We are all different in real life. But, if you'll excuse me, I really do think this case is better to go through the proper channels.

Vociferous complaints can be made after that. Pre-Judging is also dangerous.

Some posters are affected my death and injustice and will carry that for the rest of their lives, and it spills out when resonances occur (not saying that is particularly the case here)

Or, a case provokes feelings of outrage for many reasons.

We don't know why so many inconsistencies and declarations of history have been made, or why the licence was reapplied for.

What are proper channels though when the senior lawyers made such a hasty decision... I know what your saying though and agree with most of it.. we had a similar accident in Glasgow in 2010 when two young girls were killed by a driver who had passed out... its stuck in my mind as families of the girls were angry over decisions... and then this...

I was out of contact with my Daughters for many years (although I sent them Christmas and Birthday cards and money). I also did 3 months in prison over a false accusation of violence,
(Two trials)

The Railway Children "Daddy, My Daddy" never fails in causing me to well up over lost time.
(all is fine now, we are in full and frequent contact, Davina McCall would love it)

The Justice System can be rubbish, but it must be allowed to run its course, and the cogs turn slowly.

I agree that we must wait for a conclusion, and the system can be slow.

However, the cogs didn't work slowly when it came to announcing that the driver wouldn't face charges. That was a very hasty decision. If the conclusion is that it was the correct decision, then no problem.

It was just knee-jerk, don't kick a man when he's down etc

Only later does further evidence present. And we still haven't heard his defence.

Unless he is a Sociopath, his guts will be in knots every day over what he has done.

I don't know how things work in Scotland, and I'm not even sure how it would work in England, but I thought that enquiries (public enquiries, coroners' inquests etc) were delayed until after the police and CPS (or whatever they are in Scotland) have completed any prosecutions. I've always assumed that this was to enable a truthful enquiry, with witnesses not having to worry about incriminating themselves.

Maybe the statement that he was not going to be prosecuted was in order to allow the enquiries to proceed. I don't know this, it's just a thought. However, there wasn't a similar statement to protect, say, his employer or doctor, in case the enquiry points to either of them being at fault.

if I'm right (can anyone confirm this is how it works?), then it makes the enquiry a bit worthless if it turns out that he is found to be at fault, if he then cannot be prosecuted.

The Authorities and the Families will decide how they want to proceed.

It's no skin off our nose is it? (apart from an almost prurient thread)

This thread is Misery and Mob Porn

If you're that disgusted by it, why post?

Arrogance, Education, hoping for a better society?

I used to belong to a school of thought that was No-Platform-for-Racists. That seems to me out of fashion now.

But I don't like Mob Mentality, and I will speak up.

Of course, I am pissing in the wind and who says my views are correct?

We do need Free Speech. But there are lines, and I think this thread has crossed them.

I don't Alert the Mods, so if this thread is ever closed, don't blame me.

And if you want to say Robin is just another SJW. go ahead, it demeans yourself.

Why the aggression?

I have an interest in this case simply because I am particularly concerned about how society reacts to road accidents. They are often seen as simply accidents, without looking into why they happened. Until we look at what causes a crash, we can never learn and work towards improving the situation.

I don't know what happened in this case (and have said so on several occasions), but there have been witness statements which have indicated that the driver may have already known he was subject to blackouts. The enquiry has not heard all the evidence yet, so none of us know.

However, I think it is sensible to discuss the principle of whether one should drive if you are (and know you are) subject to blackouts. I think you shouldn't. If he knew, then I would hope that the law could act in a way that acknowledges that he was wrong to drive, as his behavior would have been reckless. Even if he didn't know, it is still an important subject, and so worth discussing. This sort of issue should be in the public domain and discussed, with a view to improving road safety. Maybe no-one will take any notice, but if there is a chance that one person stops and thinks "I've had blackouts in the past, without warning. Maybe I should stop driving", wouldn't that justify such a discussion.

You don't have a monopoly on trying to make the world a better place.

Edit. By the way, what's SJW?

Sorry I didn't mean to be aggressive.

I just feel the need to assert my piece.

SJW is a derogatory term for Social Justice Warriors.

Ie Uppity people, ignoring the fact that many really do care and wish Peace and Goodwill for everyone

Well said Robin, and personally I would not say you are a SJW, other people maybe...

SJW loving jumping to conclusions and basing their opinions on assumptions rather than the facts that are available at the time.

As long as that person is blinkered and willing to take rumour over facts.

Thank-you and back to the case.

Harry Clarke will face further official envelopes, through the door, and be called to account and provide a defence.

Many will comment further on how valid it is.

I believe there are SJWs and SJW-Nazis, but my memes may be skewed (by the by)

If that's the case, why was he wanting to go back driving again? If I killed 6 people by driving a bin lorry into them. I wouldn't want to go back to driving in my job.

Because thar is all he has known and is his only real opportunity to earn an income?

Someone of his age generally doES not have varied professional qualifications that allow him to easily find work.

No, he's been called to the inquiry to provide an account of what happened, not a defence. The reason he was informed before the inquiry began that he would not be charged was so that he would not be tempted to say "no comment" when questioned and that the true account of that day could be heard in full.

However, following the details shared with the inquiry over the last week or so, it seems this may no longer matter although I do hope the driver will give full and honest answers when he is questioned.

Also, it's quite difficult to go household shopping if you are unfit, or family members can't do it and the supermarket is a trek away.

Ot it may be some legal advice that said "you must get passed fit" again.

Absolutely, the FAI is not a Trial (I was referring to possible future actions)

I wasn't aware he was scheduled to appear.

In any event, "No Comment" is still often advised. Even though that response can be used against you,
If he comments, the words may be twisted, I'm talking about anybody in any Court.

Good point, I had assumed he would be called to appear and that he would have to appear, but perhaps as it is a FAI then maybe he has the option of declining to attend. Given the accounts that have already been revealed, is there anything else he could disclose that would help the inquiry?

I think when it was announced that the driver would not face any charges there was a mention of another case where during that FAI there was someone giving their account who was advised to say "no comment" to certain questioning in order to avoid potential incrimination.

Generally, Legal proceedings can be very complicated and there are all sorts of legitimate reasons why you or Character Witnesses may not be called (you and they won't be believed)

Also, when you give evidence, the Prosecution can rebut you strongly and make up any old bollox (and they do) and you have no right of reply (because you have already been cross-examined)

If you hop up and down you are told to shut-up or you will be removed. Why do you think so many shout out and jeer and make a fuss in Court?

The Judge then wades in with their opinonated take.

All those who say You have nothing to fear by telling the truth, have never been on the receiving end.

Well if anyone is condoning this mans actions, there is something very wrong in our society.
News Scottish News Glasgow bin lorry crash
Glasgow bin lorry driver Harry Clarke asked DVLA to reinstate his HGV licence four months after fatal crash
17:34, 10 AUGUST 2015
BY CATRIONA WEBSTER
THE 58-year-old driver went against a cardiologist's advice he shouldn't be driving HGVs in reapplying for his license.



Glasgow bin lorry driver Harry Clarke
THE DRIVER of a Glasgow bin lorry that veered out of control killing six people asked for his HGV licence to be restored less than four months after the fatal crash, an inquiry has heard.

Harry Clarke asked the DVLA to reinstate it in April – despite medics advising him otherwise.

Today a Fatal Accident Inquiry into the tragedy in Glasgow city centre on December 22 last year described him as being "anxious" to get the licence back.

Do you want to make that readable?