• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Bin Lorry Crashes Into Pedestrians - Glasgow
<<
<
51 of 83
>>
>
francie
07-08-2015
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“Scottish website here.”

Thanks for the link.
Javier_deVivre
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by calamity:
“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..”

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.
calamity
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Javier_deVivre:
“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.”

OH and where now did you pop in from 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..
D_Mcd4
08-08-2015
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?

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.”

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...ime=1439028454
Bulletguy1
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by D_Mcd4:
“A good summary of questions which should be answered after this inquiry.


http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...ime=1439028454”

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.
D_Mcd4
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“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.”

Yes I think they do. It's one thing for them to decide it's not in the public interest to prosecute him over the lies, but by them keeping quiet about these lies, it could have endangered more people, as the DVLA being unaware of it gave Mr Clarke his license back in April! Now that definitely is in the public interest.
Evo102
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“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.”

No it isn't, I've corrected you previously in this thread when you said he would be in "deep mire" with the DVLA.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...postcount=1000

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.”

Bulletguy1
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“No it isn't, I've corrected you previously in this thread when you said he would be in "deep mire" with the DVLA.”

From DVLA website;

Quote:
“Blackouts, fainting (syncope) and driving

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.
”

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.
Evo102
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“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.”

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.
Bulletguy1
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“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.”

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.
calamity
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“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.”

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..
Rosebuddy
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by calamity:
“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 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.
calamity
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Rosebuddy:
“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.”

fibbing is silly little lies.. his werent anything like it.. and the filling in of forms with lies doesnt apply to the population either... The only two people who said Clarke had passed out, were in the lorry with him... Harry Clarke told the nurse who went to his aid that he hadnt passed out.., he was sitting up in his seat when she got to him and able to talk ... the paramedics who did tests on him at the scene found nothing.. nor did all the scans etc in the Western Infirmary show up anything.. so what in fact did happen to this man..will we ever know..
Evo102
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“You still don't get this do you? It won't be the Crown Office prosecuting, it will be the DVLA.”

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.

Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“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.”

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?
Bulletguy1
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Rosebuddy:
“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.”

No change necessary....it's already in place.

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'.
Bulletguy1
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“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.”

DVLA will prosecute.


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.
calamity
08-08-2015
The families of the dead can take out private prosecutions Ive read.. whether they will or not is another matter..
Evo102
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“DVLA will prosecute.”

They may, but not in relation to the accident.

Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“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.”

All true, be you haven't answered my question.
calamity
08-08-2015
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.
Bulletguy1
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“They may, but not in relation to the accident.”

I assumed you understood what i was referring to by the quote i posted from the DVLA website?

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.
FrankieFixer
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“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.”

They have already said:

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.

“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.””

They couldn't prove it and they knew they couldn't.
Evo102
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“I assumed you understood what i was referring to by the quote i posted from the DVLA website?”

I assumed you understood that the DVLA can only prosecute in respect of licencing offences and not road traffic accidents?

Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“ 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.”

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.

Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“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.”

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?
calamity
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“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?”

no hes the driver who lied about his past illnesses, and how killed six people and injured another ten....
davidmcn
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“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.”

Originally Posted by calamity:
“The families of the dead can take out private prosecutions Ive read..”

It's been decades since there's been a prosecution in Scotland run by anyone other than the Crown Office (and I think they need the consent of the Crown Office to do so), so I really doubt that there's going to be a prosecution by either the DVLA or the families.
Eater Sundae
08-08-2015
Originally Posted by Rosebuddy:
“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.”

Of course he could. At least he could have been had the authorities not already decided to not prosecute.
<<
<
51 of 83
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map