Uber Driver Refused Blind Man & His Dog

by Major Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

A Muslim Uber driver has been fined after he refused to pick up a blind passenger and his guide dog because he claimed it was against his religion.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3930394/Muslim-Uber-driver-fined-refused-pick-blind-passenger-guide-dog-against-RELIGION.html#ixzz4Ppjp1axN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This driver should be banned from driving private hire for reward for life when his 10 year prison sentence inds.

Uber Driver Refused Blind Man & His Dog - Page 2 Screen%20Shot%202016-11-12%20at%2021.50.20_zps6qywaw27

Uber Driver Refused Blind Man & His Dog - Page 2 Screen%20Shot%202016-11-12%20at%2021.50.20_zps6qywaw27

by Victorismyhero Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:02 pm

Ziz wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:actually you havnt done anything of the sort

now
what about this religiously bigoted taxi driver????????

and erm...raggs has been around for a long time so????

you really are a crass boor and idiot

He is not religiously bigoted, he is worried about all dogs, not just non-Muslim dogs. He discriminated against the blind bloke because of his disability not because his of religion or lack thereof.

wrong...he discriminated against the victim because of his (the drivers ) religious beleifs

THAT makes it a religiously inspired hate crime.....

by Victorismyhero Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:07 pm

scrat =

Uber Driver Refused Blind Man & His Dog - Page 2 2981866455

you couldnt establish a pile of poo in a toilet....which is probably why your brain case is empty

see...you make a LOT of empty noise but bring no evidence to bear....

which kinda proves MY point that you are indeed...TROLL

see...I have just proved you are troll....

empty pot and all that

you do realise dont you scrat...that you are as mad as a box of frogs

by Guest Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:08 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Ziz wrote:

He is not religiously bigoted, he is worried about all dogs, not just non-Muslim dogs. He discriminated against the blind bloke because of his disability not because his of religion or lack thereof.

wrong...he discriminated against the victim because of his (the drivers ) religious beleifs

THAT makes it a religiously inspired hate crime.....

No it doesn't - in the UK a hate crime is defined as:

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender."

(The Association of Chief Police Officers and the CPS)

The taxi driver's actions were not "motivated by hostility or prejudice based on [the blind man's] religion or perceived religion" - it was "motivated by hostility or prejudice based on [the blind man's] disability or perceived disability".

It can be said to be a hate crime but not a religiously motivated hate crime.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:28 pm

But was motivated by the prejudice and hostility of the taxi driver due to his religious beliefs...

by Guest Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:32 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:But was motivated by the prejudice and hostility of the taxi driver due to his religious beliefs...

That is true - but under UK law that does not make it a religious hate crime. An atheist taxi driver refusing an atheist blind man would still be guilty of the same offence.

by Victorismyhero Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:33 pm

ok then how about culturally motivated

since it was based on the cultural values of OUR society (ie acceptance of (especially) assistance dogs)

or could it be said to be racial hatred, (since again "our" race has the above acceptance)

becasue....if he didnt have the dog would he have refused him???

he didnt refuse him becasue he was blind per se but becasue he had an assistance dog..

and those idiots dont like dogs.

methinks you wish to split hairs in order to exculpate the driver

by Guest Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:35 pm

Lord Foul wrote:ok then how about culturally motivated

since it was based on the cultural values of OUR society (ie acceptance of (especially) assistance dogs)

or could it be said to be racial hatred, (since again "our" race has the above acceptance)

becasue....if he didnt have the dog would he have refused him???

he didnt refuse him becasue he was blind per se but becasue he had an assistance dog..

and those idiots dont like dogs.

methinks you wish to split hairs in order to exculpate the driver

He has admitted that he was motivated by his religion but that is not the offence here - as you (almost) say, he discriminated against the blind man's disability by refusing to carry his dog.

by Victorismyhero Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:36 pm

Ziz wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:But was motivated by the prejudice and hostility of the taxi driver due to his religious beliefs...

That is true - but under UK law that does not make it a religious hate crime. An atheist taxi driver refusing an atheist blind man would still be guilty of the same offence.

