Uber driver jailed after sexually assaulting passenger

Samson Haile, 32, was found guilty for sexually assaulting his 26-year-old passenger before she managed to escape

An Uber driver who sexually assaulted a young woman in his cab has been jailed for eight months.
Samson Haile, 32, engaged his 26-year-old passenger in a sexual conversation as soon as she climbed into the car.
He then stated he wanted to have sex with the woman, who told him she wanted to escape the vehicle.
He continued to drive and began to touch her, before she managed to escape and report the incident to police.
Jurors at Isleworth Crown Court were told later that night he picked up a female off-duty police officer, and he also spoke to her in a sexual way and invited her to have sex.





http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uber-driver-jailed-after-sexually-6769946



Back out probably in less than 4 months and back driving about as an 'uber' predator cab...


Seems to be a lot of sexual assaults carried out by these uber scum drivers... just Google 'uber sex assault'...


And another highly skilled, hard working and well needed immigrant I suppose...!?

Oh do fuck off Tommy, we had the cab drver in Ipswich who murdered six girls, he wasn't an immigrant.  His skin colour has no damn reference at all.

I didn't say anything about his skin colour... it Is a story about the dangers of getting into unlicensed 'uber' cabs and the huge numbers of sexual assaults that the drivers are carrying out!

Tommy Monk wrote:
I didn't say anything about his skin colour... it Is a story about the dangers of getting into unlicensed 'uber' cabs and the huge numbers of sexual assaults that the drivers are carrying out!

I found a site which recorded 17 sexual assaults between Uber and Lyft, all time, across the globe. It appears from some searches I did that they're no worse about sexual assaults than traditional cab drivers are.

Ben there are many many stories of these Uber drivers in London, stealing from people's accounts, asking sexual favours and touting from the sides of roads and nightclubs

They're mostly immigrants and most of them are scumbags.

There are a few stories (true ones I can't say where from due to prying eyes) whereby the drivers have taken their children to work as they cannot speak English.


Sometimes people, it's not being racist to say a group of people are shit and are mostly immigrants (some illegal I might add)

I know this stuff inside out I deal with it daily.

They spit at taxi drivers and they spit at white women - yes they do! In London.
Ask any black taxi driver - or any person from London who regularly use cabs.

eddie wrote:Ben there are many many stories of these Uber drivers in London, stealing from people's accounts, asking sexual favours and touting from the sides of roads and nightclubs

They're mostly immigrants and most of them are scumbags.

There are a few stories (true ones I can't say where from due to prying eyes) whereby the drivers have taken their children to work as they cannot speak English.


Sometimes people, it's not being racist to say a group of people are shit and are mostly immigrants (some illegal I might add)

I know this stuff inside out I deal with it daily.

They spit at taxi drivers and they spit at white women - yes they do! In London.
Ask any black taxi driver - or any person from London who regularly use cabs.

How can an Uber driver steal from someone's account? I didn't think Uber gave drivers access to people's bank accounts ...

I'm just saying, how does the conduct of Uber drivers compare to traditional cab drivers?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3019047/Black-cab-driver-sexually-assaulted-women-passengers-fell-asleep-taxi-nights-jailed-10-years.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys

http://www.dorset.police.uk/default.aspx?page=1921

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/6100097/Taxi-driver-sexually-assaulted-student-in-back-seat-of-his-cab.html

Okay some people have an account set up with uber - whereby they pay by credit card yes?

They've been known to do either or both of these things:

They type in the wrong amount say 600.00 instead of the fare of 60:00
The customer will,just click yes and those their number in without noticing the extra zero


They pick up teenage school kids (my friends son has recently been found out to be doing this and has told the police!) and the kids use someone's account to get about everywhere - the driver knows this isn't the kids account but they get paid anyway so they just do it


If you're on Twitter then you'll see scores upon scores of the general public telling their story....

eddie wrote:Okay some people have an account set up with uber - whereby they pay by credit card yes?

They've been known to do either or both of these things:

They type in the wrong amount say 600.00 instead of the fare of 60:00
The customer will,just click yes and those their number in without noticing the extra zero


They pick up teenage school kids (my friends son has recently been found out to be doing this and has told the police!) and the kids use someone's account to get about everywhere - the driver knows this isn't the kids account but they get paid anyway so they just do it


If you're on Twitter then you'll see scores upon scores of the general public telling their story....

People should check the amount they're paying before they click anything.

How is a kid using someone else's account? The person shouldn't have given them access to their account.

Well,yes of course people should check, but a lot of these people are out for the evening and a lot of them are drunk!

As to the accounts being used by boys (and so far it's mostly boys so I've heard), I have no idea only that some boys can hack accounts and some of the boys have a parent who has an account.... Though not anymore as the parents now realise the company cannot be trusted.

eddie wrote:Well,yes of course people should check, but a lot of these people are out for the evening and a lot of them are drunk!

As to the accounts being used by boys (and so far it's mostly boys so I've heard), I have no idea only that some boys can hack accounts and some of the boys have a parent who has an account.... Though not anymore as the parents now realise the company cannot be trusted.

Oh well, if they're drunk, that's their own fault.

If boys are hacking accounts, they're breaking the law and should be arrested for that. They're also stealing money from someone else's account. It sounds as if the parents need to realise it's their own kids who can't be trusted really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Well,yes of course people should check, but a lot of these people are out for the evening and a lot of them are drunk!

As to the accounts being used by boys (and so far it's mostly boys so I've heard), I have no idea only that some boys can hack accounts and some of the boys have a parent who has an account.... Though not anymore as the parents now realise the company cannot be trusted.

Oh well, if they're drunk, that's their own fault.

If boys are hacking accounts, they're breaking the law and should be arrested for that. They're also stealing money from someone else's account. It sounds as if the parents need to realise it's their own kids who can't be trusted really.

I agree on both points rags (my friends son is in big trouble but he was "among" the lawbreakers not the 'actual' lawbreaker)
My only point is this: many of the uber drivers are breaking the law and many of them are recently arrived and some don't even live in London!

Perhaps a bigger point to make, to be fair to the uber drivers, is that uber the company are using them as slaves: long hours for little money.
And you cannot get through to the company by phone to complain - ever.

All this uber app thing has done is given a false legitimacy to all those dodgy late night illegal ones... normally immigrants, immigration status highly questionable, as was the rest of their status to drive legally, license, insurance etc, plus sorry state of The vehicles...


It is shocking really that when legitimate operators have to pass so many checks and requirements to be given permission to work, but then these chancers are given the all clear with little to no authority controls in place...



More madness!!!

The only people who can influence the use of Uber is the general public. As long as people want to use them, there's nothing anyone can do.

Not at all rags... local authorities and govt have control over private hire vehicle regulations.


Those who are trying to operate as a 'for hire' vehicle to the public must ALL be subject to the same rules, checks, requirements.


Using some stupid app on a smartphone should not be reason to evade or avoid the proper regulations, requirements, controls etc.

Tommy Monk wrote:Not at all rags... local authorities and govt have control over private hire vehicle regulations.


Those who are trying to operate as a 'for hire' vehicle to the public must ALL be subject to the same rules, checks, requirements.


Using some stupid app on a smartphone should not be reason to evade or avoid the proper regulations, requirements, controls etc.

I thought the legal challenge failed Tommy. Has there been a development?

The legal challenge didn't fail unfortunately.

The High Court ruled that the app was legal.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/16/uber-wins-high-court-case-taxi-app-tfl

Yes rags... I did read that a court recently ruled in favour of this app being used by wannabe 'private hire' drivers to the public in central London on a 'hail/stop and pick up' type basis...


But only because it was deemed that although London taxis/black cabs are allowed to drive around and able to be flagged down/hailed etc, and only they are allowed to be able to run the meter system that they use... the court was saying that the uber app allowed public to register their requirement for a cab through the app, then this was relayed to a uber driver in the vicinity to pick up, therefore technically then being a pre booked or pre ordered cab, and not one that was being directly flagged down by waving or shouting in a black taxi 'hailing'type way...

They also said that although the app was used to track the journey of The public passenger, and be instrumental in calculating the cost of The fare etc... it wasn't the same as the meter system that only black taxis are authorised to use either!



But... the point I'm making is that regardless of these highly questionable technical distinctions found by this one court judgement... surely the drivers should still have to conform to And abide by all the other regulations that all other cabs and private hire cars have to do!?


Checks on proper vehicle Insurance, public liability insurance, checks on vehicle condition/maintenance/age etc, on driver, driving license, immigration status, criminal history/status etc...!?

Tommy, this exactly what the recent black taxi demos have been about.

You explained it completely.

You know, I don't know why you get such bad press on here. Whenever you post, you always know exactly what you're talking about whether anyone agrees with you or not.

eddie wrote:Tommy, this exactly what the recent black taxi demos have been about.

You explained it completely.

You know, I don't know why you get such bad press on here. Whenever you post, you always know exactly what you're talking about whether anyone agrees with you or not.

You must be talking about another Tommy, either that or you haven't read his posts on climate change. lol

I don't always agree with him, but he rarely gets sidetracked from his point and he always backs up what he says.
If he's rude it's never bad or nasty, not that I've seen.

