'We are all fearing for our lives' (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Cab drivers left fearing for their lives after another brutal attack in Watford
5:40pm Thursday 28th February 2013 in News
By Mike Wright, Chief Reporter
Azmat Shah was so badly beaten after dropping customers off in East Drive last Thursday his family don’t want him to go back to work as a taxi driver.
A brutal attack on a taxi driver in Garston has provoked new calls from the Watford’s Hackney carriage drivers for CCTV to be installed in their cabs.
Azmat Shah was so badly beaten after dropping customers off in East Drive last Thursday his family don’t want him to go back to work as a taxi driver.
The 59-year-old Hackney carriage driver from Chester Road needed glue stitches above and below his eye following the attack. Speaking to the Watford Observer, he said: "I feel scared at the moment. I don’t want to go back but I have not got any other choice."
Mr Shah’s son, Mohammed, 26, added: "We are not happy with him going back out. If he is trying to help the public get around and he is going to get attacked there is no point in him going out."
Mr Shah shortly after he was attacked in East Drive.
The Watford Hackney Carriage Drivers’ Association has called for CCTV to be installed in the town’s taxis before. But the move has been rejected by Watford Borough Council, which regulates and licences taxis.
This week Shafiq Ahmed, the chairman of the Watford Hackney Carriage Drivers’ Association renewed calls for a borough council-backed scheme for CCTV to be installed in taxis.
He argued the equipment was too expensive for drivers to fund on their own and the move would save taxpayers money by sparing police time and resources investigating attacks.
Mr Ahmed said: "Taxi drivers are being frequently attacked. This is the only way forward as we are all fearing for our lives. The time to do it is right now before someone gets killed.
"We have been calling for safety measures for three or four years and it has fallen on deaf ears. We feel let down."
Mr Ahmed added that taxi drivers were willing to contribute to a CCTV initiative but he felt it would only be workable if the council set it up and regulated it.
However, Watford mayor Dorothy Thornhill flatly rebuffed the calls, saying taxi drivers were private businessmen and taxpayers would not want their money spent furnishing their vehicles with cameras.
Mayor Thornhill said: "They are individual businessmen who run their own businesses. In these difficult times, if I went out and asked people if they wanted their taxpayers’ money to be spent putting cameras in taxis I don’t think many would say yes.
"If we really, really thought things were so bad in taxis that they needed camera for safety that would be a different issue of crime on the town. I don’t believe we are at that stage."
This week Hertfordshire Constabulary said a man and woman have been arrested in connection with Mr Shah’s attack.
Anouska Hardwick and Scott Crawford, both 33 and both of Cezanne Road, Garston, were charged with robbery on Tuesday.
Comments(32)
Mohandas
says...
7:54pm Thu 28 Feb 13
The problem with the legal system is that it seems to view wrongdoing to be an offence against the state as opposed to focussing on the victim or community. The physical and financial harm these cowardly people have done to this man, family and the fear to other drivers has to be recognised and appropriate action taken in the first instance to fully compensate him.
MarsLander
says...
8:22pm Thu 28 Feb 13
This is a horrendous crime but cabs are private property and so there is no case for the council paying for CCTV.
I wish Mr Shah a speedy recovery and I hope the culprits are caught and punished.
crazyfrog
says...
8:53pm Thu 28 Feb 13
G_Whiz
says...
9:51pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Only charged with Robbery! - Why are the police are ignoring the violence part?
LSC
says...
10:00pm Thu 28 Feb 13
If guilty, throw the book and them and the problem might arise less often.
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
11:27pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Traveller Tom McD
says...
1:31am Fri 1 Mar 13
Traveller Tom McD
says...
1:36am Fri 1 Mar 13
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
8:22am Fri 1 Mar 13
Traveller Tom McD wrote:I don't think smearing the Jobless is constructive when generalising about these low lives.
Firstly, it isnt right that a man trying to warn a living should be subject to attacks from no doubt a jobless scummy loser who has no intention if earning his own living. However, Taxi Drivers have a responsibility for their own health and safety. Shafiq Ahmed should stop going cap in hand to hard pressed tax payers and take responsibility. CCTV for £500 or a protective cage for £300, the choice is yours...dont expect me to pay for it!
comments
says...
10:28am Fri 1 Mar 13
I have friends who are cabbies and they say the attitudes of some of the illiterate cabbies cause them issues....
As for the CCTV - I have long said that if they fear for their safety they should invest in CCTV themselves!
Why should the tax payer foot the bill?!
These cabbies earn a lot more than you think.....So go pay for it yourself!
Traveller Tom McD
says...
10:35am Fri 1 Mar 13
Hornets number 12 fan wrote:You are right, they could use the money they save from the tax they dont pay thanks to dodgy accountants. But the basic point is they should be able to earn a living without being attacked by scummy losers who lack upbringing. Throw the book at them and / or force them to work as cabbies for free
Traveller Tom McD wrote:I don't think smearing the Jobless is constructive when generalising about these low lives.
Firstly, it isnt right that a man trying to warn a living should be subject to attacks from no doubt a jobless scummy loser who has no intention if earning his own living. However, Taxi Drivers have a responsibility for their own health and safety. Shafiq Ahmed should stop going cap in hand to hard pressed tax payers and take responsibility. CCTV for £500 or a protective cage for £300, the choice is yours...dont expect me to pay for it!
garston tony
says...
11:55am Fri 1 Mar 13
comments wrote:I'm glad the culprits have been caught, it would be interesting to hear why they are only been charged with roberry and not assault (if that is indeed the case) but like any business taxi drivers should be responsible for their own security. If you own a shop you'd have to pay for your own as a business expense and the same should apply to taxi drivers
I feel sorry for these cabbies when they get beaten up, but lets face it, there is a good percentage of them that don't speak English very well and come across rude when they speak.... I have friends who are cabbies and they say the attitudes of some of the illiterate cabbies cause them issues.... As for the CCTV - I have long said that if they fear for their safety they should invest in CCTV themselves! Why should the tax payer foot the bill?! These cabbies earn a lot more than you think.....So go pay for it yourself!
MarsLander
says...
12:49pm Fri 1 Mar 13
Sara
says...
12:50pm Fri 1 Mar 13
G_Whiz wrote:Under the Theft Act 1968, robbery is defined as follows: "A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force."
'Anouska Hardwick and Scott Crawford, both 33 and both of Cezanne Road, Garston, were charged with robbery on Tuesday' Only charged with Robbery! - Why are the police are ignoring the violence part?
Without the threat or use of violence, the crime is theft. If it concerns a trespasser stealing from a property, it would be burglary.
Sara
says...
12:50pm Fri 1 Mar 13
G_Whiz wrote:Under the Theft Act 1968, robbery is defined as follows: "A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force."
'Anouska Hardwick and Scott Crawford, both 33 and both of Cezanne Road, Garston, were charged with robbery on Tuesday' Only charged with Robbery! - Why are the police are ignoring the violence part?
Without the threat or use of violence, the crime is theft. If it concerns a trespasser stealing from a property, it would be burglary.
Boosey
says...
12:55pm Fri 1 Mar 13
comments wrote:Agree 100% Yes they should be able to carry on with their work in a safe environment.
I feel sorry for these cabbies when they get beaten up, but lets face it, there is a good percentage of them that don't speak English very well and come across rude when they speak.... I have friends who are cabbies and they say the attitudes of some of the illiterate cabbies cause them issues.... As for the CCTV - I have long said that if they fear for their safety they should invest in CCTV themselves! Why should the tax payer foot the bill?! These cabbies earn a lot more than you think.....So go pay for it yourself!
When they are all together in their taxi rank they can also become aggressive and intimidating when in a group and I would bet they are on a better wage than me and at some point they will get financial help from someone.
comments
says...
2:33pm Fri 1 Mar 13
crazyfrog wrote:Agree with you...
That attack on Mr Shah was disgusting but as mentioned if CCTV is necessary then it should be installed but NOT at taxpayers expense these are private businesses after all, i would say to the drivers go online shop around and club together and cut a deal for your taxis to be done in one deal this should keep the cost down, cctv technology isn't expensive nowadays so why Shafiq Ahmed keeps requesting the taxpayer pays for it is beyond me!
I just dont understand either! Mr Ahmed does keep going on about it....
If they are that worried about it, then they should go look for another line of work....
Roi De Bouchenoire
says...
4:57pm Fri 1 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:Are you honestly trying to tell me that all the Hackney drivers in Watford declare all their earnings? Like hell they do..... It's a cash business....open to tax evasion and fraudulent DWP/ tax credit claims.
All tax deductible as well, no doubt.
Paul Gadd
says...
11:45pm Fri 1 Mar 13
No, we will only get to that stage when someone ends up dead.
I'd rather money be spent on these CCTVs than some speed humps or new cycle lanes
sheikhwaz
says...
8:04am Sat 9 Mar 13
MarsLander
says...
9:20am Sun 10 Mar 13
sheikhwaz wrote:What bit of "it's nothing to do with the council" and "it should not be paid out of public funds" did you not understand?
What the mayor really wants is for some poor taxi driver to DIE !! before she would even consider CCTV in their vehicles!!!
I can see no rationale whatsoever for public money being used to install CCTV into private business premises (i.e. taxis).
There's a principle at stake here, and that principle is no public funding for private business CCTV systems. It is for the business to pay for their expenses, like CCTV if they need it.
To get around this should we get the council to bring in a bye-law saying taxis cannot operate without functioning CCTV?
That would solve the problem by getting CCTV into every cab and making sure the cab firms pay for it themselves. If cabs had to stop working until CCTV was installed then you can bet every cab in Watford would have one by Wednesday at the latest!
It's nothing to do with the council, so on this one I back Dotty 100% - she's clearly not completely barmy in her actions.
MarsLander
says...
9:20am Sun 10 Mar 13
sheikhwaz wrote:What bit of "it's nothing to do with the council" and "it should not be paid out of public funds" did you not understand?
What the mayor really wants is for some poor taxi driver to DIE !! before she would even consider CCTV in their vehicles!!!
I can see no rationale whatsoever for public money being used to install CCTV into private business premises (i.e. taxis).
There's a principle at stake here, and that principle is no public funding for private business CCTV systems. It is for the business to pay for their expenses, like CCTV if they need it.
To get around this should we get the council to bring in a bye-law saying taxis cannot operate without functioning CCTV?
That would solve the problem by getting CCTV into every cab and making sure the cab firms pay for it themselves. If cabs had to stop working until CCTV was installed then you can bet every cab in Watford would have one by Wednesday at the latest!
It's nothing to do with the council, so on this one I back Dotty 100% - she's clearly not completely barmy in her actions.
sheikhwaz
says...
3:37pm Mon 11 Mar 13
how many englisht TAXI drivers licensed by watford council do you see working on friday/saturday nights? 0
SOI THINK YES!!! , THESE DRIVERS DESERVE EVERY SINGLE HELP AND FOR THE COUNCIL TO INSTALL CCTV'S IN THEIR VEHICLES, PAID AND SUBSIDIZED YES !!! BY THE COUNCIL !!!
sheikhwaz
says...
3:40pm Mon 11 Mar 13
MarsLander
says...
5:22pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Yes, that's a fee to allow them to ply their trade in Watford, a licence. That's all.
You pay a TV licence but the BBC doesn't come round to fix your TV, it's the same principle.
This seems like a battle over who is responsible for the cost - council or taxi firm/driver.
For me the answer is simple, it's not the council, 100%, no argument whatsoever.
If you need CCTV in your taxi then by all means put it in, but pay for it yourself. It can be done quite cheaply if you shop around. Taxi drivers charge a lot for the service provided, I wouldn't believe for a minute CCTV is beyond their financial reach, it seems they want it but just don't want to pay for it themselves. I am afraid I don't subscribe to the council spending my money where it does not need to.
If the anti-social behaviour is as bad as all that you will find your CCTV will pay for itself very quickly by allowing the culprits to be caught and compensation paid to you.
I don't mean this rudely, but you need to stop going on about it. If you want it, get it, but don't ask us to pay for it, it's really not our job. In fact, it's yours.
sheikhwaz
says...
6:50am Tue 12 Mar 13
MarsLander
says...
8:19am Tue 12 Mar 13
Is that a couple of weeks worth of undeclared tips? A month's? Doesn't seem so bad.
CCTVs at taxi ranks? It's possible I suppose, but CCTV in taxis has to be the best option.
Why not just put your hands in your pockets and do it? It will take the council an age to do the CCTV at taxi ranks, assuming they even agree to do it and it's possible.
You can have CCTV in your taxi next week and all you have to give up is several weeks undeclared tips. How hard is that?
And, of course, it's tax deductible which means you don't even pay for all of it. Ask your taxi firm to contribute as well, after all they make money from you far more than the council does, and they DO have a responsibility for your health and safety, if not in law at least morally.
You're barking up the wrong tree with trying to get the council to pay and I doubt there's a non-taxi-driving taxpayer that will disagree with me.
I hate to say it but it seems that greed is the only thing stopping you paying for this yourself. Seemingly you would rather risk all the horrors you describe above for the sake of a couple of hundred quid. If you don't value your safety at a couple of hundred quid, why do you think anyone else should?
sheikhwaz
says...
12:10pm Tue 12 Mar 13
sheikhwaz
says...
12:12pm Tue 12 Mar 13
MarsLander
says...
12:24pm Tue 12 Mar 13
sheikhwaz wrote:Do as you wish. As a taxpayer, Dotty for once has my full support in holding out against your pressure.
We will continue to exert maximum pressure on the council and on the insensitive mayor Dorothy until we get what we want !!!"
It is clear you do not consider the risk to your safety as serious enough for you to pay for your own CCTV at a cost of a few hundred pounds.
It's rather sad how greedy you appear through your demands for council cash whilst refusing to spend a penny of your own money on what is, in effect, your business tools and personal safety.
Final note: You will not get "what you want" unless you spend your own money on it. It's how business works for everyone else, and you are not a special case.
sheikhwaz
says...
12:34pm Tue 12 Mar 13
The Rover says...
6:18pm Thu 28 Feb 13