Disagree...you are conflating the offence

an athiest taxi driver wouldnt have the excuse of "his religious beleifs (or lack therof) " not allowing assistance dogs....

your example would be "simple discrimination"

his is religiously motivated discrimination

by Guest Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:38 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Ziz wrote:

That is true - but under UK law that does not make it a religious hate crime. An atheist taxi driver refusing an atheist blind man would still be guilty of the same offence.

Disagree...you are conflating the offence

an athiest taxi driver wouldnt have the excuse of "his religious beleifs (or lack therof) " not allowing assistance dogs....

your example would be "simple discrimination"

his is religiously motivated discrimination

Either way, under law it would be discrimination on the grounds of disability and not religion.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:41 pm

Ziz wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:But was motivated by the prejudice and hostility of the taxi driver due to his religious beliefs...

That is true - but under UK law that does not make it a religious hate crime. An atheist taxi driver refusing an atheist blind man would still be guilty of the same offence.

The man in question said it was against his religion so therefore making it a religiously motivated crime...

by Guest Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ziz wrote:

That is true - but under UK law that does not make it a religious hate crime. An atheist taxi driver refusing an atheist blind man would still be guilty of the same offence.

The man in question said it was against his religion so therefore making it a religiously motivated crime...

He did - but the prejudice he exercised was against the man's disability not his religion.

by Victorismyhero Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:43 pm

Ziz wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:ok then how about culturally motivated

since it was based on the cultural values of OUR society (ie acceptance of (especially) assistance dogs)

or could it be said to be racial hatred, (since again "our" race has the above acceptance)

becasue....if he didnt have the dog would he have refused him???

he didnt refuse him becasue he was blind per se but becasue he had an assistance dog..

and those idiots dont like dogs.

methinks you wish to split hairs in order to exculpate the driver

He has admitted that he was motivated by his religion but that is not the offence here - as you (almost) say, he discriminated against the blind man's disability by refusing to carry his dog.

ah so now you are admitting this was a more complex case than is provided for in the simple guideline you quote as seeming law....

it was a religiously motivated disability hate crime

or in law terms it was a religiously aggravated disability hate crime...

where the term "aggavated" is often used as an "escalator" in the seriousness of a crime

as in the case of what may have been seen as a simple assault in fact becomes "racially aggravated" if a white guy thumps a black guy

well here we have a Muslim who proclaims his religion was the cause of his disability discrimination...

so its religiously aggravated disability hate crime

by Guest Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:45 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Ziz wrote:

He has admitted that he was motivated by his religion but that is not the offence here - as you (almost) say, he discriminated against the blind man's disability by refusing to carry his dog.

ah so now you are admitting this was a more complex case than is provided for in the simple guideline you quote as seeming law....

it was a religiously motivated disability hate crime

or in law terms it was a religiously aggravated disability hate crime...

where the term "aggavated" is often used as an "escalator" in the seriousness of a crime

as in the case of what may have been seen as a simple assault in fact becomes "racially aggravated" if a white guy thumps a black guy

well here we have a Muslim who proclaims his religion was the cause of his disability discrimination...

so its religiously aggravated disability hate crime

I have nothing to admit because I did not seek to conceal anything - my posts are testament to that.

In law he discriminated against the blind man because of his disability, not because of the blind man's religion.

by Victorismyhero Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:49 pm

and it was religiously aggravated/motivated

so the penalty should have been greater

he should at least loose his taxi licence forthwith and for life.....

by veya_victaous Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:50 pm

yes, the guy was not discriminated against because of his religion but because he was blind with dog. thus Ziz is 100% correct it is discrimination against disabled and that is much worse than discrimination against religion.

the Religion etc of the person commiting the abuse are meaningless under the Law, it is the status of the Victim.

AND LF
stop trying top pretend that the driver's religion has anything to do with it under the law. Maybe thats the Problem YOU DONT UNDERSTAND the way discrimiantion works.
What you are is irrelevant, why you beleive whatever you believe is Irrelevant, if you provide a service to the Public then you must not discriminate against any of the protected groups.

by Guest Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:51 pm

Lord Foul wrote:and it was religiously aggravated/motivated

so the penalty should have been greater

he should at least loose his taxi licence forthwith and for life.....

Why should an atheist get a lesser penalty than a person of faith for the same offence?

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:51 pm

Ziz wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

The man in question said it was against his religion so therefore making it a religiously motivated crime...

He did - but the prejudice he exercised was against the man's disability not his religion.

The law is the same for all types of discrimination... it is not a lesser offence to discriminate against a disabled person than a religious person or a person of different races or gender etc...

And... in fact... this was a case of double discrimination because not only was it against his disability but was because of the drivers religious motivation...

Therefore it was a double hate crime!!!

by Guest Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ziz wrote:

He did - but the prejudice he exercised was against the man's disability not his religion.

The law is the same for all types of discrimination... it is not a lesser offence to discriminate against a disabled person than a religious person or a person of different races or gender etc...

And... in fact... this was a case of double discrimination because not only was it against his disability but was because of the drivers religious motivation...

Therefore it was a double hate crime!!!

The driver did not discriminate against the blind man on the grounds of religion - his dog is neither a dog of faith or an atheist.

by veya_victaous Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:54 pm

Motivation is NOT THE CRIME

If you can't understand that we have to be nicer to you since you are obviously Disabled
Rolling Eyes

by Victorismyhero Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:55 pm

veya_victaous wrote:yes, the guy was not discriminated against because of his religion but because he was blind with dog. thus Ziz is 100% correct it is discrimination against disabled and that is much worse than discrimination against religion.

the Religion etc of the person commiting the abuse are meaningless under the Law, it is the status of the Victim.

AND LF
stop trying top pretend that the driver's religion has anything to do with it under the law. Maybe thats the Problem YOU DONT UNDERSTAND the way discrimiantion works.
What you are is irrelevant, why you beleive whatever you believe is Irrelevant, if you provide a service to the Public then you must not discriminate against any of the protected groups.

then maybe the law needs changing ?

by Victorismyhero Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:56 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Motivation is NOT THE CRIME

If you can't understand that we have to be nicer to you since you are obviously Disabled

Maybe not....BUT

motive can and DOES inform sentencing

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:00 am

It was religiously motivated discrimination... pure and simple...

Driver clearly said that he wouldn't take the man because of his dog being against his religion...

by veya_victaous Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:24 am

Lord Foul wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:yes, the guy was not discriminated against because of his religion but because he was blind with dog. thus Ziz is 100% correct it is discrimination against disabled and that is much worse than discrimination against religion.

the Religion etc of the person commiting the abuse are meaningless under the Law, it is the status of the Victim.

AND LF
stop trying top pretend that the driver's religion has anything to do with it under the law. Maybe thats the Problem YOU DONT UNDERSTAND the way discrimiantion works.
What you are is irrelevant, why you beleive whatever you believe is Irrelevant, if you provide a service to the Public then you must not discriminate against any of the protected groups.

then maybe the law needs changing ?

I strongly suggest they don't need changing and have been purposely written this way
Because it is Fair, Just and Non-dicriminatory in itself

If you where to Say, this person that discriminated against the disabled will recieve an different punishemnt due to their religion then the LAW would be discriminatory.
All are equal under the Secular law, regardless of ones religion.

by Spindleshanks Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:55 am

Tommy Monk wrote:It was religiously motivated discrimination... pure and simple...

Driver clearly said that he wouldn't take the man because of his dog being against his religion...

I think you are getting religious discrimination a little mixed up here.

Religious discrimination would be if the taxi driver refused to carry the man based on the blind mans religion, not the taxi drivers.

He wouldn't carry the blind man because he had a dog, nothing to do with the blind mans religion.

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:04 pm

And why did he say he wouldn't take the dog?

by Spindleshanks Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:10 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:And why did he say he wouldn't take the dog?

We know why he wouldn't take the dog, but it had nothing to do with the blind mans religion and that is where religious discrimination would come in.

Had he refused to take the blind man because he (the blind man) was Christian, then it would have been religious discrimination ie, he refused to take the man because he was Christian. In this case he refused to take him because he had a dog.

Not the same thing at all.

by HoratioTarr Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:32 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:And why did he say he wouldn't take the dog?

Probably the driver just doesn't like, or fears dogs. There's much talk about how Muslims find dogs impure etc. But the bottom line is that dogs aren't forbidden in the Qur'an and are used by Muslims as hunting dogs. I have Muslim friends who own dogs. It's just about personal taste. Not about Muslims per se.

by Syl Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:57 pm

It's right he was fined, personally I think he should be banned from taxiing people around if he is breaking the law by refusing to take guide dogs.

