Bin lorry crash report: Driver Harry Clarke 'repeatedly lied'

An inquiry into the Glasgow bin lorry crash has found that the tragedy in which six people died could have been avoided if the driver Harry Clarke had not "repeatedly lied" about his history of blackouts.

It concludes that he deliberately misled doctors over his medical history and said that eight “reasonable precautions”, all related to his medical past, could have prevented the tragedy.

Sheriff John Beckett said that he "repeatedly lied in order to gain and retain jobs and licenes" and "deliberately concealed relevant information from the DVLA".



The findings of the fatal accident inquiry, which ran for five weeks, are a damning indictment of Mr Clarke, 58, who was controversially told before the FAI began that he would not be prosecuted.

The inquiry heard that he had a history of dizziness and fainting going back 40 years and found that he misled three doctors about an earlier episode when he blacked out while he was a bus driver in Glasgow in 2010.

He also concealed information about his medical record when he applied to join Glasgow City Council as a mini-bus driver and a year later when he applied for promotion he again hid his past.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12036735/Bin-lorry-crash-report-Driver-Harry-Clarke-repeatedly-lied.html

He should be charged with manslaughter at the very least

I do find it unsatisfactory that he's not been prosecuted. Blacking out in that manner is a very serious thing, and he must have realised what could happen. Why did he keep blacking out anyway? A lot of people might feel a bit faint from time to time and have to sit down or whatever, but it's not normal to completely black out is it?

Well, I think the rules surrounding unemployment and sickness have a lot to do with this.  If he had told about his blackouts he would have lost his job, and obviously that is what should have happened.  But at his age, finding another would have been very difficult and he would not have got disability benefit, because his blackouts were intermittent.

sassy wrote:Well, I think the rules surrounding unemployment and sickness have a lot to do with this.  If he had told about his blackouts he would have lost his job, and obviously that is what should have happened.  But at his age, finding another would have been very difficult and he would not have got disability benefit, because his blackouts were intermittent.

If he'd been having them for 40 years though, he would have been young when they started.

Even in his 50s he could have found a different job, or a desk job with the company if he had declared his health status.

Anyway, what is wrong with him? People generally have some warning if they're going to faint, they don't just lose consciousness then and there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:Well, I think the rules surrounding unemployment and sickness have a lot to do with this.  If he had told about his blackouts he would have lost his job, and obviously that is what should have happened.  But at his age, finding another would have been very difficult and he would not have got disability benefit, because his blackouts were intermittent.

If he'd been having them for 40 years though, he would have been young when they started.

Even in his 50s he could have found a different job, or a desk job with the company if he had declared his health status.

It can't possibly be his own fault Raggs, there's always someone else to blame.........

He should have been doing a different job for years. Had he been honest about his blackouts he might have received treatment and had a variety of different job prospects.  He has no one else to blame but himself.  I don't know how he lives with what he has done, an accident would have been bad enough but this is not an accident, it could have easily been avoided.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, what is wrong with him? People generally have some warning if they're going to faint, they don't just lose consciousness then and there.

Well he does.   ITAs do that.  So do some forms of epilepsy, which is not just having fits.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, what is wrong with him? People generally have some warning if they're going to faint, they don't just lose consciousness then and there.

Well he does.   ITAs do that.  So do some forms of epilepsy, which is not just having fits.

That kind of thing would have been spotted by a doctor, and he would certainly have been banned from driving.

feelthelove wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If he'd been having them for 40 years though, he would have been young when they started.

Even in his 50s he could have found a different job, or a desk job with the company if he had declared his health status.

It can't possibly be his own fault Raggs, there's always someone else to blame.........

He should have been doing a different job for years. Had he been honest about his blackouts he might have received treatment and had a variety of different job prospects.  He has no one else to blame but himself.  I don't know how he lives with what he has done, an accident would have been bad enough but this is not an accident, it could have easily been avoided.

Yes, implying that the disability laws are to blame is a bit silly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

It can't possibly be his own fault Raggs, there's always someone else to blame.........

He should have been doing a different job for years. Had he been honest about his blackouts he might have received treatment and had a variety of different job prospects.  He has no one else to blame but himself.  I don't know how he lives with what he has done, an accident would have been bad enough but this is not an accident, it could have easily been avoided.

Yes, implying that the disability laws are to blame is a bit silly.

I didn't say they were to blame, I said they might have played a part.  People get very scared if they think they might be out of work and you ask any epileptic how hard it is to find a job.  He should have declared it and was very silly not to, nobody is disputing that.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, implying that the disability laws are to blame is a bit silly.

I didn't say they were to blame, I said they might have played a part.  People get very scared if they think they might be out of work and you ask any epileptic how hard it is to find a job.  He should have declared it and was very silly not to, nobody is disputing that.

There's no evidence that he had epilepsy. He might have something weird going on though because, as I said, those who just faint generally have some warning, and it rarely happens when they're sitting down anyway.

Silly? That silliness cost several people their lives.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

I didn't say they were to blame, I said they might have played a part.  People get very scared if they think they might be out of work and you ask any epileptic how hard it is to find a job.  He should have declared it and was very silly not to, nobody is disputing that.

There's no evidence that he had epilepsy. He might have something weird going on though because, as I said, those who just faint generally have some warning, and it rarely happens when they're sitting down anyway.

Silly? That silliness cost several people their lives.

Blimey Rags, you were saying what was wrong with him to black out, I was giving suggestions.  Sheeeeeesh!

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no evidence that he had epilepsy. He might have something weird going on though because, as I said, those who just faint generally have some warning, and it rarely happens when they're sitting down anyway.

Silly? That silliness cost several people their lives.

Blimey Rags, you were saying what was wrong with him to black out, I was giving suggestions.  Sheeeeeesh!

I just found it unusual that someone would faint whilst driving and completely lose consciousness. He had previously told a doctor that he fainted at work in a different job, but that he felt lightheaded beforehand.

Anyway, there's a lot of stuff about this on the internet, but I don't know if his failure to disclose episodes of fainting amounts to a criminal act.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

I didn't say they were to blame, I said they might have played a part.  People get very scared if they think they might be out of work and you ask any epileptic how hard it is to find a job.  He should have declared it and was very silly not to, nobody is disputing that.

There's no evidence that he had epilepsy. He might have something weird going on though because, as I said, those who just faint generally have some warning, and it rarely happens when they're sitting down anyway.

Silly? That silliness cost several people their lives.

Exactly, he deliberately set out to deceive knowing what the risks were and innocent people lost their lives.  He deserves to be held responsible for his actions.

My Dad had one "funny turn" as a child which was deemed to be an epileptic fit.  It was when his Grandfather died who he was really close to.  He never had another episode, ever but has had to renew his licence every few years.  

The rules are in a place for a reason, to protect people.  No excuses, his actions killed people, innocent people

Well my brother used to do it Rags.  Turns out he had a very unusual thing that they only normally find when doing an autopsy, he was really lucky.  He had a myxoma in the atrium of his heart, which is a jelly like tumor, was being pulled through the valve when he breathed in and getting slightly stuck each time.  Normally they grow slowly until they stick completely, then you drop dead and no-one knows why.

sassy wrote:Well my brother used to do it Rags.  Turns out he had a very unusual thing that they only normally find when doing an autopsy, he was really lucky.  He had a myxoma in the atrium of his heart, which is a jelly like tumor, was being pulled through the valve when he breathed in and getting slightly stuck each time.  Normally they grow slowly until they stick completely, then you drop dead and no-one knows why.

Yes but did he deliberately lie for financial reasons and kill innocent people?

feelthelove wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no evidence that he had epilepsy. He might have something weird going on though because, as I said, those who just faint generally have some warning, and it rarely happens when they're sitting down anyway.

Silly? That silliness cost several people their lives.

Exactly, he deliberately set out to deceive knowing what the risks were and innocent people lost their lives.  He deserves to be held responsible for his actions.

My Dad had one "funny turn" as a child which was deemed to be an epileptic fit.  It was when his Grandfather died who he was really close to.  He never had another episode, ever but has had to renew his licence every few years.  

The rules are in a place for a reason, to protect people.  No excuses, his actions killed people, innocent people

I know two people who had epileptic episodes out of the blue, but they didn't describe it as "fainting".

Raggamuffin wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

Exactly, he deliberately set out to deceive knowing what the risks were and innocent people lost their lives.  He deserves to be held responsible for his actions.

My Dad had one "funny turn" as a child which was deemed to be an epileptic fit.  It was when his Grandfather died who he was really close to.  He never had another episode, ever but has had to renew his licence every few years.  

