A taxi driver who refused to take a blind woman and her guide dog was caught as part of a huge crackdown on cabbies breaking the law.
You'll
never guess....
Qurban Hussain was booked by a test purchaser carrying out checks on private hire drivers for Kirklees Council.
Well, well, well...
The operation came following reports that there were taxi drivers in the area refusing to pick up disabled passengers and their assistance dogs.
The 47-year-old, who works for Pennine Heckmondwike Cars, was booked for a pickup from Morrisons in Heckmondwike at 1pm on June 23 last year.
At last, councils actually doing their duty!
Gareth Henderson-Moore, prosecuting, said: "On that date Kirklees Council was conducting a covert operation which involved an officer from the council making a booking for a taxi.
"When the taxi arrived she was accompanied by a member of the public who is registered blind and needs an assistance dog to identify whether drivers would accept the booking."
"He attended at the pickup location and there was no issue with accepting the booking until he saw the assistance dog whereby he refused the booking and said he didn't take dogs and told her to get in the car behind."
Heh! Busted!
"I said it's part of his licence under the Equality Act to allow the dog into the car because it's a working dog and he still said 'no'."
She said that once it was clear that Hussain was refusing to take the dog she made the agreed hand signal to two enforcement officers who then came over and spoke with him.
I bet that concentrated his mind somewhat. Though clearly, he thought it was worth pleading ignorance/
Hussain, of Thomas Street in Heckmondwike, pleaded not guilty to failing or refusing to carry out a booking for a disabled person accompanied by an assistance dog.
His solicitor Khalid Hussain said that there was no evidence that the call taker asked Hussain to pick up Ms Wood-Brignall.
"Whether or not he takes the dog is of no consequence. He made it clear he was not the driver allocated."
Luckily, the magistrates weren't having it.
...magistrates found the case proved against Hussain due to the credible evidence of the witnesses and fined him £120. He was ordered to pay £700 towards prosecution costs and £30 victim surcharge.
He should also be barred from applying for a private hire licence for life.
The offender in this case, as in so many other similar cases, is a follower of the 'religion of peace' that doesn't do much to keep the peace of the city by following our laws. On this case the cause of sanity has won but there are probably many others who drive these 'sharia taxis' who are acting on their Islam derived hatred of pigs/dogs/Jews/anything and everything that is 'not Muslim' and getting away with it.
ReplyDeleteThere is an old saying about good men ignoring bad laws. I don't know if he's a good man, but any law that says you don't have control over your private property is a bad law.
ReplyDeleteEven more so when it is enforced by council jobsworths setting people up on the off chance they do something naughty
Non-smokers wanted all the pubs, blind people want all the cabs. How about we let the property owners decide?
"Non-smokers wanted all the pubs, blind people want all the cabs. How about we let the property owners decide?"
ReplyDeleteHow about you try being blind, then see how you feel about the issue?
Between the two arguments of Sobers and Bucko, is the fact that we have to make a judgement call when two people's rights are in direct conflict. In the case of guide dogs, taking them is part of the job description. If you can't bring yourself to do it, maybe you should do something else. In the case of smoking, non smokers not wanting to breath tobacco smoke is a fair demand to make. However, it is very easy to make provision for those who do want to smoke by having smoking and non smoking areas. The smoking areas can easily be staffed by people who smoke themselves. So my point of view is that the law on guide dogs is sound but the law on smoking is badly flawed.
ReplyDeleteSobers, Bucko was being sarcastic.
ReplyDeleteAs for Bucko, you've got it wrong. Pubs used to have smoking rooms, trains used to have smoking carriages. Smokers then colonised everything. Non-smokers stopped going to pubs, and stopped going on trains.
"How about you try being blind, then see how you feel about the issue?"
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that if I was disabled, I would understand that by the very definition, there are some things I'm unable to do
Nobody, disabled or not, should be entitled to demand the labours and services of another
@Bucko - when a car is commercially used as a taxi, or premises are licensed as a Public House (the clue's in the name), then the normal rules of private property are modified.
ReplyDeleteIf you are driving a vehicle for hire, then although it may be your private car,you give up the right to dictate who should use it.The only exception may be an obviously drunk person.
ReplyDelete@Ted and John
ReplyDeleteI'm not disputing what the law says, I know that as the law stands, taxis are obliged to take guide dogs. I'm saying that the law is wrong in my opinion.