It annoys me when people refuse to do their job correctly because of their own personal reasons.
Do the job properly or get one suitable to your needs. Rolling Eyes

by Major Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:27 pm

He should have deffo been BANNED from taxiing.

Some black cab luvlee pakistani drivuz are not too pleased to use their ramp for disabuld userz wheelchairz..

by Syl Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:33 pm

Major wrote:He should have deffo been BANNED from taxiing.

Some black cab luvlee pakistani drivuz are not too pleased to use their ramp for disabuld userz wheelchairz..

I asked my OH about Muslim drivers refusing to take blind dogs.
He has been retired now for 4 years but he knew of a few even then who would not tolerate dogs in their cabs. They got round it by having an exemption certificate, probably citing physical rather than mental reasons.

by Major Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:49 pm

Why do we need the likes of him on our island.

We have more than enough of our own people who could/would do taxi work.

I am in awe of the the London 'Black Cab' drivuz, when we go to Harrods and travel around they are the best form of transport imho.

by scrat Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:50 pm

Major wrote:He should have deffo been BANNED from taxiing.

Some black cab luvlee pakistani drivuz are not too pleased to use their ramp for disabuld userz wheelchairz..

You are a disgusting racist that hides behind our flag to punt out your bile, still I guess you're a protected species on here!

by Victorismyhero Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:54 pm

Syl wrote:
Major wrote:He should have deffo been BANNED from taxiing.

Some black cab luvlee pakistani drivuz are not too pleased to use their ramp for disabuld userz wheelchairz..

I asked my OH about Muslim drivers refusing to take blind dogs.
He has been retired now for 4 years but he knew of a few even then who would not tolerate dogs in their cabs. They got round it by having an exemption certificate, probably citing physical rather than mental reasons.

And in reality , there should not even be those exemption certificates

IF you are doing a job which may require interaction with dogs then if you have a problem with that, be it fear or allergy...then the answer is simple....DO SOMETHING ELSE.

and beleiving in some barmey part of a barmy world view doesnt even come into it.......

by Major Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:59 pm

scrat wrote:
Major wrote:He should have deffo been BANNED from taxiing.

Some black cab luvlee pakistani drivuz are not too pleased to use their ramp for disabuld userz wheelchairz..
You are a disgusting racist that hides behind our flag to punt out your bile, still I guess you're a protected species on here!

You make me so happy Mohammad Scrat with your insults, it only shows I am irking you by wanting to protect my island.
If you only knew me then you would be ashamed for making yourself sound silly and completely ANTI BRITISH.

by scrat Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:21 pm

Major wrote:
scrat wrote:
You are a disgusting racist that hides behind our flag to punt out your bile, still I guess you're a protected species on here!

You make me so happy Mohammad Scrat with your insults, it only shows I am irking you by wanting to protect my island.
If you only knew me then you would be ashamed for making yourself sound silly and completely ANTI BRITISH.

This beautiful island is inhabited by a diverse community, as it should be, the Union Jack flutters in the breeze from every corner of this globe, that's what makes this island and it's people so wonderful, we are the state of art nation because of our diversity.

You would drag us back to some Nazi hell hole.

by Bella Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:31 pm

Major wrote:Why do we need the likes of him on our island.

We have more than enough of our own people who could/would do taxi work.

I am in awe of the the London 'Black Cab' drivuz, when we go to Harrods and travel around they are the best form of transport imho.

What a ridiculous fool you are, Harrods is hardly a "British" shop. Are you an "Arab" per chance?

by Irn Bru Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:43 am

Asian taxi drivers refusing to take a dog in their taxi seems to be all to common. They should lose their licence and the taxi comoany that employs them should be fined for failing to ensure that those they use comply with the law.

If the blind man had said to Uber - don't send a Muslim taxi driver because they won't accept my dog - the poor bloke would probably get prosecuted for discrimination.

Use Black Cabs, they're safer, better regulated and much more comfortable for a dog to travel in.

by Syl Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:48 am

Irn Bru wrote:Asian taxi drivers refusing to take a dog in their taxi seems to be all to common. They should lose their licence and the taxi comoany that employs them should be fined for failing to ensure that those they use comply with the law.

