you doubt what francie.....its been shown since the strart of the hearing...

You seem determined to make out the driver is some crazed psychopathic killer. This was a tragic accident. Yes, Harry Clarke is responsible for it and albeit it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't lied but he's really not the monstrous beast that you're trying to make out.

At least it's looking like the tide has turned on this person. The families of the victims must be so furious.

He took risks with other people's lives for self-interest, and he ended many.

It's entirely his own fault.

No one has tried to make him out to be a killer or a monstrous beast.

It was tragic accident that has fault attached.

And that fault has not been addressed properly by the decisions of the prosecution services from the outset in many people's minds.

what are you on about,, Im telling it as it is... he lied to get this job with the council.. he knew his health wasnt great... Im talking abut the council too who didnt do their job properly either... This man applied for his driving license back.... my god , hes not right in the head...no one who caused this carnage could ever want to drive again surely.... Hes now been suspended from his job, something that should have happened right away surely, until this hearing.. its all one big mess, and I just wonder how these families now feel about this man and the heartache hes caused.... hes a menace on the roads and should never drive again..

I don't think your telling of it is accurate or helpful in any way. It's mostly made up rumour and innuendo, emotive talk about the families, not realising the Crown knew the FAI evidence when it made its decision despite being told several times, and finally you think you know more than top lawyers.

not at all.. I don't think I know more than them.... but they know how to work the system to their own ends... I don't.... and "emotive talk" as you call it is my true sympathy for these families, I cant begin to think of how they must feel.. so don't make out Im using them to gain support... its my true feelings on the matter...

The enquiry isn't over yet. However, if the outcome is that he had a history of blackouts, and he knew this, then he shouldn't have been driving. If he then chose to drive, despite this, then his behavior was reckless. If that reckless behavior resulted in deaths, then I think he should be charged with manslaughter. On top of that, if he hid the full extent of his illness from his employers or doctors, in order to keep his job, then that would add a layer of aggravation to the offence.

Other illnesses which cause loss of control (such as epilepsy) will result in a loss of driving licence. This is for a reason. A known history of blackouts is a similar situation.

Someone having a blackout without any pre-existing knowledge would be an accident. However, if you know that you are susceptible to them, then to continue to drive would be reckless behavior.

I don't know why the authorities were so quick to say that there would be no charge, but I believe that their decision was incorrect. They should have waited, as there was no need to rush a decision.

Edit. However, I presume there could not have been an enquiry of this sort until any criminal proceedings have been completed (or not required), in which case we did need the decision of whether to prosecute or not.

We do not know what caused them to decide too early. If it proves to be because they did not investigate fully before deciding, then this in turn should be investigated.

The BUPA doctor who assessed Clarke in 2011 for his HGV licencse.. said he answered NO to all health questions .. todays hearing...7/08/15 he had ticked NO to a lengthy list of conditions..

When people give evidence at the enquiry, I hope they are asked if the police had interviewed them before the decision to not prosecute.

Hopefully they will get round to asking those questions...

BUPA doctor said, IF she d have known about Clarke had fainted the previous year she would never have passed him fit to drive.. today 7/8.15.. The mans history reports dizzy spells dating back to the 70s with depression, stress and anxiety..

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/scotti...53303/TextView after reading this about him even lying to doctors after the accident... I give up on justice if this man isn't done for manslaughter..

You're giving up on justice, then, because he can't be "done for manslaughter".

QUOTE=Mark.;79196761]You're giving up on justice, then, because he can't be "done for manslaughter".[/quote]Well would you trust the justice system if hes let off with this . Another man got away with the same in 2010 in Glasgow killing two girls.. he was treated the very same way by the court as Harry Clarke... then four years later it was discovered that he too had passed out four times before the accident... At least this time they've found out sooner about maniacs on the road who don't care about others.

.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ty-street.html
Last edited by calamity : 07-08-2015 at 13:01

Yes he can. Manslaughter through gross negligence.

No he can't. The offence of manslaughter doesn't exist in Scots Law.

If the Crown knew 100% that Clarke had lied to his own GP, then that makes their decision not to prosecute even more odd. I'm not convinced they actually knew that prior to the FAI.


Culpable homicide under Scottish law. Same thing just a different name.

you knew exactly what the poster means... dont twist things to suit. Culpable Homicide in Scotland is the equivalent of manslaughter..

Yes, but the posters were very specific about manslaughter.

The likeliest charge would be (involuntary) culpable homicide, especially if his actions are deemed reckless.

Who's twisting anything? I made a statement of fact.

And while the two are roughly the same, they are far from identical.

You are debating over mere semantics. For example, intentional killing of one person by another in the UK is known as murder and that's what they'd be charged with. Homicide is the same but a more familiar term under US law.

Culpable homicide is a killing where though not intentional, a degree of blame is attached. It's a very serious offence.

Culpable homicide, like murder is a form of unlawful killing. The crucial difference, however, is that if a person kills intentionally it is murder, whereas if he or she kills negligently it is culpable homicide. according to this site.. http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?f...icleID=4191473

Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century B.C..[1]
The definition of manslaughter differs from place of jurisdiction. The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind, or the circumstances under which the killing occurred (mitigating factors). Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter; however, this is not the case in all jurisdictions.[

according to this site... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

"No it appears that more sympathy went to the driver, and why the photos of the deceased and their funerals should never be forgotten."

Like I said I doubt that very much.

That's a site about South African law, not sure that's helping to clarify things!

Probably a more useful discussion on this site about the differences with English manslaughter.

Scottish website here.