Bin Lorry crashes in Glasgow
Discussion
saaby93 said:
Halb said:
JUst seen this on the news.
Jesus, what a piece of s
t.
Glasgow bin lorry crash: No apology from driver over 'lies'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...
It was a leading question,often used by the strawmenJesus, what a piece of s
t.Glasgow bin lorry crash: No apology from driver over 'lies'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...
beeb said:
He continued: "Mr Clarke, I would give you the chance to say 'I'm sorry I told lies in April 2010 and I know and accept that those lies led to the deaths of those innocent people'.
"Can you say that Mr Clarke?"
He replied: "No I can't say that."
2010 is years ago, unless there have been a regular chain of blackouts it would be impossible for someone not experienced in medical matters to agree to the way that sentence has been constructed. If he said he agreed that he knew the 2010 event led to the 2014 event and medical experts said it's too far apart, he'd have lied"Can you say that Mr Clarke?"
He replied: "No I can't say that."
The legal bod probably knew that.
'when did you stop beating your wife'
I reckon what he was asked to agree to was quite valid.
REALIST123 said:
He had a history of fainting and dizziness going back almost 40 years. He lied about it on 7 occasions.
I reckon what he was asked to agree to was quite valid.
Theres quite a few straight forward questions he could have said yes to maybe I reckon what he was asked to agree to was quite valid.
'Are you sorry that the truck you were driving led to deaths and injuries'
or perhaps simpler
but there were too many links in that question he was asked for a straight yes or no.
Theres a number of other things to be gotten to the bottom of
You say he lied on 7 occasions but if you look at that patients thing I posted half a page back, if you dont think its going to affect you for the next 3 months, you dont have to say anything about it.
Or thats the way it looks - so he may not have lied.
I havent read through everything in detail so see if theyve been happening less than 3 months or if that changes the 3 months thing if it did?
Can you add some more to it?
Are you saying he feinted 7 times in 40 years, once every 6 years?
If it was 7 feints in the last year or 2 you be into more certainty
ETA link
http://patient.info/doctor/fitness-to-drive
info said:
•DVLA needs to know about unexplained blackouts, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease (any freezing or on/off effects), motor neurone disease, recurrent TIAs and cerebrovascular events.
•In the latter, the licence is usually withheld for three months depending on an examination by an independent doctor and sometimes a driving test.
If that refers to more than crebrovascular it may explain why he was able to ask for his licence after 3 months•In the latter, the licence is usually withheld for three months depending on an examination by an independent doctor and sometimes a driving test.
Feinting here
http://patient.info/health/faintcollapse
info said:
driving is not a problem for a simple feint
The inquiry will add all these up to see what they come toEdited by saaby93 on Friday 21st August 21:12
Martin4x4 said:
WTF are the authorities bending over backwards to protect him, it just doesn't make sense.
It is all Holyrood vs Westminster.Now the Westminster based agencies - DVLA do have licence to bring charges.
As do Holyrood based agencies.
But... for DVLA to over-rule Holyrood.... Wee Jimmy Crankie will pop up and spout "It is our jurisdiction!!!"
Holyrood based agencies have decided that there is no case to answer.
So..Erm... well there we go... it's all a big misunderstanding.
eccles said:
It's only turned into a circus and a witch hunt because of the facts that have been found!
No. It has turned into a circus because certain QCs have gone beyond the remit of an FAI because they saw an opportunity. The facts are established and that should be the end of it as far as the inquiry is concerned. The line of questioning of the driver as if he was on trial could and should have waited for a later date if the facts deem it appropriate.There is still a question of whether he lied, did not disclose, or even had to disclose that needs to be resolved, and the QC was hoping to shortcut that by pressuring him to admit some sort of culpability and intent. The 'when did you stop beating your wife' comment is bang-on.
Edited by r11co on Friday 21st August 22:42
r11co said:
eccles said:
It's only turned into a circus and a witch hunt because of the facts that have been found!
