Dogsey

tazer - "I do try not to get irritated by it but, I do sometimes find myself thinking, their beliefs shouldn't come into it, its the law and part of their job."

But as you know tazer there's one law for some people and a different law
for others, this case typifies this and the punishment is pitiful but of course no one dare really punish the driver that would invoke all kinds of backlash. Removing the drivers licence for at least a year would be more appropriate in my view but what the heck, he'd just carry on driving all the cabbies know that the council cannot possibly check all the drivers all the time.

I had not realised that the UK operated a two tier (or multi tier) justice system.

That must have been passed in parliament when I was not looking.

Or could it be that those who accuse others of being biased are merely acting as a mirror?

Agree with JB on this - Ignorance is never an explination its an excuse and a dam poor one at that.

There is absolutely NO need for anyone to say "they do not want a Muslim driver" as of course Muslims (like Christians) are a mixture of not only different sects but vary from strict fundamentalists to those whose are (insert relevant faith) in name only and do not actively PRACTISE their religion (except when it suits them)

Like Christians who do not believe in God, or go to church but celebrate Christmas.

There are plenty of muslims who have dogs.

So as the person would not need to select the religion of the driver (or lack of) then he would therefore not be considered racist and neither would hell break loose.

So that statement is completely without foundation at best, and could be construed as an incitement to racism itself!

If there were no cabbies from the rank that would be able to take the dog (due to allergy etc) then that is no different than there being no cabs with wheelchair access etc.

Nothing to do with "fairness" just a fact of life.

As for not believing anyone could be so ignorant of not reading the rules of his licence. Well there are plenty of threads on here posted by those who have failed to read their terms and conditions and were "ignorant" of what their holiday and pay entitlement was etc...............

But perhaps nobody should "believe" them either? (in the interests of equality and fairness you understand).

Perhaps they should not be employed?

As a matter of interest, I regularly listen to the Radio 4 Programme "In Touch" which is aimed at the blind and partially sighted.

And this subject comes up from time to time and there have been blind people who have stated that they DELIBERATELY do not state they have a Guide Dog to the cab company thereby not providing sufficient information for them to make an informed decision on who to send.

Interesting eh?

Do guide dog owners carry a car safety harness suitable for securing their dog in someone else's car??

Erm, no, why would we? They don't sit on the seats.

No Guide Dogs remain unsecured during transit in cabs etc so are vulnerable in the event of a collision.

Mine goes in the front footwell with me, or the boot.

Busses on the other hand, nightmare.

If a driver honestly said to you they were really scared of your dog would you wait for another cab Taz?

Yes, why wouldn't I?

As I've said, unless it's a firm who I know well and vice versa, I always mention I've got a dog.

And still I some how manage to occasionally get drivers who refuse.