^ This

His lawyers can walk away though, and wont be pointed out in the street. Clarke will.., but your right in what you say of course... You know myself and others might have softened more to the man, who I think does have other issues.... but for him asking for his licences back.. I think that swung the sympathy for him out the window..

BIB:

His legal team are just doing their job and the driver is adhering to advice. Let's face it no matter what he had said at the inquiry he will still be "pointed at", talked about etc etc -damned if he did damned if he didn't. He has simply looked out for himself.

As for him having "other issues" I've no idea, have no need nor desire to know.

Lawyers are like seat belts; an annoyance till you actually need one.

I appreciate that there will be "christan minded" persons on this forum who wouldn't dream of doing anything other than fessing up in the driver's situation but of course, these are the same people whose personal sense of "decency" would never have led them into the driver's situation, in the first place.

The truth, of course, is that you never really know what you will do till faced with a particular set of facts. For example, how many of you would have tackled that terrorist on the Paris train yesterday? We'd all like to think we'd do the right thing and not focus upon our own best interests but not everyone has the physical/mental attributes to do so.

For this reason I do find some of the "moral majority" a little tiresome on this and so many other threads round these parts. We live in a secular society which states innocent till proven guilty and that being the case, the driver is under no obligation to do a damn thing which might establish criminal guilt or civil liability. The consequence for him is that (understandably in a case like this) everyone detests the guy and he winds up moving to a new city on subsistence benefits, or whatever. I'll cry no tears for him.

It's no good complaining about all this though, because these rules exist to protect us all; otherwise, next thing you know, we'll be water boarding suspected paedophiles and putting alleged burglars to the rack. I trust one here thinks that would be a good idea. If so, I suggest you move to Syria.

It's not grandstanding, clarke has gone back on what his solicitor said originally.


http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/1...wed_by_police/

Thanks Beanybun. I have been called many a thing in my life but never that.

It is pointless to be angry at Clarke because the Crown decided not to prosecute him. If the Crown did in fact jump the gun before they had all the information then the blame lies with the Crown, not Clarke.

What does the above, ^ This mean?
I have noticed it few times in your posts.

I agree with the above.

He might well be clear of facing criminal prosecution by the crown, but if a private prosecution is still looming, then naturally he is going to remain guarded with his answers. Surely you can understand this?

I do. But i was answering why the families solicitor were not grandstanding.

With a private prosecution I assume that you can only forced to pay compensation like in US. does anyone know different?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution

See section on England and Scotland. In particular, only two were made in Scotland last century!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1..._on_rape_case/

In any case they remain criminal in nature; what will happen here is that civil proceedings against the driver but naming his employers under the law of tortuous liability will follow and will almost certainly succeed or in any case be settled.

If found liable, as they probably will be, then it will be the council's insurers who'll be picking up the tab for Mr. Clarke's actions.

Of course, it's possible that they actually self-insure, in which case, they'll have to pay the bill themselves.

"They"? You mean the Council Tax payers of Glasgow.

Hopefully all claims can be settled without the blood sucking personal injury solicitors getting too heavily involved.

No axe to grind here, then.

In any case, how do you thinks that going to happen?

Next time you need a surgical procedure, do ask your local fishmonger to do the honours, then let me know how it goes.

I have lost any ounce of sympathy I had for Clarke . Must say I felt sorry for him and thought living with that guilt would be a huge burden to live with . Seems I was wrong and all my sympathy goes to the poor victims and their grieving families who deserve more than a man who is thinking only of himself
I know I couldnt live with myself if I couldnt say I am deeply sorry for the hurt I caused .But thats me , and I guess most other people but not all apparently

I dont. The crown advised the families not to lodge civil actions as the money "was in the bag". How crass. The families are entitled to independent legal advice, not the opinion of the crown office who have made a cats arse of this from start to finish. As far as I'm aware the families are being represented by some of the most reputable firms in Scotland, hardly blood suckers. They deserve their day in court if that's what they wish.

Thanks francie.

You're welcome. It's laziness really but I loathe typing, even a few short words.

On the front page of the Daily Record today, the sister of a woman who brought a private prosecution to her rapist 30 years ago, has encouraged the families to go down this route. I remember the case very well. The private prosecution resulted in the ring leader being sentenced to 16 years.

No, no axe to grind.

A reasonable offer is made by the council and is accepted by the families. Not lets see how much money we can screw out of the council.

But it may not be about the money, the families may use the civil courts the way Ron Goldman's family did. They may decide they want a formal decision of liability and that is their right.

The council may be in difficulties here as their insurers may not cover them if there has been deliberate flaws in the recruitment procedures. They could be shelling out a shit load of money as it's not just the families of the dead there are around 30 seriously injured to consider along with the minor injured. People seem to forget the other victims. One young girl had her ears ripped off and faces years of surgery.

Christian Minded? You don't need to be religious to have a strong sense of morals! What an absurd thing to suggest in 2015.

I do agree with people who say the court should be about the law and not moral outrage but I'd imagine most people can understand why anyone might be exapsarated by Harry Clarke's lies, applying for his licence back months after killing six people and the fact it was decided he'd not be prosecuted before anyone had even talked to him. The handling of this case sticks of a cover up. I'd say that is why people like calamity are a bit emotive and frustrated.

Not about the money ye right. I don't think there will be any problem with an admission of liability, it's not as if the bin lorry was run off the road.


I think it has already been stated that like many public organisations the council self-insure and yes they will face a large bill at the end of all this. I'd just like the bulk of those funds ending up in the hands of the injured and the dependents of the dead rather than the suits at some law firm.