Bin Lorry Crashes Into Pedestrians - Glasgow

1626365676884

Comments

  • franciefrancie Posts: 31,089
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    calamity wrote: »
    This part is whats so bad about the whole thing...its Mr Clarke always no 1... the families of the dead are just there for a day out it seems and dont find this traumatic.

    Mr Clarke's solicitor, Paul Reid, also requested an adjournment at the hearing today, saying the driver would find giving evidence 'traumatic'.

    With respect, I feel this is how you see it as your hatred of the driver is obvious. I haven't read any article where it's been implied or stated that the bereaved families have been forgotten and the driver's needs are deemed more important, I feel that's just your slant on things.
  • franciefrancie Posts: 31,089
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This is a public inquiry, for the purposes of finding out what led up to the event of the crash. It's not a trial. What exactly was the relevance or usefulness of that question? Or of asking the driver about the personal circumstances of the victims?

    ^ This.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    calamity wrote: »
    and this from him even with his lawyers instruction could he not have done the right thing...The Solicitor General then said: 'Do you understand that by choosing not to answer you are putting yourself first?'
    He said: 'I wouldn't agree with that.'
    Mrs Thomson then put to him: 'Mr Clarke do you know that these family have been in court to hear answers.'
    He replied: 'I would imagine they would want answers, yes.

    You seem to have something of an emotive angle on this whole thing. You have to remember that anybody facing the likelihood of prosecution is going to avoid giving any kind of answers that could be recorded, and used against them later on. It is a principle of justice that we are not obliged to incriminate ourselves, and self-preservation is the most natural of instincts.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    This is a public inquiry, for the purposes of finding out what led up to the event of the crash. It's not a trial. What exactly was the relevance or usefulness of that question? Or of asking the driver about the personal circumstances of the victims?

    Indeed. He's likely a blue-collar guy and will answer in relatively simple terms, but it would be interesting if somebody with some wits about them answered with:-

    "Can you please elaborate on the purpose of the question, as it seems to be less about fact-finding and instead has an emotive edge to it"
  • calamitycalamity Posts: 12,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    francie wrote: »
    With respect, I feel this is how you see it as your hatred of the driver is obvious. I haven't read any article where it's been implied or stated that the bereaved families have been forgotten and the driver's needs are deemed more important, I feel that's just your slant on things.
    Not hatred its the injustice of the whole thing from the very start and now we can see what this man is really like..He just doesn't seem too bothered at all , by wanting his licences back said enough., he makes me sick to be honest Mr Clarkes needs are the most important to him, always were and still are.
  • calamitycalamity Posts: 12,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    You seem to have something of an emotive angle on this whole thing. You have to remember that anybody facing the likelihood of prosecution is going to avoid giving any kind of answers that could be recorded, and used against them later on. It is a principle of justice that we are not obliged to incriminate ourselves, and self-preservation is the most natural of instincts.
    yes and Mr Clarke has plenty of that... self preservation.....
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    calamity wrote: »
    Not hatred its the injustice of the whole thing from the very start and now we can see what this man is really like..He just doesn't seem too bothered at all , by wanting his licences back said enough., he makes me sick to be honest

    What is he really like? He isn't answering questions on the advice of his solicitor because he has the prospect of a prosecution pending, and have you considered that the lad may well have been desperate to get his licence back simply to, you know, hang onto a job?

    Rightly or wrongly, the thought of simply not being able to work may well have been the motivation for his health declarations, but it doesn't make him evil personified, despite what has happened.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    calamity wrote: »
    yes and Mr Clarke has plenty of that... self preservation.....

    What in the blazes do you want him to do? Prostrate himself on the floor screaming "I confess, I drove the wagon. It was me!"

    Get a grip of yourself.
  • darkislanddarkisland Posts: 3,178
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »

    Rightly or wrongly, the thought of simply not being able to work may well have been the motivation for his health declarations, but it doesn't make him evil personified, despite what has happened.

    Casually risking the lives of others isn't evil ?

    Please explain.
  • TommyNookaTommyNooka Posts: 2,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This is a public inquiry, for the purposes of finding out what led up to the event of the crash. It's not a trial. What exactly was the relevance or usefulness of that question? Or of asking the driver about the personal circumstances of the victims?

    Probably checking for a heart/conscience!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 168
    Forum Member
    calamity wrote: »
    links about why this man wasnt to be prosucuted early on,..a decision that had many people baffled, and at a very early stage by overzealous senior lawyers, sorry I wast buying and never will, if they knew all the details that have come out now, did they think the public would accept this...OK its Scots law and the decision cant be reversed, I accept that but so glad something is being done now by the families..Im not into scoring points , Im into whats right and fair for the families.. they want answers and its the least they deserve.

    I understand you are infuriated, but what more evidence can Clarke give? We know he lied to his employers we know he lied to the DVLA we know he lied to the doctors. So really the only question left for him to answer is WHY. It seems that that is what the families need to know. WHY?
    The only answer Clarke could give to that question is .... he wanted to keep his driving job, or/and he was not aware of the risks involved.
    So if he was not aware of the risks involved why did he lie in the first place?
    These questions and answers would have incriminated him, so his lawyer was duty bound to advise him to keep quiet.
    Yes it is morally wrong but what more could be done?
  • TommyNookaTommyNooka Posts: 2,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    What is he really like? He isn't answering questions on the advice of his solicitor because he has the prospect of a prosecution pending, and have you considered that the lad may well have been desperate to get his licence back simply to, you know, hang onto a job?

    Rightly or wrongly, the thought of simply not being able to work may well have been the motivation for his health declarations, but it doesn't make him evil personified, despite what has happened.

    You seriously think it's understandable that this guy is trying to get his licence back just to save the twilight of his career?
    The same licence that allowed him to kill 6 people only 4 months previous?

    Some completely ridiculous apologists around here.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    darkisland wrote: »
    Casually risking the lives of others isn't evil ?

    Please explain.

    I think he is somewhat reckless, not evil. The motivation for his apparent non-declaration to my mind seems to be one you see in many working class men, a case of them being too proud to admit that their health is knackered, and thus they aren't fit to carry on.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    TommyNooka wrote: »
    You seriously think it's understandable that this guy is trying to get his licence back just to save the twilight of his career?
    The same licence that allowed him to kill 6 people only 4 months previous?

    Some completely ridiculous apologists around here.
    TommyNooka wrote: »
    Probably checking for a heart/conscience!

    And some ridiculous over-emoting.
  • calamitycalamity Posts: 12,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TommyNooka wrote: »
    You seriously think it's understandable that this guy is trying to get his licence back just to save the twilight of his career?
    The same licence that allowed him to kill 6 people only 4 months previous?

    Some completely ridiculous apologists around here.
    I cant believe what Im reading with some people.. The lad..... the man is an irresponsible fool who has no business ever driving again, he still had a job with the Council as far as I know, but is suspended and would still have been earning a living but Mr Clarke thought he was untouchable and wanted his licenses back, not just the one he wanted the HGV too.
  • TommyNookaTommyNooka Posts: 2,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    And some ridiculous over-emoting.

    That was an attempt at a little humour.....which obviously failed! :D
  • calamitycalamity Posts: 12,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    This man should have walked into court faced the families of the people he killed and gave them a heart felt apology.. ,
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    calamity wrote: »
    I cant believe what Im reading with some people.. The lad..... the man is an irresponsible fool who has no business ever driving again, he still had a job with the Council as far as I know, but is suspended and would still have been earning a living but Mr Clarke thought he was untouchable and wanted his licenses back, not just the one he wanted the HGV too.

    Yes, he wanted his licence back. That is for the DVLA to determine now, not a bunch of hysterical forum users who think he is bang out of order for even asking.
  • calamitycalamity Posts: 12,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    Yes, he wanted his licence back. That is for the DVLA to determine now, not a bunch of hysterical forum users who think he is bang out of order for even asking.
    Oh dear oh dear....what am I hearing? he wasn't bang out of order, oh no... he was unfeeling, selfish, arrogant and dangerous.. seems the man who wanted so much to have a job was off work a hell of a lot of the time, 28 days in 2 years..
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    calamity wrote: »
    Oh dear oh dear....what am I hearing? he wasn't bang out of order, oh no... he was unfeeling, selfish, arrogant and dangerous.. seems the man who wanted so much to have a job was off work a hell of a lot of the time, 28 days in 2 years..

    What do YOU think his motivation is for wanting his HGV licence back? I doubt he has an RCV on the drive for Sunday jaunts with his missus.
  • duckyluckyduckylucky Posts: 13,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    calamity wrote: »
    This man should have walked into court faced the families of the people he killed and gave them a heart felt apology.. ,

    That is my opinion too .An apology would go a very long way to heal a hurt caused .Its a very well known fact that people can start to heal and forgive if the cause of their hurt can show empathy and feel sorry
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    duckylucky wrote: »
    That is my opinion too .An apology would go a very long way to heal a hurt caused .Its a very well known fact that people can start to heal and forgive if the cause of their hurt can show empathy and feel sorry

    The problem is that as soon as he says "I'm sorry" then that statement of contrition can be taken as an admission of liability or guilt, and unfortunately he has the right to maintain his defence if he indeed has one, for any pending legal action.
  • calamitycalamity Posts: 12,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    What do YOU think his motivation is for wanting his HGV licence back? I doubt he has an RCV on the drive for Sunday jaunts with his missus.
    His motivation.... ? I cant answer for someone so unfeeling.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    calamity wrote: »
    His motivation.... ? I cant answer for someone so unfeeling.

    No, you can't answer because you know I'm right, he obviously wants it in order to get back to work. There's no other explanation.

    And lets look at the 28 days in two years thing. That's just two weeks a year off sick. That's hardly the sign of some waster who would rather be sat on his arse at home all day.
  • duckyluckyduckylucky Posts: 13,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    The problem is that as soon as he says "I'm sorry" then that statement of contrition can be taken as an admission of liability or guilt, and unfortunately he has the right to maintain his defence if he indeed has one, for any pending legal action.

    I think my own defence would pale into insignificance in comparison to the huge hurt I had caused .
Sign In or Register to comment.