No. It has turned into a circus because certain QCs have gone beyond the remit of an FAI because they saw an opportunity. The facts are established and that should be the end of it as far as the inquiry is concerned. The line of questioning of the driver as if he was on trial could and should have waited for a later date if the facts deem it appropriate.There is still a question of whether he lied, did not disclose, or even had to disclose that needs to be resolved, and the QC was hoping to shortcut that by pressuring him to admit some sort of culpability and intent. The 'when did you stop beating your wife' comment is bang-on.
Edited by r11co on Friday 21st August 22:42
I think the fault lies with whichever agencies decided he should not face charges.
It doesn't sound as if the police investigated it to the fullest extent - they didn't even take a statement from him.
Although the Crown Office say they were in full possession of all the facts when it was decided not to prosecute him, the families claim this is not the case. There is every indication that the families are correct - the Crown office wrote to Clarke in February to say he wouldn't face charges, yet it has been disclosed in court that some of the evidence presented had only recently been discovered or obtained, so they certainly couldn't have been in possession of it at the time.
Generally, a FAI will only go ahead at the end of any criminal proceedings, to avoid the precise situation we have now. The complicating factor here is that the relatives have applied for permission to bring a private prosecution, which probably wasn't anticipated.
I think the Crown Office probably jumped the gun, before they were in full possession of the facts. I don't really understand why they sent him a letter saying he wouldn't be prosecuted - were they obliged to do that?
TheSnitch said:
Although the Crown Office say they were in full possession of all the facts when it was decided not to prosecute him, the families claim this is not the case. There is every indication that the families are correct - the Crown office wrote to Clarke in February to say he wouldn't face charges, yet it has been disclosed in court that some of the evidence presented had only recently been discovered or obtained, so they certainly couldn't have been in possession of it at the time.
Regardless of this, there is still the question of whether the alleged 'new' evidence merits prosecution or not and that should now be deliberated over by those conducting the inquiry and if necessary the decision not to prosecute reversed (which it can be should new evidence emerge).The QC was trying to shortcut that process by attempting to elicit a confession. Even though the attempt to get the driver to admit liability failed, the line of questioning will put pressure on the inquiry in the wake of public outrage. If the evidence merited a trial it would have happened (and it may or may not have been the driver in the dock), but the QC was intentionally trying to force the issue.
Edited by r11co on Friday 21st August 23:06
r11co said:
TheSnitch said:
Although the Crown Office say they were in full possession of all the facts when it was decided not to prosecute him, the families claim this is not the case. There is every indication that the families are correct - the Crown office wrote to Clarke in February to say he wouldn't face charges, yet it has been disclosed in court that some of the evidence presented had only recently been discovered or obtained, so they certainly couldn't have been in possession of it at the time.
Regardless of this, there is still the question of whether the alleged 'new' evidence merits prosecution or not and that should now be deliberated over by those conducting the inquiry and if necessary the decision not to prosecute reversed (which it can be should new evidence emerge).The QC was trying to shortcut that process by attempting to elicit a confession. Even though the attempt to get the driver to admit liability failed, the line of questioning will put pressure on the inquiry in the wake of public outrage. If the evidence merited a trial it would have happened (and it may or may not have been the driver in the dock), but the QC was intentionally trying to force the issue.
Edited by r11co on Friday 21st August 23:06
The decision of the Crown not to prosecute him CANNOT be reversed. He was sent a letter by them saying that he would not be prosecuted, and that cannot be retracted.
So the QC was not trying to ''shortcut'' that process because that process simply does not exist. That is the whole point.
r11co said:
Regardless of this, there is still the question of whether the alleged 'new' evidence merits prosecution or not and that should now be deliberated over by those conducting the inquiry and if necessary the decision not to prosecute reversed (which it can be should new evidence emerge).
What new evidence is there?I'm aware I've not been watching it closely but it looks like the 'prosecution' (there isnt supposed to be one - its supposed to be an inquiry) is putting assertions and double edged questions, which are being picked up by the press as if they were true. It's a bit like some PH threads.
