Bin Lorry crashes in Glasgow
Discussion
If there's no realistic prospect conviction, there's no realistic prospect of conviction. A undesirable outcome? Perhaps so, but the prosecutors are there to make an objective decision based on what the law allows them to do and not do. They're not there to pander to public emotion and charge someone to have it discontinued straight away in court. All the stuff like, "they couldn't lose face", is just dancing around the fact these circumstances aren't encompassed by the current laws.
funkyrobot said:
I know it is what it is, but how the hell can there be insufficient evidence to prosecute?
He lied. They know he lied. If he hadn't lied, he wouldn't have been behind the wheel of that truck.
Absolute scum.
My guess is that they could probably prosecute him for the lying, but not for the crash. The crash was (as far as the law in concerned) an accident. It had an identifiable cause, but it was still an accident. I'm only guessing, as already stated, but I suspect the thinking of the CPS (or Scottish equivalent) was along those lines.He lied. They know he lied. If he hadn't lied, he wouldn't have been behind the wheel of that truck.
Absolute scum.
"Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception" must fit here. He lied about his qualifications to drive the truck in order to be paid.
Come on prosecutors, start thinking a little more creatively.
Edit to correct spelling and to acknowledge this now being covered by the Fraud Act 2006.
Come on prosecutors, start thinking a little more creatively.
Edit to correct spelling and to acknowledge this now being covered by the Fraud Act 2006.
Edited by Starfighter on Wednesday 27th January 21:35
Given the stream of witnesses and overwhelming evidence at the inquiry then Mulholland's claim of "insufficient evidence" is pure bulls
t. If Mulholland had a shred of decency he would resign, but he won't. It is just another example of the irredeemable corruption of the so called justice system.
t. If Mulholland had a shred of decency he would resign, but he won't. It is just another example of the irredeemable corruption of the so called justice system.La Liga said:
If there's no realistic prospect conviction, there's no realistic prospect of conviction. A undesirable outcome? Perhaps so, but the prosecutors are there to make an objective decision based on what the law allows them to do and not do. They're not there to pander to public emotion and charge someone to have it discontinued straight away in court. All the stuff like, "they couldn't lose face", is just dancing around the fact these circumstances aren't encompassed by the current laws.
That all right then........REALIST123 said:
La Liga said:
If there's no realistic prospect conviction, there's no realistic prospect of conviction. A undesirable outcome? Perhaps so, but the prosecutors are there to make an objective decision based on what the law allows them to do and not do. They're not there to pander to public emotion and charge someone to have it discontinued straight away in court. All the stuff like, "they couldn't lose face", is just dancing around the fact these circumstances aren't encompassed by the current laws.
That all right then...It may be a waste of time to point it out, but I thought it was quite clear my post was aimed at misdirected criticisms. How can people blame the prosecutors when the circumstances do not fit the laws they have to work with?
Starfighter said:
"Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception" must fit here. He lied about his qualifications to drive the truck in order to be paid.
Come on prosecutors, start thinking a little more creatively.
Edit to correct spelling and to acknowledge this now being covered by the Fraud Act 2006.
It would be rather creative for them to use the Fraud Act 2006 since it doesn't apply in Scotland (except one section to do with sentencing). Come on prosecutors, start thinking a little more creatively.
Edit to correct spelling and to acknowledge this now being covered by the Fraud Act 2006.
4x4Tyke said:
Given the stream of witnesses and overwhelming evidence at the inquiry then Mulholland's claim of "insufficient evidence" is pure bullst. If Mulholland had a shred of decency he would resign, but he won't. It is just another example of the irredeemable corruption of the so called justice system.
Why would he resign? For doing his job? t. If Mulholland had a shred of decency he would resign, but he won't. It is just another example of the irredeemable corruption of the so called justice system.What motive or benefit is there for him and others to not undertake a prosecution if there were a realistic prospect of one occurring? Are they just having a bit of fun?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...
Looks like this unconscionable bag of st has still been driving!
"Harry Clarke, 59, allegedly drove a car dangerously on 20 September 2015 knowing he had had two previous medical incidents.
Mr Clarke made no plea or declaration when he appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court.
He was released on bail pending further investigations.
Mr Clarke faces an alternative charge of culpably and recklessly driving the vehicle on 20 September.
He is also accused of committing fraud between June and September 2015 by pretending to an insurance company that he had a driving licence when it had been revoked.
Clarke, from Baillieston in Glasgow, faces a further charge of making a false statement in an application for insurance in May 2015."
He just doesn't give a toss does he?
Looks like this unconscionable bag of s
t has still been driving!"Harry Clarke, 59, allegedly drove a car dangerously on 20 September 2015 knowing he had had two previous medical incidents.
Mr Clarke made no plea or declaration when he appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court.
He was released on bail pending further investigations.
Mr Clarke faces an alternative charge of culpably and recklessly driving the vehicle on 20 September.
He is also accused of committing fraud between June and September 2015 by pretending to an insurance company that he had a driving licence when it had been revoked.
Clarke, from Baillieston in Glasgow, faces a further charge of making a false statement in an application for insurance in May 2015."
He just doesn't give a toss does he?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff