He passed his medicals and again for renewal in 2012 , his GP saw no reason for him to stop driving and he only has to inform DVLA if he has had blackouts that would affect his ability to drive, if the GP saw it as a one off as we must assume he did by his actions of allowing him to go back to work then did he lie or not ? the quickest way as I have said before would be to get the GP to testify then they would find out was this just a very unhappy sequence of events or was it a deliberate lie in order to keep working, at the moment it could be either as the media reports are as one would expect.

It wasn't intentional but it was certainly forseeable. Someone that prone to dizziness/blackouts driving for a living is not on, and he knew exactly what he was doing by concealing his history.

Are you for real? Of course it was an accident. Are you honestly trying to incinuate that he continued to drive with the intention of having an accident?

Sounds as if his last one was back in 2010 anyway, so I would hardly call him prone to them.

Today's inquest details show that he never disclosed decades of dizziness and his bouts of fainting.

I agree with you regarding his GP testifying...I'd be interested in what he has to say.

Of course it was an accident. That doesn't absolve everyone involved of course.

It can be gross negligence i.e. Manslaughter by gross negligence because he knew he might have a risk of blackouts at the wheel which he concealed from his current employer.

The Crown Office and top legal minds say it was an accident then it was an accident. He couldn't know he was going to blackout any more than you know what is going to happen tomorrow.

You mean, "I knew it was a gun, I know bullets go into a gun but I didn't know it was loaded before I aimed, pulled the trigger and killed",--that kind of an accident ?

The families would have every right to sue the council and driver. Hope they do.,

But he knew he had a propensity for doing so, there is a marked difference.

I'm sure the council's insurers (or the council themselves if they self insure) will already be dealing with the families claims. No need to put more money into the hands of greedy personal injury lawyers.

You are supposed to treat every gun as if it is loaded, so no, it isn't like that.

You are supposed to treat every question on the subject of blackouts seriously and with honesty, so it is just like that.

The families will take independent advice rather than deal direct with the insurers, who will try to getaway with paying the least amount possible and will have little contact with the insurers to minimise distress.

I wouldnt be surprised if the council's insurers are looking at a get out given the appropriate recruitment procedures havent been followed. Glasgow council tax payers may find themselves footing the bill for this shambles.

It was an accident that should never have been .this man told lies about his health issues, when they should have been disclosed...Clarke was fully awake when the lorry crashed according to the off duty nurse who attended to him..These lawyers made this daft decision before anything was known about the drivers past.

seems a bit of a mess



News Scottish News Glasgow
Family of Glasgow bin lorry tragedy victims blast legal chief for 'showing no compassion' amid probe into crash
09:12, 15 JUNE 2015
BY ANNA BURNSIDE
THE parents of Erin McQuade, who died in December's tragedy alongside her grandparents Jack and Lorraine Sweeney, claim Fiscal David Green discouraged them from pursuing a civil action because their compensation was “in the bag”.

The whole thing reeks from start to finish. They are desperate for this not to go to court as they know they will get their backsides kicked. this is why the families must take independent advice.

I could cry when I see those pictures of erin, so pretty, happy and full of life. She did not deserve that end.

As seen above, can't always trust councils.

Regardless of whether there are a raft of ambulance chasers coining it off of this tragedy, justice and compensation for the families should be paramount.

someone who sees through whats going on here..

Some top legal minds are saying it's rather bizarre for the Crown Office to have announced there'd be no criminal proceedings, given the evidence which is now being heard.


Nevertheless he's more likely to suffer a similar episode than someone who hasn't. This surely is exactly the sort of reason why there are laws about declaring medical problems to the DVLA.

Frankie, this was all decided days after the accident, how the hell could they know all the details to call a halt to any kind of criminal charges... the whole thing stinks ,also this man knew he was a ticking timebomb from all his previous bouts of illness , which it seems now are many...

Prosecuting him for low level offences in his DVLA forms wouldn't be in the public interest. I think the 6 deaths on his conscious is enough.

Complete nonsense. He couldn't know he was going to be unconscious at that time on that day driving that lorry any more than you can predict the lottery.

No, the accident happened on 22 December 2014, the police handed their report to the Crown Office on 29 January 2015 and on 25 February 2015 the Crown Office announced there would not be a prosecution. Do you have any evidence that the police/Crown Office were not in possession of all the facts when they took that decision?

I'd trust the Crown Counsel to make the correct decision.