Bin Lorry crashes in Glasgow
Discussion
22 said:
It is a joke in this case. There was no proper consideration of the facts before they announced they would protect the poor man from action after what was apparently an awful accident.
Turns out it was an awful man, but they weren't willing to backtrack as I guess this would undermine their process, no matter how rushed and incorrect it was.
Turns out it was an awful man, but they weren't willing to backtrack as I guess this would undermine their process, no matter how rushed and incorrect it was.
iirc day one, other than the obvious concerns about the victims, there was a deep feeling that the truth might never come out as to why it happened with all the likely arse covering and obfuscation that would occur as everyone took one step back from accountability. Some bright spark decided that the only way to find out what really happened would be to effectively protect all from prosecution. What they failed to do though was to have any sort of initial prod at the information to hand before announcing this idea. Fair enough if they were getting no where after a few weeks you might think that this would be better than never knowing (a la Ben Needham) but at least have a look as you never know how big and bright the guilty sign might just be...
Many i know were thinking it was (innocent) operator error or some failure on the vehicle at the time. No one (including someone who used to be in charge of refuse collections for a large council) foresaw that the cause would be an arrogant deceitful toad who directly caused the death of a number of people as a result of their lies. I could have sympathy for a driver with no history of the such like blacking out and killing someone (as i think is the case in the RR accident but am not 100%) but this vile vermin knew that they were at serious risk and not content with carrying on driving their car about took control of a 26 tonne bin lorry in the centre of a busy city.
If it wasn't all a bit too much Monty Python I'd say that crucifixion would be too good for him.
Edited by Rude-boy on Friday 9th December 14:48
22 said:
There was no proper consideration of the facts before they announced they would protect the poor man from action after what was apparently an awful accident.
How do you know this? Were you present when the assessment was made as to whether or not there'd be a realistic prospect of conviction? superlightr said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the reason the families wanted to bring a private prosecution in the civil courts is it not? The CPS would not run with it hence why the families wanted a private prosecution. To deny them this appears very unfair.
It's a private prosecution in the criminal courts. I assume the Scottish system is similar to the one in England and Wales whereby a case will be discontinued if it doesn't reach the required thresholds. This stops people with money prosecuting whomever they wish. Rude-boy said:
They were far too hasty to announce that there would be no prosecutions on this. No doubt because they thought that it would be some council officer who would get the bullet.
No doubt? How can you say something is 'no doubt' when it's actually total speculation on your part? Rude-boy said:
As a result the PF's application of the law has meant that the victims families have been failed.
Which aspect of the law has been misapplied? Presumably Lord Justice Clerk Lady Dorrian, Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young have managed to misapply the law too. La Liga said:
22 said:
There was no proper consideration of the facts before they announced they would protect the poor man from action after what was apparently an awful accident.
How do you know this? Were you present when the assessment was made as to whether or not there'd be a realistic prospect of conviction? You didn't explain how you knew it. You wrote as if you did.
What reason have you made up to explain why the three senior judges at the appeal court who agreed with the decision not to prosecute? Conspiracy / lying / rushed?
What's your evidence there was any rush? It was over two months from the incident to the initial decision not to charge. If you have a team working a major incident with prosecutors working along side that's a long period of time to gather evidence, investigate and concluded whether or not there's a realistic prospect of conviction for any criminal matters.
It's obviously much more likely that there's been some conspiracy to stop this man being prosecuted by the entire Scottish criminal justice system than people on the internet with no experience with road traffic criminal law misunderstanding things...
What reason have you made up to explain why the three senior judges at the appeal court who agreed with the decision not to prosecute? Conspiracy / lying / rushed?
22 said:
I think the lies came to light after they'd said no prosecutions, so IMO they absolutely rushed their 'assessment' and announcement.
What lies? Where's your evidence there are any lies? What's your evidence there was any rush? It was over two months from the incident to the initial decision not to charge. If you have a team working a major incident with prosecutors working along side that's a long period of time to gather evidence, investigate and concluded whether or not there's a realistic prospect of conviction for any criminal matters.
22 said:
Maybe it was because initial concerns were it may have been a terrorist incident so the "oh no, it was just an awful accident, no one was to blame" proclamation proved to be horrendously misplaced.
What on earth does this mean? It sounds like you're saying they initially thought it was terrorism so said it was an accident rather than treating it seriously. I'm going to assume I'm misinterpreting that as it's such a foolish thing to say. It's obviously much more likely that there's been some conspiracy to stop this man being prosecuted by the entire Scottish criminal justice system than people on the internet with no experience with road traffic criminal law misunderstanding things...
Interestingly, the case was heard in the Court of Session (where there is probably a right of appeal to the Supreme Court), rather than in the High Court of Justiciary (where there is no right of appeal).
ETA - I now see that it was heard in the High Court. Serves me right for believing what I read in the press!
ETA - I now see that it was heard in the High Court. Serves me right for believing what I read in the press!
Edited by matchmaker on Sunday 11th December 15:57
Vipers said:
Read today about the bus driver who drove his bus into water on the road, but it was quite deep and got stuck, yes he should have known better, no one was hurt, but he got 12 months, there isnt any justice anymore.
He did drive passed two road closed signs with a bus full of kids....eccles said:
Vipers said:
Read today about the bus driver who drove his bus into water on the road, but it was quite deep and got stuck, yes he should have known better, no one was hurt, but he got 12 months, there isnt any justice anymore.
He did drive passed two road closed signs with a bus full of kids....Here's the High Court private prosecution application hearing if anyone's interested:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/jud...
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/jud...
The story that keeps on giving:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235174/Dr...
When does this pos get what it deserves?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235174/Dr...
When does this pos get what it deserves?
Cliftonite said:
The story that keeps on giving:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235174/Dr...
When does this pos get what it deserves?
Article says February 17, 2017: Clarke admits reckless driving in Glasgow in September 2015.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235174/Dr...
When does this pos get what it deserves?
So why does it take 18 months to come to court?
.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff