CBC's Child Sexual Exloitation Training for the taxi fraternity.

[Fly]

Me and Our_Lass both received this letter today from CBC.
So Chesterfield Council want 'all' taxi drivers to, 'possibly', turn up on the same day for this training, with the threat of possible points on their taxi licence if they don't attend.

Who is Mick ?

[Old Cruser]

Fly this is in line with Derbyshires Safe Guarding.
I notice it's for two hours.

I've recently updated mine as although I'm 'retired'  in a sense I still do a bit of work.
Mine was an all day training earlier this year.

Are you sure it's 'all' Taxi drivers?
Maybe they are  doing 'block' training session's and more drivers will be called in later?

I am hoping the 'I will send Mick out to get you' is a tongue in cheek joke as the letter states it is voluntary - if it isn't it needs taking up with the relevant person as it isn't appropriate at all!

Personally over the years, I have taken all training offered over and above what I need to as my own thoughts are that I will always come away learning something new - even if several years before I have attended the same topic.

[Fly]

I put this question to Cllr Slack, I believe he's part of licensing team at Town Hall.

If they split the training over a few dates, roughly how many taxi drivers would need to attend each date, and could the town hall seat this number of people for a 2 hour raining course. You are on licensing are you not. I presume you should be able to source this information ?

Why do I also get the feeling that that this is an exercise by the Council to indemnify themselves from blame should someone accuse them of turning a blind eye as in the Rotherham case.

I don't disagree with the training, and won't refuse to take it.
I just think the letter is unprofessional and the training is being forced on us for someone else's benefit.

[Fly]

Obvoiusly abused children might benefit from us having the training.
Thought I'd add that before someone twists my words 

[who can tell]

Rotherham has scared many councils they don't want that scandal on their watch Now we have entered the world of paranoid everyone this and that regardedless of the facts

[Old Cruser]

The Safe Guarding training isn't just to help protect children, it is also for Vulnerable adults - ( although we are advised the 'vulnerable' is now dropped )

I'm not sure what training will include fly but amongst it will be possibly treating people with care, consideration and giving them the dignity which they are entitled too. I'm sure most drivers already do this anyway.

Have to agree about your comments re- the letter.

[Fly]

I've emailed licensing at CBC asking if the letter is legit.

[Old Cruser]

Good idea fly.
If it's not it has to be an offence to use their paper or logo

[Scimitar]

"if you don't attend I'll send Mick out to get you"
Is some sort of low life thug in CBC?
Looks dodgy to me.
I hope the entire squad at St@gecoach are invited similarly. No buses that day then

[Scimitar]

I put this question to Cllr Slack, I believe he's part of licensing team at Town Hall.

I don't disagree with the training, and won't refuse to take it.
I just think the letter is unprofessional and the training is being forced on us for someone else's benefit.

Is Mr Slack still of this world & forum?

[Fly]

I have been in contact with Cllr Slack via Facebook. He doesn't know Mick 
I'm waiting for answers on another couple of questions I asked him. It is a weekend after all and the Town Hall is shut.

[Old Cruser]

TBH fly if it is a wind up letter which it looks as if it it - it is in poor taste.

The things that happened in Rotherham and anywhere else is no joking matter certainly not to the people who were exploited and abused - it shouldn't be made fun of in this way.

[Fly]

Had a reply from the Town Hall, the letter is legit, which I didn't doubt.
The line about Mick was indeed not supposed to be in the letter.
An apolgy was made in the reply for the error. 

I still might have to phone them yet. We might be away that day LOL 

[Old Cruser]

The letter is legit = but part of it wasn't supposed to be init???

What's going on there???