"At 6.30pm, his friend rang Swift Taxis and at 6.40pm a green VW People Carrier driven by the defendant arrived," she said.Of course, then the story changed:
The blind man was allowed into the vehicle while his dog, Farley, was put in by the friend.
"The defendant pushed the dog out of the vehicle, saying that he had no dog guard and so couldn't carry it," Mrs Gutteridge said. "The passenger and his friend told him he was breaking the law."
Mrs Gutteridge said (redacted) said he could not allow dogs into the cab because he was allergic to them, but then because he had no guard.And then it changed again:
When interviewed on March 22, (redacted) admitted he was the owner of the vehicle and said his children had eczema and asthma.Of course, readers who have seen this before - or who've followed this link - can take a guess as to the real reason.
Because of Fasny's original not guilty plea, the case had been set for a trial and cost the council £1,328.40.Will it (we) see that money back? Why, no. Of course not:
District Judge John Temperley said because of his guilty plea Fasny had proven he did not have any intention of discriminating against any passenger because of disability.*sigh*
Fasny was ordered to pay £300 costs.
And thanks to the actions of idiot judges like Temperley, Muslims will continue to flout the law of the land because, hey, why not? What's the worst that happens?