Maybe you prefer, economical with the truth? It amounts to the same.

This guy collapsed at the wheel of a bus requiring an Inspector to drive the bus back to the depot. He later changes jobs to driving a bin truck for GCC where he suffers 'dizzy spells' in the works canteen which were actually reported, yet he himself kept stum over both to the DVLA.

Now subject to disciplinary hearing.....he's suddenly 'too ill' to attend. Oh the irony. Maybe it's finally dawned on him that his lying and deceit cost the lives of six people.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...driver-6378972

No it's longer for LGV/HGV. I can't find the damn link now but it's more than it is for car drivers. It also has to be proven to the DVLA MB that the condition, whatever it is, has since been stabilised through medication. They simply won't issue a licence without knowledge of that.

But it didn't and that is why the crown has been frustrated of a prosecution. There is no link between any of Clarke's actions or omissions and the cause of the incident. The crown has had to concede that there was nothing that would have effectively disqualified him from being behind the wheel on the day, regardless.

Well we will simply have to agree to disagree then as we are just going around in circles on that. Had Clarke told the truth to his GP and the DVLA, not only would he have never been given an LGV licence, he wouldn't have been able to mow down and kill six people.

I make no apologies for the stance i take on this and i can't help but think your opinion would greatly differ had one of the victims of Clarke's deceitful selfishness been your own wife or child.

I'm glad the families are seeking a private prosecution and wish them a successful outcome. It won't ever bring their loved ones back but at least it might just give them the justice they deserve.

Agreed.

I don't fancy the chances of a private prosecution because there is no evidence to lay any kind of criminality with Harry Clarke. The crown will have worked backwards from the incident to establish any criminal liability.

First, the direct cause:-
What was the cause of the crash? A blackout.
What was the cause of the blackout? Drink? Drugs? No.

Then onto the procedural and licensing issues:-
Did he have a licence? Yes.
Is there a history of this happening? Yes. In 2010 was the most recent.
Were DVLA aware? No.
Why not? A doctor told him he didn't to notify.
Was he therefore holding a licence he wouldn't have had if they were aware? No, because he would have been given it back after the fixed period due to a lack of recurrence.
When all said and done then, he was legitimately on the road on the day? Yes!

A word about your second paragraph. I see that nonsense all the time on this forum. It's a forum staple.

"What if it were your mam, dad, sister, dog, cat etc?"

The short answer is, it isn't, and therefore I can be as objective as I like can't i? If it were my loved one dead, I'd probably want to rip his head off, but that would only be the natural grief coming through at having lost somebody wouldn't it?

It doesn't mean I would be more right than the law just because I was directly involved.

The Crown made a decision to not prosecute. I think they were wrong to be so certain. There is certainly doubt. In my opinion, they should have put it before a jury to decide, as there is a case to answer. If the jury had said not guilty because they feel there is no case to answer, then fair enough

Clarke was told on other occasions about taking days off work... I really wonder if he had any illnesses at all or if he was just a fat lazy man who came up with imaginary complaints for his bosses, for someone who wants so badly to have a job , he doesn't seem to have been there very much.. Now hes too (not well )for his disciplinary and not his first one either... I wonder if he ll be sacked or if they ll find him a cushy number tucked away where he cant harm anyone...pity not in Barlinnie.

Given what we know now, I'm inclined to believe he was an ill man regularly tbh.

I didtoo originally but the lies hes told now makes me wonder, if I was Clarke I wouldn't want to live never mind drive an HGV again, but Mr Clarke likes things his way..

What the prosecution were likely certain of, is they did not have a reasonable chance of conviction, one of the requisites of charging. If they had quickly managed to determine that the technical elements did not point to criminality, then a defence would have dismantled the case just as quickly. You can't just go to trial because you feel like letting the jury decide.

^^ Psychopath dressed up in 'objectivity' imo!

I'd say he probably did have genuine ills; he's hardly the picture of health.

Yes there is, it's called lying.

And if he had told the truth, do you think he would have been driving a bin truck?

Hi Bullet,

I really don't think he gave or gives a sh*t,----he's a grief giver.

Yes he would have been, as the prosecution explained:-

all Harry sees is that he might have been killed when the lorry crashed.. poor me.. and always will be.. Harrys Law.

Say again?

OK! ^^^ Psychopath dressed up in 'objectivity' imo.

Psychopathy, also known as—though sometimes distinguished from—sociopathy, is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior

Yeah, I know what it said and I know what it means. Why are you aiming that at me simply for pointing out the facts then?

You've been posting the same arguments on here for weeks and imo they show possible psychopathic/sociopathic tendencies.
The legal profession is full of people lacking empathy.

On what clinical basis could his colleagues make that observation or judgement or give evidence to that effect.

There was no indication he was going to kill six people, how could there be but there was plenty of evidence to suggest he knew he could.

And I'm left to wonder if that doctor should hang his head in shame.

That may absolve Mr. Clarke to a tiny degree but it is hiding behind skirts.

But that would have been as dependant on Mr. Clarke being honest and it is known he has a problem being this.

I would like to believe there would have been had Mr. Clarke had been open and upfront and the proper checks done.

That's for sure is it?

Don't shoot the messenger, guy.

BIB - You asked would he have been driving had he told the truth, that's your answer. Yes, he would have.

But you're not just the messenger Idle,----more the club--man,---so no complaints.

I've no complaints. Things, for now, are as they should be.