Anyway reading those DVLA/patient notes, if the time intervals are too far apart to be related events, and its not clear on that basis they're disclosable, you can see why they decided no basis for a prosecution if the guy's suffered a normal black out at the wheel.
The point of an inquiry is to find out if there are lessons to be learned. Perhaps those procedures should be different. It wont help the way its currently portrayed
Vipers said:
TheSnitch said:
The decision of the Crown not to prosecute him CANNOT be reversed. He was sent a letter by them saying that he would not be prosecuted, and that cannot be retracted.
Why did they do that, any good reason I wonder.
That didn't work, did it?
saaby93 said:
r11co said:
Regardless of this, there is still the question of whether the alleged 'new' evidence merits prosecution or not and that should now be deliberated over by those conducting the inquiry and if necessary the decision not to prosecute reversed (which it can be should new evidence emerge).
What new evidence is there?I'm aware I've not been watching it closely but it looks like the 'prosecution' (there isnt supposed to be one - its supposed to be an inquiry) is putting assertions and double edged questions, which are being picked up by the press as if they were true. It's a bit like some PH threads.
Anyway reading those DVLA/patient notes, if the time intervals are too far apart to be related events, and its not clear on that basis they're disclosable, you can see why they decided no basis for a prosecution if the guy's suffered a normal black out at the wheel.
The point of an inquiry is to find out if there are lessons to be learned. Perhaps those procedures should be different. It wont help the way its currently portrayed
As regards whether his blackouts were disclosable or not, they were. However, he lied about them to his GP so his GP didn't have the full picture.
Are you aware that after the events at Christmas he didn't even tell his consultant that he had experienced previous blackouts? As far as they were concerned, this was his first. They were running every possible test on him, trying to work out what had happened and all along he knew it was a pre-existing problem
It was only when his consultant obtained his records from his GP that everything started to come together. Then gradually other things emerged; long periods of sickness because of his blackouts not declared to his next employer and health screening forms where he claimed never to have suffered blackouts or dizziness....
Basically, over the course of the inquiry to date, his medical history, employment history, sickness record and other information has all been examined together for the first time, and a very different picture emerged to the one that the public were given, in part because of things he told a newspaper which were untrue
If anything has emerged it is that the decision not to prosecute him was extremely questionable
TheSnitch said:
It was only when his consultant obtained his records from his GP that everything started to come together. Then gradually other things emerged; long periods of sickness because of his blackouts not declared to his next employer and health screening forms where he claimed never to have suffered blackouts or dizziness....
That's the bit I'm missing. What period were these over? It's not unusual for people to have random blackouts as you can see from those dvla patient notes. It seems its only if they're regular theyre flagged up as an issue or disclosable. 2010 is likely to be too far away. What recent history has there been before December? It needs to be in months by the look of things if it's to be prosecutable.If the way all those come together needs looking at, isnt that one of the points of the inquiry?
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 22 August 00:06
saaby93 said:
TheSnitch said:
It was only when his consultant obtained his records from his GP that everything started to come together. Then gradually other things emerged; long periods of sickness because of his blackouts not declared to his next employer and health screening forms where he claimed never to have suffered blackouts or dizziness....
That's the bit I'm missing. What period were these over? It's not unusual for people to have random blackouts as you can see from those dvla patient notes. It seems its only if they're regular theyre flagged up as an issue or disclosable. 2010 is likely to be too far away. What recent history has there been before December? It needs to be in months by the look of things if it's to be prosecutable.If the way all those come together needs looking at, isnt that one of the points of the inquiry?
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 22 August 00:06
In theory for the law to work correctly, he would have been committing a prosecutable offence the day before but once he had killed it should in my mind be at the very least manslaughter.
saaby93 said:
TheSnitch said:
It was only when his consultant obtained his records from his GP that everything started to come together. Then gradually other things emerged; long periods of sickness because of his blackouts not declared to his next employer and health screening forms where he claimed never to have suffered blackouts or dizziness....
