Are you saying that the families of the dead and injured are motivated by money?

No, not necessarily saying it is the families, but they will be being guided by individuals and organisations for whom a protracted court battle is in their financial interest.

It doesn't strike me as strange that the decision was taken so quickly. His passengers who were sat next to him will have stated from the beginning that he was out of it when he crashed.

Assuming it was established early on that he wasn't under the influence of anything, then that simple fact of being unconscious could not render him criminally liable for the actual incident, no matter whatever else was uncovered about his licence or health later on.

I have to say, if that's how you think councils and their insurers (where they exist) deal with PI claims, you're living in fantasy land. But this is an entire other thread.

I agree with your second paragraph, though at worst it's not a cover up, just the usual cock up. Actually, I don't think it's entirely clear when the decision not to prosecute was made or if it's still up for debate, but in truth, I just don't think there was ever a realistic prospect of a conviction under the terms of the law.

As for the first paragraph, and aside from the absurdity of your point (when did I suggest that only the religious have a sense of morals ) you should familiarise yourself with the use of inverted commas. This particular use is known as a "scare quote". Look it up.

There are so many patronising posters on this forum.

Why use the word Christian, scare quotes or not?

Perhaps I'm being idealistic just like some of the posters on here are being moralistic.

Why not? I wasn't aware it was against some kind of secret forum law.

But, I guess, there are also a lot of strange posters on this forum.

The phrase was (I think...) clearly intended to illustrate a strata of FM's who would, for whatever reason, have felt some moral obligation to fess up to what they had done. Could have been expressed in various ways, it happened to be expressed that way.

Don't understand why you really care; I take it you have some problem with those of religion generally and Christians in particular. Whatever floats your boat, but it's got nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, so why make a big deal about it, or mention it at all?

For what it's worth, I'm a non practicing Jew and couldn't care less about religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise.

Just optimistic.

[quote=Beanybun;79340206' I take it you have some problem with those of religion generally and Christians in particular. Whatever floats your boat, but it's got nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, so why make a big deal about it, or mention it at all?
[/QUOTE]

That's a very big assumption you're making on a total stranger based on a few words typed out of confusion on an internet forum.

You seem to be really annoyed that I took issue with your wording but apart from the intital reaction I don't care as much as you seem to think I do.

I had no quarrel with you on a personal level so please don't insult me by making unfounded assumptions when it comes to what judgments I may or may not hold towards people. Cheers.

Well it is painfully obvious from reading here that a system relying on honestly and self reporting to the DVLA won't work and it has to change. Some people will just do what they want even if they have to lie and and put others in possible danger to do it. I'm not being "hysterical" just resigned to that.

I don't drive so know very little about the DVLA. I was shocked stupid when I learned it was based on honesty. That just doesn't work and I can't believe people are still stupid enough to think it does. There's a VERY fine line between idealistic and there's idiotic.

People are advised by their doctor to tell the DVLA if they've had a blackout or a mini stroke or a seizure, or anything that might impair fitness, but I wonder how many actually do, particularly if their job depends on being able to drive?

Well the alternative is doctors reporting straight to the DVLA. The danger then is individuals lying to their doctor or simply not seeking treatment at all.

I just can't believe this isn't how it's already done. Madness. If there's one thing positive that could come from Harry Clarke's actions it could be changing the rules so that your doctor has to report to the DVLA.

That was the issue in relation to the deaths of Mhairi Convy and Laura Stewart. The driver lied to DVLA and his doctor didnt report it so he blacked out again and killed two students. There families are also campaigning for the driver to be prosecuted after the crown took a similar stance in that case too. Infact they have now complained to the solicitor general.

This accident is not the first of it's type for Scotland and the Crown have acted appallingly in both towards victims families right down to their dismissive attitude to their concerns. There must be changes in the legislation that compels doctors to inform DVLA.

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1326...rown-over-fai/

If they're collapsing due to ongoing health issues then they will eventually come to attention of a doctor other than that there's nothing we can do other than making lying to the DVLA a proper offence with proper consequences if caught. They turned around the perception of drink driving and seat belt wearing. It's better than nothing.

Has Harry Clarke actually shown any remorse? As far as I can tell his attitude stinks.

He may well indicate remorse publicly once all proceedings are complete. Until then he is sensibly remaining somewhat neutral. I would do the same.

in his only interview he lied to the public and the families. He applied for his licence back a few months after killing 6 people and devastating the lives of others and lied again. DVLA only took his licence off him in June when they got wind of the FAI, so I dont see much remorse.

Yes his actions long before this inquiry and the lawyer's advice on how to behave during it weren't congruous with someone suffering from fits of remorse or guilt.

Lying is all this man seems to do, like on a pathological level.

I'm really curious as to why you're hellbent on siding with this man. Siding with the law I can somewhat I understand at least but you seem to be keen to excuse Harry Clarke no matter what he does or says.

I'm really curious as to why you're hellbent on siding with this man. Siding with the way the law works I can somewhat I understand even if I passionately disagree and personally find the law to be an arse, but you seem to be keen to excuse Harry Clarke no matter what he does or says. I'm hoping you're just playing devil's advocate.

Saying he is sorry for what happened is NOT admitting liability.
He is receiving some really crap advice from his legal team.

They are making him look bad when he desperately needs to regain sympathy, the application to have his HGV licence returned after a few months was bad enough, but the continued obsfucation in answering questions does him no good at all.