Bin Lorry crashes in Glasgow
Discussion
I am in general a "less people in prison the better" sort of person.
That does not include people who clearly will continue to choose to do things that endanger other people, no matter what the threatened consequences.
There is clearly no other way to stop him from putting himself behind the wheel of a ton or 10 of deadly weapon; time to stop farting around.
That does not include people who clearly will continue to choose to do things that endanger other people, no matter what the threatened consequences.
There is clearly no other way to stop him from putting himself behind the wheel of a ton or 10 of deadly weapon; time to stop farting around.
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.
In that case, the laws aren't fit for purpose.Although I notice that a driver for Currys was sentenced to 44months for having an hyperglycaemic attack and blacking out at the wheel killing a cyclist (he was diabetic and didn't declare) its probably worth adding that he hadn't blacked out before neither (which could explain his lie, he wrongly didn't think it important) Playing devils advocate, potentially the bin lorry driving declaring his blackout wouldn't have changed the circumstances? Maybe he will have been allowed to drive the lorry regardless? That is the only fathomable excuse I can imagine for lack of prosecution.
Was that in England or Wales? The speculation is that he would have been prosecuted in E&W due to the differences in the law. My main point was that people can't be mad at the prosecutors / ask for silly things like they resign when they simply don't have a law to fit the circumstances to use.
And yes, it may well be the law in Scotland needs amending. Extreme circumstances can often 'stress test' the laws and show holes that need to be filled.
And yes, it may well be the law in Scotland needs amending. Extreme circumstances can often 'stress test' the laws and show holes that need to be filled.
So it seems a Scottish Court CAN take action against a bin lorry driver who kills someone:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
One wrong spur-of-the-moment decision by a remorseful first-offender (who plead guilty) resulting in one death, you get a 1yr prison sentence.
A deliberately deceitful decision (by someone who has expressed very little remorse) to hide your medical status from your employer results in the death of 6 people and injuries to 15 others and you get off completely scot-free.
Great consistency there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
One wrong spur-of-the-moment decision by a remorseful first-offender (who plead guilty) resulting in one death, you get a 1yr prison sentence.
A deliberately deceitful decision (by someone who has expressed very little remorse) to hide your medical status from your employer results in the death of 6 people and injuries to 15 others and you get off completely scot-free.
Great consistency there.
poo at Paul's said:
But in this case, it doesn't look like a lot of important Govt Department and local council people (you know the ones matey with the polis and Proc Fiscal) could possibly lose their pensions....
Why do people post about lost pensions. It's not the US, if people get sacked, or retire early, or whatever, they are still entitled to their pensions come pension age. The only exception to this would possibly be serving police officers committing a proven crime, but even then it would be very difficult to take it off them. Yes but someone getting sacked at say age 50 on 40k a year gets far less than if they leave at 60 on 50k a year!
Who got sacked in the main Glasgow bin lorry crash case? Flipping heck, it took them near 18 months to get rid of the lying t
t driver!
So who else lost their job, you know, out of the people paid to make decisions on who gets to drive council trucks, who checks out the licenses, is responsible for the safety of the public at large etc?
(pretty sure the answer is none, but id be interested to hear if any actually did).
If it is none, do you think that is fair?
Who got sacked in the main Glasgow bin lorry crash case? Flipping heck, it took them near 18 months to get rid of the lying t
t driver! So who else lost their job, you know, out of the people paid to make decisions on who gets to drive council trucks, who checks out the licenses, is responsible for the safety of the public at large etc?
(pretty sure the answer is none, but id be interested to hear if any actually did).
If it is none, do you think that is fair?
I don't know if it's fair or not. I don't whether an employer should check every detail of their staff to the nth degree. I don't know what the process is to dismiss a staff memeber (at whatever level) in a highly unionised council environment.
I don't know enough detail of the case to have a view on whether others should have been sacked.
I don't know enough detail of the case to have a view on whether others should have been sacked.
Gavia said:
I don't know if it's fair or not. I don't whether an employer should check every detail of their staff to the nth degree. I don't know what the process is to dismiss a staff memeber (at whatever level) in a highly unionised council environment.
I don't know enough detail of the case to have a view on whether others should have been sacked.
Every employer has a duty of care toward it's employees and the public. I don't know enough detail of the case to have a view on whether others should have been sacked.
poo at Paul's said:
Gavia said:
I don't know if it's fair or not. I don't whether an employer should check every detail of their staff to the nth degree. I don't know what the process is to dismiss a staff memeber (at whatever level) in a highly unionised council environment.
I don't know enough detail of the case to have a view on whether others should have been sacked.
Every employer has a duty of care toward it's employees and the public. I don't know enough detail of the case to have a view on whether others should have been sacked.
Vipers said:
poo at Paul's said:
Gavia said:
I don't know if it's fair or not. I don't whether an employer should check every detail of their staff to the nth degree. I don't know what the process is to dismiss a staff memeber (at whatever level) in a highly unionised council environment.
I don't know enough detail of the case to have a view on whether others should have been sacked.
Every employer has a duty of care toward it's employees and the public. I don't know enough detail of the case to have a view on whether others should have been sacked.
williamp said:
Vipers said:
poo at Paul's said:
Gavia said:
I don't know if it's fair or not. I don't whether an employer should check every detail of their staff to the nth degree. I don't know what the process is to dismiss a staff memeber (at whatever level) in a highly unionised council environment.
I don't know enough detail of the case to have a view on whether others should have been sacked.
Every employer has a duty of care toward it's employees and the public. I don't know enough detail of the case to have a view on whether others should have been sacked.
Not the first time such a thing has happened, I think we all know that.
poo at Paul's said:
None of which absolves the employer of their duty of care. I am not sure of your point. It seems like you are saying it was all the drivers responsibility, I'd not agree, but even if you are right, why did he not get prosecuted..!? Answer may never be truly know, but I suspect the fact he was allowed to get away with it for so long after the toher incident, meant there was a lack of desire to pursue him from within the council etc. And without that co-operation, how far would the case get?
Not the first time such a thing has happened, I think we all know that.
How exactly was the Employer negligent?Not the first time such a thing has happened, I think we all know that.
Countdown said:
How exactly was the Employer negligent?
I think to answer that, you need more inside knowledge of the case and procedures than any of us have. However, do you think that all procedures employed by the Employer as of today are the same as they were then? And do you think that all procedures in place then were followed 100% in all cases?
Since no prosecutions were brought we will never know who was or wasn't negligent, but I'd wager the prosecution in this recent case has been influenced by the lack of action on the other case. I'd also wager than they check things a bit more thoroughly now than they did before, regarding licence entitlements, medicals, return to work after collapsing whilst driving a bus, etc.
Don't get me wrong, this driver who killed these 6 people is a low life scumbucket, but you have to ask who employed him, who appraised him each 6 months, who checked up on him, and who signed him off each day to go out and interact with the public in his 30 ton dustcart. The answer may well be "no one", well that's clearly not good enough, is it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff