has exclusively told The Inverness Courier his side of the story and why he has chosen to step down.

Further details emerge showing the vote split entirely along gender lines: all-male members backed continuation, while all-female members opposed it. The revelation sparks intense public backlash and allegations of misogyny.

He said that the original decision taken regarding the licence was well-intentioned, but said today: “More thought should have been given to his teenage victim from the taxi cab that night in 2023. This preys on my conscience and will continue to do so.

“I cannot imagine what she experienced the night she was attacked, nor what she experienced after that night. The thought of making that worse for her haunts me.”

He continued: “I hope that integrity has been at the very heart of everything that I have tried to do as a councillor, including as chair of the licensing committee.

“So I now have to resign as the chair of the licensing committee given my own views on how a councillor must act.”

He added: “The decision to continue the operator's licence for a convicted rapist was done purely so we did not penalise his wife and family, who could be considered secondary victims in all this, and who needed that licence for their income.

“This has been misconstrued in some quarters as support for the individual rapist or as insensitivity to the security that all women deserve. That is just entirely false.

“But as a democratically elected representative, I have seen over the course of the last week, how the public have reacted to the decision that was taken.

“They feel that we have fallen far short of what they want and so it is democratically correct that I take accountability. It is on this basis that I resigned from the committee.”

Addressing the issue of who leaked the information in the first place, he said: “I would suggest that those that originally leaked this information also now consider their positions, if they too have integrity.

“I am fully aware that there may be political motivations for allowing this private meeting to come out. It has played zero part in my decision.”

He hinted that there are wider issues with licensing when he said: “In time I will make known my views about how licensing is problematic in this country and what can be done to improve it, specifically around the areas of sexual attacks on women.”

_________________
IDFIMH

Clearly this councillor doesn't believe in transparency.

_________________
IDFIMH

Another one resigned.

https://www.ross-shirejournal.co.uk/new ... er-439264/

I still think the major blame is on the legal team and the licensing officers.

The request to keep the license for the wife should never have come before the committee.

_________________
IDFIMH

To be honest I have some sympathy for both officials and the male councillors, assuming they thought were doing the right thing to the wife's benefit.

So it might not concur with the letter of the law, but, you know.

It all immediately reminded me of the widows and orphans thing that used to happen in Dundee, where they'd get by the no-transfer rule by issuing a new plate in the name of the widow or orphan.

But that was just because plates were capped, thus basically the widow or orphan overlord would benefit to the detriment of the driver serf

Which I certainly didn't agree with. And while it might not have went against the letter of the law, it certainly seemed to breach the spirit of it

And which is kind of what I was thinking the Inverness scenario here was all about - allowing the wife to benefit from a capped HC. Or perhaps a capped *saloon* HC, as opposed to maybe a WAV that she'd have to run if she got a plate in her own name.

But since she's actually a driver, and because of the stuff about the finance agreement, I'm guessing it was just to allow her to carry on driving herself as opposed to any kind of profiteering scenario.

So to that extent I have some sympathy with what happened. On the other hand, I'm guessing the opposition from the female councillors was some kind of kneejerk reaction to the specific scenario in the case as opposed to thinking it all through.

And, I mean, the amount of BS about it all on social media

For example, one prominent KC basically saying allowing the plate to remain extant meant that he'd retained his badge

Or another barrister (or Scottish equivalent) saying the whole operator licence stuff is a recent thing intended to thwart organised crime. That was also BS - in English terms it was all just about the plate. The booking office stuff that the advocate was referring to has zero to do with what happened in Inverness. He had a badge and plate (or two) as far as I can tell, and no booking operation. (Or if he did take pre-bookings with a couple of cars then under the Scottish legislation he'd be exempt from requiring a booking office/premises licence - I think the limit is three vehicles.)

Kind of lost track of all these resignations and the like

On one level, I've totally lost interest in it all, but on another level all this simply underlines what I've been trying to do something about for most of my adult life

Anyway, all this simply underlines the charade that licensing committees are supposed to be non-political. What has any of this got to do with the LibDems as a party? So now they've expelled the councillor from the party on the grounds that 'safety is paramount' etc

Could chunter on about this kind of stuff for hours. But one thing about all this that immediately comes to mind is that, as regards quasi-judicial decisions like this, the councillors' code of conduct states that they shouldn't take account of irrelevant considerations like how decisions will be reported in the press.

But, I mean, all this underlines that that's little more than a pretence - the P&J's 'For and Against' graphic further up the thread shows how impossible that is, not to mention the press coverage more generally - literally dozens of articles in various sources about all this in the past couple of weeks.

Of course, to an extent that's not the fault of the system, nor of individual councillors - they're not the ones deciding how all this is reported.

But it just illustrates how the whole thing about non-political and quasi-judicial processes is fundamentally just a huge pretence and charade


EXCLUSIVE: LibDems expel John Grafton from council group over taxi rapist license row following a crunch meeting on Sunday saying safety of women and children is ‘paramount’

https://www.ross-shirejournal.co.uk/new ... ve-439305/

Liberal Democrats in Highland Council have expelled Caol and Mallaig Councillor John Grafton “with immediate effect” from the local authority group over the taxi rapist license row.

Following a crunch meeting on Sunday the group agreed he should go despite him resigning from the licensing committee on Friday.

The LibDems are the first political group to take action against one of its members over the issue of Brown’s licence saying “women’s, children’s and public safety is… paramount”.

Cllr Grafton was one of six men who voted to continue the operator’s license for convicted and jailed rapist David Brown – the move sparked a firestorm of criticism.

The councillors who have spoken out maintain the decision was to help Brown’s wife, was no danger to the public and based on information provided on the day.

But it flew in the face of a Police Scotland objection to Brown retaining the licence after he had just been jailed for six years and nine months for a 2023 attack.

Brown (50) was convicted of raping an 18-year-old female passenger in a remote lay-by near Dingwall and “dumping” her in sub-zero temperatures.

The council has to effectively brand its own decision as a potential “contravention of law” or “maladministration leading to injustice” to call it in to undo it.

Since Friday we exclusively revealed that Caithness Councillor Willie Mackay has ended his long service on the council with his resignation.

The committee chairman Sean Kennedy also resigned from the licensing committee on Friday and Cllr Duncan Macpherson followed on Saturday.

The LibDem agreed five points at its meeting starting with how the group “fully support” the move referring the licensing committee’s decision for a full council review.

The second was the expulsion of “Councillor Grafton from the Liberal Democrat group with immediate effect.”

The LibDems pledged to work with other groups “to review processes and procedures of the licensing committee whilst ensuring that the ‘Fit and Proper’ test for all applicants is at the centre for all decisions.”

And that “women’s, children’s and public safety is recognised as being of paramount importance when determining licensing matters.”

Finally, it recognised that because the review at full council of the decision was effectively a “live application” the group will only make “more specific and further comments” after it has been determined.

And maybe it's just me, but doesn't that final paragraph actually underline why the LibDems as a party should have just kept quiet about it in the first place?

They seem to want to have their holier-than-thou cake and eat it