|
||||||||
Bin Lorry Crashes Into Pedestrians - Glasgow |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1251 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,674
|
Quote:
Scottish website here.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#1252 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,342
|
Quote:
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..
And this is exactly what the poster was talking about, the menace comment, designed to convey a message that he purposely drove with the intention of becoming ill at the wheel. You do not have the faintest clue of how the legal process works, and expect it to work your way. This is from someone who is actually involved in ongoing court proceedings. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1253 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,425
|
Quote:
Making up conspiracies and whining about due process is 'telling it as it is' now?
And this is exactly what the poster was talking about, the menace comment, designed to convey a message that he purposely drove with the intention of becoming ill at the wheel. You do not have the faintest clue of how the legal process works, and expect it to work your way. This is from someone who is actually involved in ongoing court proceedings. ![]() ![]() ![]() more than me questioning this decision..... top lawyers wnat to know why they took this hasty action, so get off your high horse . talking tough for a newbie,and Ive heard it all before of posters who know the law.... .......we can all google ...and what do you mean the menace comment...your talking rubbish.... go chill and enjoy your weekend Mr DeVivre..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1254 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,474
|
A good summary of questions which should be answered after this inquiry. Quote:
Why did the Crown Office rule out the prosecution of the driver in February when it knew he had not been honest about his medical history of blackouts? http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...ime=1439028454
Why, when it learned of that history and the driver’s attempts to keep that secret, did it not tell his employers, Glasgow City Council? Had they known earlier it is almost certain they would have suspended the driver months ago, rather than waiting until this week. When the Crown Office learned the full facts, why did it not immediately tell the DVLA, which returned the driver’s licence to him in April? It is inconceivable that the licence would have been given back had the DVLA known the facts. When it eventually learned the truth two months later, it immediately suspended the licence. His car licence has been revoked for a year, his HGV licence for 10 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1255 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 17,902
|
Quote:
A good summary of questions which should be answered after this inquiry.
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...ime=1439028454 GCC have already suspended him so i assume they will be considering taking action against him. The DVLA almost certainly will prosecute. It's an extremely serious offence. The Crown Office most certainly does have a lot of explaining to do and i imagine they must be frantically working on a damage limitation exercise now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1256 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,474
|
Quote:
The main reason is because Mr Clarke lied to his GP, employer and consequently the DVLA.
GCC have already suspended him so i assume they will be considering taking action against him. The DVLA almost certainly will prosecute. It's an extremely serious offence. The Crown Office most certainly does have a lot of explaining to do and i imagine they must be frantically working on a damage limitation exercise now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1257 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 5,899
|
Quote:
GCC have already suspended him so i assume they will be considering taking action against him. The DVLA almost certainly will prosecute. It's an extremely serious offence.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...postcount=1000 Quote:
Originally Posted by Evo102
Is he in deep mire? There is a specific offence of 'Driving after making a false declaration about fitness when applying for a licence', it's a LC30 on your driving licence, but only carries a penalty of 3 to 6pts and a fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1258 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 17,902
|
Quote:
No it isn't, I've corrected you previously in this thread when you said he would be in "deep mire" with the DVLA.
Quote:
Blackouts, fainting (syncope) and driving And before you pick apart the wording of 'can' and 'may' this is way beyond the realm of just another accident. Six people lost their lives in what was a preventable accident and would never have happened had the authorities concerned not been deceived and lied to.
You can be fined up to £1,000 if you don’t tell DVLA about a medical condition that affects your driving. You may be prosecuted if you’re involved in an accident as a result. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1259 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 5,899
|
Quote:
From DVLA website;
And before you pick apart the wording of 'can' and 'may' this is way beyond the realm of just another accident. Six people lost their lives in what was a preventable accident and would never have happened had the authorities concerned not been deceived and lied to. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1260 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 17,902
|
Quote:
And it's still just 3-6points on his licence and a fine of up to a £1,000 for not telling the DVLA. So not "an extremely serious offence". The Crown Office have already said he won't be prosecuted for the accident.
I'm sorry you don't view lying to the DVLA as an extremely serious offence. It's resulted in the killing of six people which would have been prevented had Clarke not lied. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1261 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,425
|
Quote:
You still don't get this do you? It won't be the Crown Office prosecuting, it will be the DVLA.
I'm sorry you don't view lying to the DVLA as an extremely serious offence. It's resulted in the killing of six people which would have been prevented had Clarke not lied. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1262 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,546
|
Quote:
Of course its a serious offence.. he lied to his employers.. BUPA. his GP.. the doctors in the hospital after the accident too. the DVLA.. ,and does carry a fine.. but this is much more than lying.. its killing six people because of his lies..
He was unconscious and can't be held responsible for the deaths. One would need to change Scottish law for him to be held culpable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1263 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,425
|
Quote:
He won't face criminal charges of any kind, that's a fact. All the fibbing, being economical with the truth and the underhand filling of forms shows a character flaw that is unfortunately present in all of us.
He was unconscious and can't be held responsible for the deaths. One would need to change Scottish law for him to be held culpable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1264 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 5,899
|
Quote:
You still don't get this do you? It won't be the Crown Office prosecuting, it will be the DVLA.
Quote:
I'm sorry you don't view lying to the DVLA as an extremely serious offence. It's resulted in the killing of six people which would have been prevented had Clarke not lied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1265 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 17,902
|
Quote:
He won't face criminal charges of any kind, that's a fact. All the fibbing, being economical with the truth and the underhand filling of forms shows a character flaw that is unfortunately present in all of us.
He was unconscious and can't be held responsible for the deaths. One would need to change Scottish law for him to be held culpable. Culpable homicide committed where the accused has caused loss of life through wrongful conduct, but where there was no intention to kill or 'wicked recklessness'. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1266 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 17,902
|
Quote:
Yes I get it, he may be prosecuted by the DVLA for 'Driving after making a false declaration about fitness when applying for a licence', nothing to do with accident.
