New Rotherham taxi regulations approved
ROTHERHAM’S new stringent taxi licensing policy has been formally approved.
Commissioner Mary Ney agreed the new rules — including CCTV in all cabs — on Tuesday.
The policy’s measures set high standards for the fitness of drivers and the condition of vehicles.
Ms Ney said: “Public confidence and safety is at the heart of our new policy.
http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/98914/new-rotherham-taxi-regulations-approved.aspx
Doesn’t square with this:
Breaking – Latest from RPHDA, what planet are they on?
or this:
Rotherham Politics 
Was Ms Ney “minded” to approve the new rules, or did she positively, wholeheartedly, in all conscience and without equivocation, approve the new rules???
LikeLike
What does it matter, as long as they are enforced rigidly!
LikeLike
the word “enforce” is something rmbc cant understand very well .
LikeLike
Big Bird try missing a council tax payment, they understand enforcement then, make no mistake.
LikeLike
Why would a taxi driver ever need training in how to spot signs of sexual abuse, are they now taking the place of carers, doctors and social workers? Assuming that the abusers won’t all be traced and convicted (and they won’t),giving training to an abuser will simply help him to cover his tracks by telling him how not to leave tell-tale signs. What a complete waste of time and money that tax payers will foot the bill for. Another intelligent policy from RMBC (and commissioners).
LikeLike
Your comment implies that’s the vast majority of taxi drivers are guilty of CSE. It’s a minority. And the net is closing in on them.
I’ve had that training. Infact I have it refreshed 3-4 times a year. The reason I have it is that if I spot any tell tale signs I can then inform the right people such as a doctor, or someone who deals with safeguarding issues.
You will probably find those who either abused children or are still doing it and used the taxi industry to cover there tracks will now be finding some other way to do their horrible deeds.
LikeLike
Not at all. I’m aware it’s a very small minority. My comment is regarding the ones they don’t catch being more aware of how to cover their tracks. I have the training too for the same reason as you do. If you’re going to give taxi drivers this training then why stop there? Bus drivers, checkout operators, lollypop men etc. etc. You can’t train everyone who come into contact with kids. Let’s just hope none get away with it.
LikeLike
Completely agree with your reply and thanks for replying.
LikeLike
“Secret Taxi Driver” you made the comment about earnings and the cost of the equipment on the other thread.
Have you considered informing the commissioners about the all those namely
Abdul Tariq
Tareq (Euricab)
And the others that all hogging all the school contract, acquired by deception because if there was a fair and just process then everyone should a fair spread of them.
Let’s account for all the school contracts and how many operators licences there are and the jobs being offered fairly.
May be the next question at the RPHDA meeting to the above names.
LikeLike
As for hogging school contracts, i’m assuming when a contract is up for bid then different operators will bid and it is upto Rotherham Council’s Educational Transport department to choose which operator wins the bid for each individual contract. I’m not privy to that sort of information at the minute. My school run was won by the taxi company I work for.
LikeLike
This clearly proved Asians don’t have power in Rotherham where was Akhtar
LikeLike
According to Wuff he’s fortifying his house
LikeLike
Yet!
Asians are taking over labour in Rotherham sooner or later they will do what THEY like in Rotherham – what hope for our children then…calling minors “white meat” is Racist.
Covering up or not condoning these actions is Racism…
LikeLike
I’m sure you mean not condemning, MK007?
LikeLike
Can’t wait to see who’s footing the bill for all this extra training and the installation of the CCTV systems..Then maybe the monitoring of it all…because lets face it the current or previous employees of our CCTV are not very trustworthy are they…?…we’ve all seen the youtube videos that have somehow been lifted from council CCTV cameras.. It should be made public viewing at all times 24/7 they should be able to log on and monitor the whole towns CCTV and any taxis/buses/public transport at anytime..
LikeLike
The council want us drivers themselves to foot the bill for CCTV.
Not sure what is happening for drivers who have yet to get their BTEC, mine didn’t cost me anything because European Union funding was secured to pay for mine and some other drivers which was then undertaken by a company called Skills UK based in Mansfield.
LikeLike
“The council want us drivers themselves to foot the bill for CCTV”. Of course they do, who else should pay for it? You can’t be a taxi driver without a car, do you want someone else to pay for that too? CCTV is now part of the taxi business and owning a taxi. Get used to it!!
LikeLike
Get ready to put your hand in your pocket and pay more for your journey then. Simples.
LikeLike
The next policy will be taxi drivers can not be Labour Party members that would be great..
LikeLike
European funding yes when you don’t have a property license then RMBC will give u funding
LikeLike
Your message makes no sense
LikeLike
The First-‐tier Tribunal (FTT) considered the application of the data protection principles to audio-‐surveillance in taxis, in Southampton City Council v IC EA/2012/0171.
The Council had required that all licensed taxis should be fitted with digital cameras, taking continuous audio recordings.
There was no complaint about the visual images recorded, but the Information Commissioner decided that the audio recordings were in breach of the data protection principles.
He issued an enforcement notice under s40, DPA.
The Council appealed to the FTT, but was unsuccessful.
It was common ground that if the policy of making audio recordings breached Article 8 ECHR, it would not amount to “lawful” processing for the purpose of the first data protection principle.
The FTT agreed with the ICO’s view of the requirements of Article 8, holding that, although the activity was adopted for legitimate ends (to promote public safety and reduce taxi-related crime), it was not ‘proportionate’.
The Council had to justify the need for audio-recordings, when compared with the benefits that would be secured by retaining the visual feed alone.
The FTT held that the considerable interference to privacy rights caused by such audio recordings outweighed the “marginal benefits” likely to result from them, in terms of promoting public safety and deterring crime.
LikeLike
Now you would think Rotherham Council would do their research before putting out statements then having to have another meeting and amend what they’ve said the week after.
This is what Councillor Shaukat Ali means when he says this whole saga is an embarrassment. They are still letting down the victims of CSE with the way they are trying to implement this.
LikeLike