Bin Lorry crashes in Glasgow

[eharding]

paranoid airbag said:

eharding said:

I'd suggest you have an extremely warped world view if that's really how you think.

Let's suppose *you* discover that you have a medical condition that renders you a danger to yourself and others should you continue to drive - would you happily still do so regardless, and would you lie about it when asked directly whether or not you had such a condition?

Further to that, should you end up killing someone as a result, would you genuinely expect there to be no repercussions?

Probably, unless I thought it made me genuinely hopeless. The chances of being caught are small, the chances of my life turning to st without access to a car almost certain, since you are damn well not going to pay for me to be driven everywhere - more likely you're going to call me benefit scrounging scum. Go on then: who was the last person you knew sacrificed their mobility and livelihood for the sake of a stranger when they thought they could get away with it? Half the people I see won't sacrifice facebook for that.

I'd say your circle of acquaintances would appear to be just as self-obsessed and narcissistic as you do if that really is the case. Do you really think you have an unfettered right to have access to a car?

You haven't replied to the second point. If you killed someone as a result of driving with a known debilitating condition, which you had wilfully lied about in order to keep driving, do you really think that you shouldn't suffer any adverse consequences as a result?

[TheSnitch]

eharding said:

eccles said:

JuniorD said:

I don't know much about Scottish law (or any law) but if this guy was told that he would not be prosecuted I can't see that he can be now. Sort of like the so-called "On The Run" letter which got the Hyde Park bomber off the hook recently.

I wonder if Scottish law allows for private prosecutions by family members?

As I understand it, there were no assurances given to *anyone* involved in the affair as to whether any prosecutions would be brought, merely that in the immediate aftermath of the accident the Police could find no evidence of criminal intent or negligence by either the driver or the council, and hence *at that time* no charges were laid.

This was the statement given

''In a statement, the Crown Office said: "Crown Counsel have concluded that the driver of the lorry should not be prosecuted in respect of this tragic incident.
"Despite its catastrophic consequences there is no evidence to suggest that the driver's conduct at the time amounted to a breach of the criminal law.
"There is no evidence to support a prosecution of Glasgow City Council in respect of any health and safety concerns breaches in health and safety law.
"Crown Counsel have decided that a fatal accident inquiry should be held into the causes of this tragedy to ensure that there can be a full public hearing of the facts of the case."

I think if charges were going to be laid they should have been laid before the FAI was held. I'm not sure any prosecution now would be deemed fair.

[V8 Fettler]

Why did the caaancil employ Clarke as a driver?

[Vipers]

TheSnitch said:

If this man knew he had suffered black outs, yet declared on his DVLA form that he hadn't, then clearly they did not have the full picture and he should not have been driving.

Scary thing is how many others are out there who dont declare medical conditions for fear of loosing their jobs, or just being able to drive their car.

If you have a black out for want of another word why arnt the doctors required to inform DVLA?

A friend of mine had a mild stroke, the doctor just said don't drive until I see you in a months time.

[paranoid airbag]

eharding said:

I'd say your circle of acquaintances would appear to be just as self-obsessed and narcissistic as you do if that really is the case. Do you really think you have an unfettered right to have access to a car?

Welcome to the world. I just don't bother rationalising why my likely future behaviour would obviously be different to strangers on the internet.

You going to support the extra police funding necessary to stop that sort of thing? No, so don't pretend you really care about it.

[TheSnitch]

eharding said:

eccles said:

JuniorD said:

I don't know much about Scottish law (or any law) but if this guy was told that he would not be prosecuted I can't see that he can be now. Sort of like the so-called "On The Run" letter which got the Hyde Park bomber off the hook recently.

I wonder if Scottish law allows for private prosecutions by family members?

As I understand it, there were no assurances given to *anyone* involved in the affair as to whether any prosecutions would be brought, merely that in the immediate aftermath of the accident the Police could find no evidence of criminal intent or negligence by either the driver or the council, and hence *at that time* no charges were laid.

As I suspected

''Retweeted 4 times
Herald Editor ‏@Herald_Editor 5h5 hours ago
Experts tell us George Square crash driver Harry Clarke cannot be prosecuted despite evidence emerging from inquiry http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13521495.George_S... …

[JuniorD]

TheSnitch said:

eharding said:

eccles said:

JuniorD said:

I don't know much about Scottish law (or any law) but if this guy was told that he would not be prosecuted I can't see that he can be now. Sort of like the so-called "On The Run" letter which got the Hyde Park bomber off the hook recently.

I wonder if Scottish law allows for private prosecutions by family members?

As I understand it, there were no assurances given to *anyone* involved in the affair as to whether any prosecutions would be brought, merely that in the immediate aftermath of the accident the Police could find no evidence of criminal intent or negligence by either the driver or the council, and hence *at that time* no charges were laid.

As I suspected

''Retweeted 4 times
Herald Editor ?@Herald_Editor 5h5 hours ago
Experts tell us George Square crash driver Harry Clarke cannot be prosecuted despite evidence emerging from inquiry http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13521495.George_S... …

Perhaps he still could be prosected for the act(s) of not truthfully declaring his medical condition, rather than for the outcome which came as a result.

[TheSnitch]

JuniorD said:

TheSnitch said:

eharding said:

eccles said:

JuniorD said:

I don't know much about Scottish law (or any law) but if this guy was told that he would not be prosecuted I can't see that he can be now. Sort of like the so-called "On The Run" letter which got the Hyde Park bomber off the hook recently.

I wonder if Scottish law allows for private prosecutions by family members?

As I understand it, there were no assurances given to *anyone* involved in the affair as to whether any prosecutions would be brought, merely that in the immediate aftermath of the accident the Police could find no evidence of criminal intent or negligence by either the driver or the council, and hence *at that time* no charges were laid.

As I suspected

''Retweeted 4 times
Herald Editor ?@Herald_Editor 5h5 hours ago
Experts tell us George Square crash driver Harry Clarke cannot be prosecuted despite evidence emerging from inquiry http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13521495.George_S... …

Perhaps he still could be prosected for the act(s) of not truthfully declaring his medical condition, rather than for the outcome which came as a result.

I think it's probably unlikely if the crown office has said he will not face prosecution in connection with the event. I guess it would still be seen as being associated with the event.

It feels like the public have been deliberately misled, tbh. The driver when he spoke to the papers said something like ''Until that day I didn't even know I had something wrong with my heart'' so there was a clear implication that he'd had some tind of cardiac event.

That wasn't the case

[kev1974]

BBC is newsflashing that the family of one of the victims is seeking to bring a private prosecution of the driver.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

Not sure of the point, I doubt he has any money of any significance.
He ought to be facing a public prosecution though, in order to dissuade others in similar situations for lying on their medical forms.

[TheJimi]

I have to say, the way in which the Scottish press is dealing with this is appalling.

The headlines and front pages are nothing less than a witch hunt.

[Rude-boy]

I am more listening in to this case than taking a full interest in it.

I am appalled that the driver appeared to know full well that they were experiencing unexplained blackouts and yet kept this covered up and chose to cover this up.

I really don't know enough about the ins and outs about any public prosecution but I have to say that, even though it will ruin the man in question, and based on the little information I have seen and heard, I feel it is right that a private action should be brought.

I have great sympathy for anyone who earns their living as a driver who is told that they have to find a different career due to illness, but none with someone who fails to follow that advice and, apparently, tries to cover it up or lie about it.

[BlackLabel]

kev1974 said:

BBC is newsflashing that the family of one of the victims is seeking to bring a private prosecution of the driver.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

Not sure of the point, I doubt he has any money of any significance.
He ought to be facing a public prosecution though, in order to dissuade others in similar situations for lying on their medical forms.

Private prosecutions are not about money. I believe they can even lead to a jail sentence if successful. However you need permission for a private prosecution to be granted (from the Attorney General?)and this only happens once every 40 or 50 years.

[matchmaker]

BlackLabel said:

kev1974 said:

BBC is newsflashing that the family of one of the victims is seeking to bring a private prosecution of the driver.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

Not sure of the point, I doubt he has any money of any significance.
He ought to be facing a public prosecution though, in order to dissuade others in similar situations for lying on their medical forms.

Private prosecutions are not about money. I believe they can even lead to a jail sentence if successful. However you need permission for a private prosecution to be granted (from the Attorney General?)and this only happens once every 40 or 50 years.

They are extremely rare in Scotland. You would have to apply to the High Court of Justiciary.

[onyx39]

It's the government's fault you know.
I love these debates on the news sites on Facebook. There is always SOMEONE who spins it round to be the governments fault.

[Rude-boy]

onyx39 said:

It's the government's fault you know.
I love these debates on the news sites on Facebook. There is always SOMEONE who spins it round to be the governments fault.

Well I believe that there are 12 people there who continue to amaze the medical world by continuing to remember how to breath.

[TheJimi]

TheJimi said:

I have to say, the way in which the Scottish press is dealing with this is appalling.

The headlines and front pages are nothing less than a witch hunt.

Anyone else agree with me on this?

Sure, the guy should get the book thrown at him if the cover-ups are shown to be true, but equally, it *WAS* an accident. There's plenty more deserving individuals to be on the receiving end of trial by tabloid.

Admittedly, I probably wouldn't be saying this if he killed a friend or family member

That said, I'd be surprised if he lasts much longer before he calls it day; the psychological burden of those deaths, the court proceedings and the media witch hunting is an enormous amount of pressure for a "normal" person to cope with.

[anonymous-user]

Rude-boy said:

onyx39 said:

It's the government's fault you know.
I love these debates on the news sites on Facebook. There is always SOMEONE who spins it round to be the governments fault.

Well I believe that there are 12 people there who continue to amaze the medical world by continuing to remember how to breath.

....and I would guess that Paul Wright is one of them, not to mention his being illiterate as well as terminally dumb.

The driver must be prosecuted. If he isn't then he will truly have been allowed to get away with murder.

[Pesty]

TheJimi said:

Anyone else agree with me on this?

Sure, the guy should get the book thrown at him if the cover-ups are shown to be true, but equally, it *WAS* an accident. There's plenty more deserving individuals to be on the receiving end of trial by tabloid.

Admittedly, I probably wouldn't be saying this if he killed a friend or family member

That said, I'd be surprised if he lasts much longer before he calls it day; the psychological burden of those deaths, the court proceedings and the media witch hunting is an enormous amount of pressure for a "normal" person to cope with.

nope completely not with you.

it wasn't an accident he was a driving time bomb and he knew it. he chose to hide it.

he should feel pressure

[TheJimi]

Aye, as I say, I almost certainly wouldn't be saying this if a family member or friend was a victim.

I'm not saying he shouldn't feel pressure, the crux of my point was that the tabloids are being irresponsible and sensationalist in their coverage.

[Pesty]

i understand that, you are probably correct. but i dont understand how you can say if it were my relatives... do you need to be related to show empathy?

if the courts were charging him they wouldn't need to have headlines like this, but my field is baron in which i grow my f... he ought to pay and if being hounded by the press is the only way im good with it. but im borderline psycho so ignore me.

remember that drink driving advert wherever the guy looked he saw the dead child? i see no difference in this case.

Edited by Pesty on Monday 17th August 14:33