Quote:
Well if it was such an extremely serious offence then surely it would carry a more severe penalty than 3 - 6 pts and up to a £1,000 fine?
If he ever gets his car licence back (won't ever get LGV again) he will struggle to find an insurance company willing to take him on, and even then the premium will be prohibitively high.He will face prosecution from the DVLA, that i am most certain of. But he may also face private prosecutions being brought against him by the families concerned. The repercussions of Clarkes lying don't bear thinking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1267 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,425
|
The families of the dead can take out private prosecutions Ive read.. whether they will or not is another matter..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1268 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 5,899
|
Quote:
DVLA will prosecute.
Quote:
If he ever gets his car licence back (won't ever get LGV again) he will struggle to find an insurance company willing to take him on, and even then the premium will be prohibitively high.
He will face prosecution from the DVLA, that i am most certain of. But he may also face private prosecutions being brought against him by the families concerned. The repercussions of Clarkes lying don't bear thinking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1269 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,425
|
I know Clarkes license has been taken from him now but why was it given back to him at this point..... How could anyone have deemed him fit to ever drive a lorry again...Can someone explain to me why he ever got these licenses back..
The Fatal Accident Inquiry heard Mr Clarke had his driving and lorry licences reinstated in April but they were revoked again last month. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1270 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 17,902
|
Quote:
They may, but not in relation to the accident.
Quote:
All true, be you haven't answered my question.
If referring to your opinion that 'if serious it would carry a more severe penalty than £1000 and 3-6 points,' i don't think you've even begun to grasp the consequences. Are you really so naive to believe that's where it begins and ends? It may well with the DVLA but anyone foolish enough to think that's the end of the matter had better think again. That's just for starters.Clarke lied to his employer, his GP and the DVLA. Whilst he would have been under GCC's company insurance which will be voided, he would also have car insurance which he's taken out himself. Given his now known history of lying, he's no doubt lied to them in order to get cover. They too will have voided his policy. They can, and still may, prosecute him for 'non-disclosure'. It's fraud and if caught out as Clarke has now been, will cost the perpetrator dearly. And all the above is not even accounting for the possibility of the families of the deceased bringing a prosecution against him. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1271 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 11,355
|
Quote:
The main reason is because Mr Clarke lied to his GP, employer and consequently the DVLA.
GCC have already suspended him so i assume they will be considering taking action against him. The DVLA almost certainly will prosecute. It's an extremely serious offence. The Crown Office most certainly does have a lot of explaining to do and i imagine they must be frantically working on a damage limitation exercise now. Quote:
A spokesperson for COPFS said: “It is clear on the evidence at the time that the driver lost control of the bin lorry, resulting in the tragic deaths, he was unconscious and therefore not in control of his actions. They couldn't prove it and they knew they couldn't.
“He did not therefore have the necessary criminal state of mind required for a criminal prosecution. “In addition the Crown could not prove that it was foreseeable to the driver that driving on that day would result in a loss of consciousness. “This still remains the case and all the relevant evidence regarding these points was known to Crown Counsel at the time the decision to take no proceedings was made.” |
|
|
|
|
|
#1272 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 5,899
|
Quote:
I assumed you understood what i was referring to by the quote i posted from the DVLA website?
Quote:
If referring to your opinion that 'if serious it would carry a more severe penalty than £1000 and 3-6 points,' i don't think you've even begun to grasp the consequences. Are you really so naive to believe that's where it begins and ends? It may well with the DVLA but anyone foolish enough to think that's the end of the matter had better think again. That's just for starters.
Quote:
Clarke lied to his employer, his GP and the DVLA. Whilst he would have been under GCC's company insurance which will be voided, he would also have car insurance which he's taken out himself. Given his now known history of lying, he's no doubt lied to them in order to get cover. They too will have voided his policy. They can, and still may, prosecute him for 'non-disclosure'. It's fraud and if caught out as Clarke has now been, will cost the perpetrator dearly.
Firstly you do realise that Glasgow City Council like most local authorities, police forces, fire services 'self insurer'? So there is no question of voiding a policy. Secondly, assuming he does drive a private car and/or he is insured on one (which we don't know) then they may indeed void that insurance. But as there has been no claim on that policy why would they go to the extent of making a complaint to the police regarding fraud? Just because he was the bloke who drove the bin lorry that crashed? |
|
|
|
|
|
#1273 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,425
|
Quote:
I assumed you understood that the DVLA can only prosecute in respect of licencing offences and not road traffic accidents?
But we're discussing what sanctions the DVLA can impose, no one else. Again, the Crown Office have determined he will not be prosecuted for the accident. How many assumptions can you make in one paragraph? Firstly you do realise that Glasgow City Council like most local authorities, police forces, fire services 'self insurer'? So there is no question of voiding a policy. Secondly, assuming he does drive a private car and/or he is insured on one (which we don't know) then they may indeed void that insurance. But as there has been no claim on that policy why would they go to the extent of making a complaint to the police regarding fraud? Just because he was the bloke who drove the bin lorry that crashed? |
|
|
|
|
|
#1274 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 9,454
|
Quote:
He will face prosecution from the DVLA, that i am most certain of. But he may also face private prosecutions being brought against him by the families concerned.
Quote:
The families of the dead can take out private prosecutions Ive read..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1275 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
He won't face criminal charges of any kind, that's a fact. All the fibbing, being economical with the truth and the underhand filling of forms shows a character flaw that is unfortunately present in all of us.
He was unconscious and can't be held responsible for the deaths. One would need to change Scottish law for him to be held culpable. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53.




