aaid Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) I had family shopping in Glasgow that day, and they missed being in its path by five minutes. Took me ages to get a hold of them after it. Missed being in an accident caused by a guy who had no right to be driving given his medical history. If it had been a ned in a stolen car I'd imagine all these "it's no his fault" apologists wouldn't have the same response. Just another extension of the accepting no personal responsibility society we sadly live in. He lied to command control of a vehicle that you have to take extra tests to drive given its size and ability to cause damage. His pride killed those poor people out shopping, and will cast a cloud over all of their families Christmases to come. That " he will have to live with it for the rest of his life" not you deciding what the punishment should be, albeit a lenient one?he should be at least in front of a judge, someone trained in sentencing, to decide that. Lack of facts, wild assumptions wrapped up in over-emotive imagery. You're wasted on here, a career as a tabloid journalist beckons. If it had been a ned in a stolen car then I'm sure there would be easier to prove that as he was in the process of committing a crime - i.e. stealing a car - that there was some form of explicit negligence there and so easier to prove culpable homocide than someone who was doing their job. The key thing as regards his fitness or other to drive seems to be his general medical record but most importantly the blackout he had in 2010. He was examined by an expert *after* the crash who gave evidence to the FAI that he should not have been driving given his history. However the key thing is that was in 2015, not 2010 and it doesn't tell us anythying about what Harry Clarke thought about his condition in 2010. The GP who examined him in 2010 passed him fit to drive. However, it seems there are disputing accounts of that 2010 incident. He told the doctor it happened in the works canteen. There are other reports that he blacked out in the cab of the bus while it was stationary. The 2010 GP said that had he known it had been in a vehicle rather than the canteen he would have given different advice. That may be true but I'm sure in a trial, a defence lawyer would have no problems in making that look to the jury as if the GP was covering himself for a wrong diagnosis. However, that probably wouldn't ever have been led as evidence in the first place as the source for the blackout in the bus was a passenger who told an inspector, so that would be third hand, uncorroborated hearsay and so not admissible as evidence. Bear in mind that even though this FAI has turned into the trial of Harry Clarke, it is not a trial and the rules around evidence are very different. The key thing surely in any criminal case would not be whether or Harry Clarke's medical history meant that he shouldn't be driving, it would be whether Harry Clarke could be expected - beyond reasonable doubt - to believe that his medical condition meant that he shouldn't be driving as he posed a danger. I'm not sure the evidence shows that and that's probably why the Crown Office stated that he wouldn't be prosecuted. Of course we'll never know Harry Clarke's version of events, the actions of the the families have meant he will never give evidence, either to the FAI or in court. Alternatively we could just burn the witch. Edited August 24, 2015 by aaid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Seems like it's turned into a bit of a media witch hunt against the driver. I'm sure his intention by not commenting or apologising is to avoid incriminating himself as opposed to disrespect the victims as it appears to be getting portrayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Seems like it's turned into a bit of a media witch hunt against the driver. I'm sure his intention by not commenting or apologising is to avoid incriminating himself as opposed to disrespect the victims as it appears to be getting portrayed. You know what is going to happen as well. Once any potential private prosecution bites the dust, he'll do a kiss and tell with either the Sun or the Record. Tabloids really are hypocritical scum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Seems like it's turned into a bit of a media witch hunt against the driver. I'm sure his intention by not commenting or apologising is to avoid incriminating himself as opposed to disrespect the victims as it appears to be getting portrayed. Typical of the Record. It loves a good witch hunt, especially against folk who are basically just ordinary members of the public who have, or are perceived to have, done something wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 I had family shopping in Glasgow that day, and they missed being in its path by five minutes. Took me ages to get a hold of them after it. Missed being in an accident caused by a guy who had no right to be driving given his medical history. If it had been a ned in a stolen car I'd imagine all these "it's no his fault" apologists wouldn't have the same response. Just another extension of the accepting no personal responsibility society we sadly live in. He lied to command control of a vehicle that you have to take extra tests to drive given its size and ability to cause damage. His pride killed those poor people out shopping, and will cast a cloud over all of their families Christmases to come. That " he will have to live with it for the rest of his life" not you deciding what the punishment should be, albeit a lenient one?he should be at least in front of a judge, someone trained in sentencing, to decide that. What do you want them to charge him with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louch Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 He should be charged with lying about his medicl status to unlawfully secure a licence for a start. Then culpapble homicide for commanding a vehicle he legally shouldn't have ben on charge of, that led to the death of 6 innocent people. that he's been given the clean sweep of being let off on all sides stinks of a cover up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louch Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Typical of the Record. It loves a good witch hunt, especially against folk who are basically just ordinary members of the public who have, or are perceived to have, done something wrong. Killing six people after lying your way into a job is only perceived to be something wrong to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 He should be charged with lying about his medicl status to unlawfully secure a licence for a start. Then culpapble homicide for commanding a vehicle he legally shouldn't have ben on charge of, that led to the death of 6 innocent people. that he's been given the clean sweep of being let off on all sides stinks of a cover up. Whilst Harry Clarke did not divulge his medical history to his employer's medical advisors you have to ask why in any tests he undertook they did not find anything wrong and passed him fit. You then have to ask what tests they actually did. Also his blackout whilst driving a bus was not the reason he left his employment with First Bus. He left before facing a disciplinary for repeatedly arriving at bus stops early. After his blackout driving the bus why did their medical advisors not test him and recommend his contract was terminated for health reasons making him unfit to drive ? Assuming the council required references from previous employers this would have made it unlikely for him to get the job as a driver with the council. You then have to question whether Harry Clarke's Doctor informed him to tell the DVLA about his medical condition as he was not required to unless that was the case. So as you are demanding that he is charged and that its a cover up i assume you know the answers to all these questions ? Or maybe its possible the Crown did which is why they did not want to press charges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 He should be charged with lying about his medicl status to unlawfully secure a licence for a start. Then culpapble homicide for commanding a vehicle he legally shouldn't have ben on charge of, that led to the death of 6 innocent people. that he's been given the clean sweep of being let off on all sides stinks of a cover up. But he was thick as and had to lie so he could get a good job. Tough titty. Life's not fair Harry. Just as the families of those 6 folk you killed have found out. I had sympathy at the time but little since I found out he'd previous for taking ill at the wheel and had lied. My mate has mild epilepsy and can't drive. Clarke shouldn't have been been behind the wheel and had he not fraudulently filled in the application, then he'd be nowhere near the wheel that day. His dishonesty has cost 6 people their lives. Same way a dangerous driver does,a drink driver does etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Killing six people after lying your way into a job is only perceived to be something wrong to you? No. Read my earlier post in the thread, I make my feelings on that specific matter, ie Harry Clarke, clear there. Regarding the Record, I was speaking generally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louch Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 But he was thick as and had to lie so he could get a good job. Tough titty. Life's not fair Harry. Just as the families of those 6 folk you killed have found out. I had sympathy at the time but little since I found out he'd previous for taking ill at the wheel and had lied. My mate has mild epilepsy and can't drive. Clarke shouldn't have been been behind the wheel and had he not fraudulently filled in the application, then he'd be nowhere near the wheel that day. His dishonesty has cost 6 people their lives. Same way a dangerous driver does,a drink driver does etc. At the time, thought what a Shame for him. Not now the details are out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Was proven right about this guy. Out driving again despite being banned and despite what happened last time he did. Selfish . http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34438129 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheres the pies Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Was proven right about this guy. Out driving again despite being banned and despite what happened last time he did. Selfish . http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34438129 hope they hammer this now fat lying useless ####er Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Total scumbag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstroma Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Hard for anyone to defend him now. Unbelievable he would even consider driving again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robroysboy Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Hard for anyone to defend him now. Unbelievable he would even consider driving again! Shocking behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Was he running messages for Michelle Thomson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_burger Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I was a bit torn over this one, but if this turns out to be true then I have to say I have no sympathy for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonzo Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I was a bit torn over this one, but if this turns out to be true then I have to say I have no sympathy for him.ditto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Indefensible if true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Gas Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 He probably applied for the train conductor job that Scotrail is advertising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartanJon Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Any sympathy I had for the way he was hung out to dry us now gone.What a kent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Any sympathy I had for the way he was hung out to dry us now gone.What a kent! I agree, provided it's true.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartanJon Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I agree, provided it's true.... It's on every news channel so I think it's true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 It's on every news channel so I think it's true I had only read the early version of the story. What constitutes "claims" he drove? Somebody saying they saw him drive? Presuming he is guilty, what a tool! Not only does it show a complete lack of respect for the victims, but did he not think anyone would notice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.