If the blind man had said to Uber - don't send a Muslim taxi driver because they won't accept my dog - the poor bloke would probably get prosecuted for discrimination.

Use Black Cabs, they're safer, better regulated and much more comfortable for a dog to travel in.

My OH was a Black cab driver before he retired Irn....the same problem cropped up there too on occasion..

by 'Wolfie Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:51 am

Uber Driver Refused Blind Man & His Dog - Page 2 3738099605

UBER was created by a slovenly bludging little gang of usurious Yanks to help a small minority of equally greedy and usurious private car owners to attempt to screw over taxi drivers, while attempting to dodge and avoid any relevant laws, regulations, taxes, licenses and so-forth that regular licenced taxi drivers and owners face daily...

I.E. the ugly side of unfettered American style "free market" thinking at its worse..
People use Uber at their own risk. Uber Driver Refused Blind Man & His Dog - Page 2 1284863816

Uber Driver Refused Blind Man & His Dog - Page 2 1284863816

by Ben Reilly Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:46 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

UBER was created by a slovenly bludging little gang of usurious Yanks to help a small minority of equally greedy and usurious private car owners to attempt to screw over taxi drivers, while attempting to dodge and avoid any relevant laws, regulations, taxes, licenses and so-forth that regular licenced taxi drivers and owners face daily...

I.E. the ugly side of unfettered American style "free market" thinking at its worse..
People use Uber at their own risk.

A buddy of mine drives for them, he said their founder is a big fan of Ayn Rand. Tells you all you need to know.

by Raggamuffin Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:54 am

scrat wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:ah...nope scaty scratty

YOU are the liar above all...with your idiocy about what I'm supposed to have posted elsewhere...

rejoicing at your non ban ...linky please.....

I'd love to disect your hyperbole....

and

once again you are running away from the difficult question...just as you always do....

you have NO principles or veracity whatsover....

you are a snivelling coward and a disgrace to your purported political allegience.....

NOW

what about this religiously bigoted taxi driver????????

You and Monkey boy rejoiced at my non pending departure, I don't have to prove your collusion because you've already done that for me, and I suppose theres only one outstanding matter and a question that needs some clarification is the fact that newbie Raggs, is a newbie?

Perhaps if you RW folk stuck to one identity it would make matters a lot simpler, but then I guess you'd have no where to hide.

As I've tried to assist you with this thread on several occasions, I feel any further comment would prove futile.

There's no clarification needed. You don't get to hassle me because you think I'm someone else. It's none of your business.

by nicko Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:06 am

I think "Wolfie" got it right.

by veya_victaous Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:26 am

nicko wrote:I think "Wolfie" got it right.

must be the super moon
cause i agree too Wink

it seems ok, the sharing economy etc it seems like a good way to let people have a second part time job..
until you break it down to the fact that they are really just unlicensed taxis

by Major Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:37 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
scrat wrote:
You and Monkey boy rejoiced at my non pending departure, I don't have to prove your collusion because you've already done that for me, and I suppose theres only one outstanding matter and a question that needs some clarification is the fact that newbie Raggs, is a newbie?

Perhaps if you RW folk stuck to one identity it would make matters a lot simpler, but then I guess you'd have no where to hide.

As I've tried to assist you with this thread on several occasions, I feel any further comment would prove futile.

There's no clarification needed. You don't get to hassle me because you think I'm someone else. It's none of your business.

Why duz anyone NEED to know if Miss Ragga is anyone else?????
I hope we are not going down the road of having distinguished membuz harangued on this issue.

.

by Andy Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:57 pm

I have the only distinguished member on this forum

by eddie Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:13 pm

Irn Bru wrote:Asian taxi drivers refusing to take a dog in their taxi seems to be all to common. They should lose their licence and the taxi comoany that employs them should be fined for failing to ensure that those they use comply with the law.

If the blind man had said to Uber - don't send a Muslim taxi driver because they won't accept my dog - the poor bloke would probably get prosecuted for discrimination.

Use Black Cabs, they're safer, better regulated and much more comfortable for a dog to travel in.

Good post

by Major Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:58 pm

Good post IB

by Sponsored content