My example with the smoking law was to try and show that it's possible to make provision for everyone. Even though pubs can have non-smoking areas and some taxis will choose to carry guide dogs, some people want control of everything, even though they're never going to use all the pubs and cabs in the town
A public house or a taxi may be designated areas where the public can go, but they're still private property and part of a privately run business. I'm of 4he opinion that the business owner should get to decide, not the customer
If a business owner makes a wrong decision, a free market will sort that out. Non-smokers will be free to choose pubs and blind people to choose cab companies, as will owners be free to choose customers
@Stonyground - I don't think this is a case where rights are in conflict. The only right I see here is property rights and that's on the side of the cab owner. The only right the dog owner can claim is the right to enter another persons private property and demand their services, which isn't a right at all
The dog owner simply has to ask if the company take dogs when booking the cab. If they don't use another company. Such transactions don't need to be backed up by Government force
"Bucko was being sarcastic."
ReplyDeleteNo he wasn't.
"The dog owner simply has to ask if the company take dogs when booking the cab. If they don't use another company. Such transactions don't need to be backed up by Government force"
And if there aren't any? Which in this day and age is entirely feasible in certain parts of the country. According to you, if you're blind and happen to live in a town where the majority of the taxi drivers are Muslims (or such a large % that finding a non-Muslim one at any given point in time is a lottery) then thats just hard cheese, you'll have to walk miles home in the rain because while you managed to get a non-Muslim cab to go out, you couldn't find anyone prepared to take you on the way home.
I always ask myself in these sort of scenarios - would I swap? That is to say, if person X is demanding special treatment because of some sort of disability or whatever, would I put myself in their shoes in order to get the special treatment? Thus I consider if I'd be prepared to be blind just so my dog could accompany me in a taxi. And no sane person would purposely blind themselves for that reason, so I conclude that the blind persons needs are reasonable, and outweigh the needs of a taxi driver to obey a sky fairy and avoid dogs. If he doesn't want to deal with dogs, don't be a cab driver, any more than get a job at a kennels. There's plenty of jobs that don't require contact with dogs, so a dog disliking Muslim has more options to avoid them than a blind person has to not use cabs.
Sobers
ReplyDeleteI get your point and I understand that the blind woman vs the Muslim isn't the best hill to die on, but your argument basically states that if I can demonstrate a greater need than another, I then have the right to demand their services and enter their property. Take that to it's logical conclusion...
Without Government interference, I'm confident the market will provide. I live near Blackburn and there's always a non-Muslim taxi driver available if you want one. They're scarce, but you just have to know where to go
"If he doesn't want to deal with dogs, don't be a cab driver"
If he want's to be a cab driver who only offers services to people and not animals, I don't see that as an unreasonable aspiration. If he thinks he can make money by ferrying around only giraffes, he should be able to go and do so. The Government should not put him out of work simply because another person who has been deemed more needy than himself, might possible want to use his services one day
"but your argument basically states that if I can demonstrate a greater need than another, I then have the right to demand their services and enter their property. Take that to it's logical conclusion..."
ReplyDeleteSo are you in favour of taxi drivers saying 'No Blacks'? Or 'No women not dressed in burkas'? Or 'No gays'?
As the law stands a pair of flaming queers can order a cab, and any devout Muslim (or indeed evangelical Christian) who turns up must take them to their destination, and rightly so, by threat of legal punishment if he refused. Are you suggesting that such discrimination laws be repealed? If not why are you trying to make life harder for people who are suffering enough as it is?
ReplyDeleteYes
Fine. When you've got all the anti-discrimination laws repealed, and taxes abolished (as they are the same thing as demanding someone work for someone else, just one step removed) then we can discuss whether blind people should or should not be allowed some leeway regarding their guide dogs. Until then the law is clear, taxi drivers should obey it, or be punished, end of.
ReplyDelete"...and getting away with it."
ReplyDeleteThey need to be made to live in fear that the person they drive off isn't a member of the public at all, but an undercover enforcement office...
"... any law that says you don't have control over your private property is a bad law."
We are founded on bad laws then. But better that than no laws at all. That way lies Somalia.
"In the case of guide dogs, taking them is part of the job description. If you can't bring yourself to do it, maybe you should do something else."
Spot on!
"Non-smokers stopped going to pubs, and stopped going on trains. "
They haven't returned to the pubs now, though, have they? And I doubt they ever really stopped using the trains.
"If a business owner makes a wrong decision, a free market will sort that out."
And in majority Muslim areas, what should a blind person do? Move?
"Until then the law is clear, taxi drivers should obey it, or be punished, end of."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. We are where we are.
But I've got a post coming up on Parent & Child Parking, you can get your teeth into that.. :)