He's views in homophobia are shite and some of his views on "all" Muslims etc are stupid.

But he sticks to his point.

He's a good poster IMO

Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Satanists think the devil
Is a symbol of virtue- and why the hell shouldn't they?

eddie wrote:I don't always agree with him, but he rarely gets sidetracked from his point and he always backs up what he says.
If he's rude it's never bad or nasty, not that I've seen.

He's views in homophobia are shite and some of his views on "all" Muslims etc are stupid.

But he sticks to his point.

He's a good poster IMO

You are quite right, he rarely gets sidetracked from his very uninformed rubbish and doesn't realise what he is talking is complete crap lol   Not much point sticking to a point when it has no validity and is based on wrong information.  Honestly, read the climate change threads, he's laughable in his ignorance.

Ah well I often talk crap'and you all put up with me

eddie wrote:I don't always agree with him, but he rarely gets sidetracked from his point and he always backs up what he says.
If he's rude it's never bad or nasty, not that I've seen.

He's views in homophobia are shite and some of his views on "all" Muslims etc are stupid.

But he sticks to his point.

He's a good poster IMO

I am against homophobia... just as I am against special treatment for homosexuals where others rights/beliefs are overridden...


And I don't have any view on 'all Muslims'... just views on the behaviours that many of them believe, follow and exhibit...

Yes Tommy, and you love all black people so much you have an avatar that you know they would find offensive.  Why not just be truthful.

Good.
Then let's hope people remember you said that and realise that just because you have a view, doesn't mean you deserve a label.

Yes Sassy... just like women are outraged by men dressing up in drag...

Right. Tommy says he is against homophobia so he is not a homophobe.

'Sexual deviants, a couple of homosexuals, abnormal, unnatural, pro-poof propaganda, some homosexual'- not homophobic comments at all lol

It's not just the views but the way people express them that is defining

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes Sassy... just like women are outraged by men dressing up in drag...

No we're not, we thoroughly enjoy it.  Drag artists are great fun.

So were the minstrels... And kids loved their golly's too!!!

Eilzel wrote:Right. Tommy says he is against homophobia so he is not a homophobe.

'Sexual deviants, a couple of homosexuals, abnormal, unnatural, pro-poof propaganda, some homosexual'- not homophobic comments at all lol

It's not just the views but the way people express them that is defining

Les... I don't have to agree with homosexuality to defend your freedom as an adult to do whatever you like with another consenting adult behind closed doors...


I would equally defend your right to be free from persecution and discrimination in employment and society in general for your chosen private sexual indulgences...


But it's not the same as the normal and natural way of things as nature intended...


And something so different simply cannot be considered as being the same...



I don't make the rules... and no matter how much you try to bend them... it's still not the same...

But you object to my being allowed to marry, and do so using all the homophobic language I mentioned above.

You defend my right to have sex with my partner in my bedroom; and that is it. Beyond that, you are as homophobic as any other homophobe.

Eilzel wrote:But you object to my being allowed to marry, and do so using all the homophobic language I mentioned above.

You defend my right to have sex with my partner in my bedroom; and that is it. Beyond that, you are as homophobic as any other homophobe.

Does it matter? This forum is filled with people who are intolerant of one thing or another, and have strong opinions about those things.

Tommy is a perfectly good poster and is too easily abused by others who just don't like his opinions.

Eilzel wrote:But you object to my being allowed to marry, and do so using all the homophobic language I mentioned above.

You defend my right to have sex with my partner in my bedroom; and that is it. Beyond that, you are as homophobic as any other homophobe.

I don't object to you marrying a nice girl at all les...


And you can have sex with your boyfriend in More places than just your bedroom you know... come on... be a bit more adventurous...!!!

I thought a homophobe was someone that hated gays and their whole ways?

Just because Tommy doesn't think they should marry, doesnt make him a homophobe!
I know a gay guy who thinks the same actually and he also is totally against gay adoption! I've argued with him on that very subject - is he a gay homophobe then?

Edit; Tommy your choice of language when discussing the issue leaves a lot to be desired at times though, but I put that down to hanging around allakaka for too long.

eddie wrote:I thought a homophobe was someone that hated gays and their whole ways?

Just because Tommy doesn't think they should marry, doesnt make him a homophobe!
I know a gay guy who thinks the same actually and he also is totally against gay adoption! I've argued with him on that very subject - is he a gay homophobe then?

Edit; Tommy your choice of language when discussing the issue leaves a lot to be desired at times though, but I put that down to hanging around allakaka for too long.

It's an easy put down to try to silence a valid opinion/argument... but this totally fails when it is a homosexual who holds the opinion... just like the accusation of racism fails whenit is thrown at an ethnic who is against mass immigration...


But the question really is that why is it only ok for a homosexual to hold that view, and only ok for an ethnic to hold a view against mass immigration!?


It's just lazy SIXHIRB shout down tactics...

Tommy I really hate labels, it's an easy way to dismiss someone and its also stupid.

For one thing; most people who are really racist or homophobic - they don't ever want to even deny it! They will readily admit it and wear the label like a badge.

The gay guy I mentioned above, is an older gentleman, so of a different generation - perhaps that's for something to do with it, I don't know?
But added to that, there's a gay guy my age, who is vehemently against adoption (not marriage).

So it's not about having a view and then being put into a box.

I wouldn't marry a Muslim - simply becaeue of the religious aspect - doesn't make me a Muslim-hater

(I wouldn't marry a Mormon or JW either!)

A tactic used by lefties to shout down and silence legitimate argument and opinion that they don't like.

I would castrate the bas**** with a broken bottle while was awake.

Do not be surprised if he gets beaten up, with any luck.

We must protect our own females.

eddie wrote:I thought a homophobe was someone that hated gays and their whole ways?

Just because Tommy doesn't think they should marry, doesnt make him a homophobe!
I know a gay guy who thinks the same actually and he also is totally against gay adoption! I've argued with him on that very subject - is he a gay homophobe then?

Edit; Tommy your choice of language when discussing the issue leaves a lot to be desired at times though, but I put that down to hanging around allakaka for too long.

Yah see, your edit saved me the need to reply haha

If he only opposed gay marriage I would not see him as a homophobe

Is the homosexual opposed to adoption, a homophobe...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Is the homosexual opposed to adoption, a homophobe...?

No.

Listen tommy- if you only opposed adoption and marriage, but never used homophobic language, I might not consider you a homophobe.

If you used homophobic language, but supported equality measures like adoption and marriage, I probably wouldn't consider you a homophobe (just a bit ignorant with your words).

It is because you oppose equal marriage AND use homophobic terminology that I consider you a homophobe.

Is anyone else a bit tired of this word "homophobia"? Some people think that gay people shouldn't marry or adopt children. So fucking what? It's not as if they're in charge of the law is it?

How is it worse than someone saying that religion should be banished, or that they don't approve of religious faith?

You call any language against what you want, 'homophobic'...


Trying to impose your views onto others.

Tommy Monk wrote:
You call any language against what you want, 'homophobic'...


Trying to impose your views onto others.

I've laid out very clearly the language I think is homophobic.

^raggs, I don't care what words you are tired of. If those people COULD influence the law they WOULD.

You say 'homophobic'...I say grammatically correct...

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
You call any language against what you want, 'homophobic'...


Trying to impose your views onto others.

I've laid out very clearly the language I think is homophobic.

^raggs, I don't care what words you are tired of. If those people COULD influence the law they WOULD.

Well if you could ban religion, you'd do so, so you're no better are you?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Samson Haile, 32, was found guilty for sexually assaulting his 26-year-old passenger before she managed to escape

An Uber driver who sexually assaulted a young woman in his cab has been jailed for eight months.
Samson Haile, 32, engaged his 26-year-old passenger in a sexual conversation as soon as she climbed into the car.
He then stated he wanted to have sex with the woman, who told him she wanted to escape the vehicle.
He continued to drive and began to touch her, before she managed to escape and report the incident to police.
Jurors at Isleworth Crown Court were told later that night he picked up a female off-duty police officer, and he also spoke to her in a sexual way and invited her to have sex.





http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uber-driver-jailed-after-sexually-6769946



Back out probably in less than 4 months and back driving about as an 'uber' predator cab...


Seems to be a lot of sexual assaults carried out by these uber scum drivers... just Google 'uber sex assault'...


And another highly skilled, hard working and well needed immigrant I suppose...!?

All this uber app thing has done is given a false legitimacy to all those dodgy late night illegal ones... normally immigrants, immigration status highly questionable, as was the rest of their status to drive legally, license, insurance etc, plus sorry state of The vehicles...


It is shocking really that when legitimate operators have to pass so many checks and requirements to be given permission to work, but then these chancers are given the all clear with little to no authority controls in place...



More madness!!!




Thread reminder!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I've laid out very clearly the language I think is homophobic.

^raggs, I don't care what words you are tired of. If those people COULD influence the law they WOULD.

Well if you could ban religion, you'd do so, so you're no better are you?

I wouldn't ban it- that would be harsh. I think it can be educated out of society

And I can give a good case as to how religion damages the world, I don't see anyone doing the same with regards to gay people or gay marriage