That's the bit I'm missing. What period were these over? It's not unusual for people to have random blackouts as you can see from those dvla patient notes. It seems its only if they're regular theyre flagged up as an issue or disclosable. 2010 is likely to be too far away. What recent history has there been before December? It needs to be in months by the look of things if it's to be prosecutable.If the way all those come together needs looking at, isnt that one of the points of the inquiry?
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 22 August 00:06
What he suffered was not a simple faint. A simple faint usually presents with what are referred to as prodromal symptoms which are warning signs that precede the faint - like feeling hot or nauseous for example. They usually happen when people are standing, and the faint is the body's mechanism for getting oxygen to the brain quickly.
The nature of his blackouts was completely different. No warning signs, happening when he was seated - these are not the kind of situations you want in someone driving heavy vehicles.
It's perfectly clear that he should have reported it
https://www.gov.uk/blackouts-and-driving
Put it this way - the DVLA had returned his licence. Now they are in full possession of the facts, it has been suspended for 10 years.
NoNeed said:
How would anybody know if the driver is not going to be honest, he may have had 10 that month he may have had none, it should be the fact that he is far more like by reason of his condition and the fact that he withheld that information that makes it prosecutable.
In theory for the law to work correctly, he would have been committing a prosecutable offence the day before but once he had killed it should in my mind be at the very least manslaughter.
ThisIn theory for the law to work correctly, he would have been committing a prosecutable offence the day before but once he had killed it should in my mind be at the very least manslaughter.
TheSnitch said:
NoNeed said:
How would anybody know if the driver is not going to be honest, he may have had 10 that month he may have had none, it should be the fact that he is far more like by reason of his condition and the fact that he withheld that information that makes it prosecutable.
In theory for the law to work correctly, he would have been committing a prosecutable offence the day before but once he had killed it should in my mind be at the very least manslaughter.
ThisIn theory for the law to work correctly, he would have been committing a prosecutable offence the day before but once he had killed it should in my mind be at the very least manslaughter.
You only have to tell DVLA if it affects your driving. If those rules should change that will comeout.
I feel I dont know what the argument is about yet as no-ones posted up what his recent medical condition has been. Anyone got it or a link to it?
saaby93 said:
TheSnitch said:
NoNeed said:
How would anybody know if the driver is not going to be honest, he may have had 10 that month he may have had none, it should be the fact that he is far more like by reason of his condition and the fact that he withheld that information that makes it prosecutable.
In theory for the law to work correctly, he would have been committing a prosecutable offence the day before but once he had killed it should in my mind be at the very least manslaughter.
ThisIn theory for the law to work correctly, he would have been committing a prosecutable offence the day before but once he had killed it should in my mind be at the very least manslaughter.
as an example I am a diabetic that takes insulin and despite not haveing any hypos for more than two years I still have to disclose my condition to the DVLA. They then decide how likely a hypo is and what conditions I must follow in order to drive.
In my case, I must test my blood glucose level before driving and every two hours
I must carry a fast-acting sweet
I must if asked by a police officer have my test result available for inspection.
I must have my eyes checked every 12 months.
These are restrictions on my licence that has to be renewed every 3 years.
Some diabetes like my brother are every 12 months, he had his licence revoked for declaring three hypos in a two-month period and had to jump through many hoops to regain that licence.
There is a system there to protect the public, it is a system that is not perfect but if followed correctly could and would save lives.
here are the conditons that you must declare, it doesn't matter if yuo think it affects you driving or not, you must declare them
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
If he had declared his illness and then passed ok to drive we would be sitting here say "why did the DVLA allow him in a lorry?"
The short answer in my experience is they wouldn't if there was any doubt at all, they are very strict on who they allow to drive and unbelievably strict on HGV drivers.
The short answer in my experience is they wouldn't if there was any doubt at all, they are very strict on who they allow to drive and unbelievably strict on HGV drivers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff