Scary Bear Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 The court found there was no reason for Clarke to believe his previous passing out would he repeated and even if he had declared it to the DVLA or GCC he would have been back driving by then anyway. It does seem to give a green light to people, like Clarke, who may be lying, or at least not fully disclosing, medical conditions which could affect their ability to drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Dufresne Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Scary Bear said: It does seem to give a green light to people, like Clarke, who may be lying, or at least not fully disclosing, medical conditions which could affect their ability to drive. I collapsed 2 months ago and have had my licence revoked for up to 6 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 I collapsed 2 months ago and have had my licence revoked for up to 6 months. While that's probably an absolute nightmare for you, at least you won't get into the bother Harry caused. How did your licence get revoked? Was that after going to the hospital?Hope you're on the mend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Quote : "The inquiry found that Mr Clarke, 59, who had a history of blackouts and poor health, had "repeatedly lied in order to gain and retain jobs and licences". 'Lambs to the slaughter' This included not fully disclosing the details of a blackout he suffered at the wheel of a stationary bus in April 2010 to his own doctors and in employment applications and medical assessments for later jobs at Glasgow City Council. It found eight reasonable precautions that could have prevented the crash. All were related to his hidden medical past" How on earth can the Crown office say there was insufficient evidence in this case to raise criminal proceedings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Dufresne Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scary Bear said: While that's probably an absolute nightmare for you, at least you won't get into the bother Harry caused. How did your licence get revoked? Was that after going to the hospital? Hope you're on the mend. Because they don't know what caused the collapse i am off the road until they find out why and it can be controlled or 6 months clear with no collapse. It was due to going to the doctors the DVLA revoked it.I went back to work in the warehouse then out as a drivers helper but when i got it revoked i went to the boss and tood him he just told me to look for alternative employment.Wee trip to HR and off on the sick with stress has followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 1 minute ago, keithgy said: Because they don't know what caused the collapse i am off the road until they find out why and it can be controlled or 6 months clear with no collapse. It was due to going to the doctors the DVLA revoked it.I went back to work in the warehouse then out as a drivers helper but when i got it revoked i went to the boss and tood him he just told me to look for alternative employment.Wee trip to HR and off on the sick with stress has followed. On the plus side at least you'll be able to enjoy Christmas. Must be a nightmare delivering leading up to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightswoodBear Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, keithgy said: Because they don't know what caused the collapse i am off the road until they find out why and it can be controlled or 6 months clear with no collapse. It was due to going to the doctors the DVLA revoked it.I went back to work in the warehouse then out as a drivers helper but when i got it revoked i went to the boss and tood him he just told me to look for alternative employment.Wee trip to HR and off on the sick with stress has followed. Fucking hell, what an arsehole. Hopefully HR are kicking him up and down the stairs somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Hope you are feeling better soon Keith. The brass neck of Clarke is such he's probably put an application to replace Nico Rosberg at Mercedes following this news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 6 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said: Quote : "The inquiry found that Mr Clarke, 59, who had a history of blackouts and poor health, had "repeatedly lied in order to gain and retain jobs and licences". 'Lambs to the slaughter' This included not fully disclosing the details of a blackout he suffered at the wheel of a stationary bus in April 2010 to his own doctors and in employment applications and medical assessments for later jobs at Glasgow City Council. It found eight reasonable precautions that could have prevented the crash. All were related to his hidden medical past" How on earth can the Crown office say there was insufficient evidence in this case to raise criminal proceedings? Was it not something to do with, being unconscious, lack of criminal responsibility in the actual event? And, other than that, the best they could hope to prove was that he was a liar, which isn't in doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Dufresne Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, KnightswoodBear said: Fucking hell, what an arsehole. Hopefully HR are kicking him up and down the stairs somewhere. HR woman just shook her head and told me not worry,told me to go home as i was upset but I would not have given him the satisfaction so went out on the road with a driver. Went to the doctors yesterday and she told me to stay off till i go to the cardiologist on the 19th and then come ano see her on the 23rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 I collapsed 2 months ago and have had my licence revoked for up to 6 months. You did ban Grimbo. So your status is still a w**k. Ups and downs of white van driver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, Boghead ranter said: Was it not something to do with, being unconscious, lack of criminal responsibility in the actual event? And, other than that, the best they could hope to prove was that he was a liar, which isn't in doubt. I believe that was said at the time. Will the council's insurers be coughing up for all of this given all the lies he told he told to keep his licence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightswoodBear Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 8 minutes ago, keithgy said: HR woman just shook her head and told me not worry,told me to go home as i was upset but I would not have given him the satisfaction so went out on the road with a driver. Went to the doctors yesterday and she told me to stay off till i go to the cardiologist on the 19th and then come ano see her on the 23rd. Listen to the docs and take it easy for a couple of weeks. No point in ignoring them and potentially exacerbating the issue. Go play with the grandbairn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 32 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said: Quote : "The inquiry found that Mr Clarke, 59, who had a history of blackouts and poor health, had "repeatedly lied in order to gain and retain jobs and licences". 'Lambs to the slaughter' This included not fully disclosing the details of a blackout he suffered at the wheel of a stationary bus in April 2010 to his own doctors and in employment applications and medical assessments for later jobs at Glasgow City Council. It found eight reasonable precautions that could have prevented the crash. All were related to his hidden medical past" How on earth can the Crown office say there was insufficient evidence in this case to raise criminal proceedings? http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1698/Bills-for-Criminal-Letters Because there was nothing in Clarke's medical history that would leave him to believe that there was a constant danger he would black out on the job. If you fainted sometime 5 years ago there are a thousand reasons why that could happen and does not mean you are at constant risk of blacking out at any point for the rest of your life. Had Clarke fully disclosed what had happened at the time of his blacking out the first time he would have had his licence back by the time of the crash. The court found he was a habitual liar but that those lies did not amount to criminal conduct or that he could have expected or forseen what happened. "We do not consider that the state of knowledge of either respondent can reasonably be elevated to the degree necessary to be capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that on the day in question they drove in the face of an obvious and material danger. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 44 minutes ago, keithgy said: Because they don't know what caused the collapse i am off the road until they find out why and it can be controlled or 6 months clear with no collapse. It was due to going to the doctors the DVLA revoked it.I went back to work in the warehouse then out as a drivers helper but when i got it revoked i went to the boss and tood him he just told me to look for alternative employment.Wee trip to HR and off on the sick with stress has followed. rip it out of the sick leave then a wee constructive dismissal settlement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 55 minutes ago, ICTChris said: Hope you are feeling better soon Keith. The brass neck of Clarke is such he's probably put an application to replace Nico Rosberg at Mercedes following this news. I don't think he'd be able to fit in the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 30 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1698/Bills-for-Criminal-Letters Because there was nothing in Clarke's medical history that would leave him to believe that there was a constant danger he would black out on the job. If you fainted sometime 5 years ago there are a thousand reasons why that could happen and does not mean you are at constant risk of blacking out at any point for the rest of your life. Had Clarke fully disclosed what had happened at the time of his blacking out the first time he would have had his licence back by the time of the crash. The court found he was a habitual liar but that those lies did not amount to criminal conduct or that he could have expected or forseen what happened. "We do not consider that the state of knowledge of either respondent can reasonably be elevated to the degree necessary to be capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that on the day in question they drove in the face of an obvious and material danger. " I'm a terrible cynic but considering his history of repeatedly lying can we even trust him to have told the truth about how many black outs he's had? He could have had several at home and no one would ever find out about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, Tommy Nooka said: I'm a terrible cynic but considering his history of repeatedly lying can we even trust him to have told the truth about how many black outs he's had? He could have had several at home and no one would ever find out about it. the court also found that his relationship with medical professionals was one of less than full disclosure so you are probably not far off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 4 hours ago, invergowrie arab said: http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1698/Bills-for-Criminal-Letters Because there was nothing in Clarke's medical history that would leave him to believe that there was a constant danger he would black out on the job. If you fainted sometime 5 years ago there are a thousand reasons why that could happen and does not mean you are at constant risk of blacking out at any point for the rest of your life. Had Clarke fully disclosed what had happened at the time of his blacking out the first time he would have had his licence back by the time of the crash. The court found he was a habitual liar but that those lies did not amount to criminal conduct or that he could have expected or forseen what happened. "We do not consider that the state of knowledge of either respondent can reasonably be elevated to the degree necessary to be capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that on the day in question they drove in the face of an obvious and material danger. " As no one is disputing the fact that he was a habitual liar I'd still be interested to know how the surviving family members stood or stand regards compensation for their awful losses. Would it be fair to say that given the lies he told, Harry Clarke was effectively driving without insurance? Are Glasgow City Council footing the bill for the following? Medical and hospital expenses prior to the death Funeral expenses Cremation expenses Loss of financial support that the deceased would have provided to their children or other relatives before their death Loss of services, such as the care the deceased would have provided to dependant children Loss of earnings prior to the death Nervous shock – psychological conditions such as severe stress or anxiety resulting from the news of the death, or witnessing the accident" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 I'm not sure he did tell any lies that would invalidate insurance. He wasn't banned from driving and had been given no medical diagnosis that he would have to declare. No idea what GCCs liabilities are but,if any, I would imagine that would be picked up by their public liability insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.