The rules are in a place for a reason, to protect people.  No excuses, his actions killed people, innocent people

I know two people who had epileptic episodes out of the blue, but they didn't describe it as "fainting".

That's the point, epilepsy comes in many forms.  My daughter was epileptic, she used to do funny things, one time she tipped a 4 pint carton of milk over my head, didn't remember anything about it.  Other times she used to pass out without fitting, sometimes she'd have a full fit.  There is no set 'thing' that is epilepsy, it is different for everyone.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I know two people who had epileptic episodes out of the blue, but they didn't describe it as "fainting".

That's the point, epilepsy comes in many forms.  My daughter was epileptic, she used to do funny things, one time she tipped a 4 pint carton of milk over my head, didn't remember anything about it.  Other times she used to pass out without fitting, sometimes she'd have a full fit.  There is no set 'thing' that is epilepsy, it is different for everyone.

Yes but did she deliberately lie for financial reasons and kill innocent people?    No? I didn't think so.

feelthelove wrote:

sassy wrote:

That's the point, epilepsy comes in many forms.  My daughter was epileptic, she used to do funny things, one time she tipped a 4 pint carton of milk over my head, didn't remember anything about it.  Other times she used to pass out without fitting, sometimes she'd have a full fit.  There is no set 'thing' that is epilepsy, it is different for everyone.

Yes but did she deliberately lie for financial reasons and kill innocent people?    No? I didn't think so.

Oh do shut up, I was talking to Rags about reasons for suddenly fainting.

sassy wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

Yes but did she deliberately lie for financial reasons and kill innocent people?    No? I didn't think so.

Oh do shut up, I was talking to Rags about reasons for suddenly fainting.

Grumpy Butt!

Suddenly fainting yes but this guy had a history of blackouts and lied about them to keep his jobs and licences for 40 years, yes 40!!!!  He killed people, innocent people.  

No excuses, if this had been a sudden fainting episode then it would have been an accident.  When it first happened I thought it was a dreadful accident too, I was wrong.

We've already established that, we are trying to think of reasons for suddenly fainting over a number of years.

I think a sudden blackout is very different to a faint, and it's difficult to get info on which of those happened. If he had no recollection of feeling faint at all, I wouldn't describe it as a faint really.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think a sudden blackout is very different to a faint, and it's difficult to get info on which of those happened. If he had no recollection of feeling faint at all, I wouldn't describe it as a faint really.

Call it fainting, call it blackout, there are many causes and given that it had gone on for so many years and doctors knew about it, they should have found out why it was happening.

sassy wrote:We've already established that, we are trying to think of reasons for suddenly fainting over a number of years.

I would imagine it can't be anything serious or he'd have kicked the bucket by now. Begs the question could it have been easily treated?? Do the reasons really matter???

Unfortunately his refusal to face facts and decision to lie to Doctors hasn't helped him or those people he killed. He killed 5 people and injured 15 people innocently Christmas shopping.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think a sudden blackout is very different to a faint, and it's difficult to get info on which of those happened. If he had no recollection of feeling faint at all, I wouldn't describe it as a faint really.

Call it fainting, call it blackout, there are many causes and given that it had gone on for so many years and doctors knew about it, they should have found out why it was happening.

I've only read about one incident which he told two doctors about, but with slightly different stories - one, that he had no warning, and the other that he felt lightheaded beforehand. That's not unusual - lots of people feel faint if they get hot, or if they have low blood pressure, or whatever. It's completely different to suddenly blacking out for no apparent reason.

In April 2010 - shortly before he joined the council - Mr Clarke fainted on a stationary bus while working as a driver for First Bus.

The FAI has heard claims that Mr Clarke was "on his last legs" at the bus firm following repeated sick days prior to his blackout.

Paramedics examined him on the bus and he refused to accompany them to hospital, instead returning to the depot where he informed his managers about the blackout.

He visited Baillieston Health Centre and told his GP, Dr Gerard McKaig, that he fainted "at work, in canteen, hot environment, no warning signs".

Later, he visited a second GP, Dr John Langan, and repeated his claim that he fainted in the work canteen but then told him he had felt light-headed beforehand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33802543

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think a sudden blackout is very different to a faint, and it's difficult to get info on which of those happened. If he had no recollection of feeling faint at all, I wouldn't describe it as a faint really.

Call it fainting, call it blackout, there are many causes and given that it had gone on for so many years and doctors knew about it, they should have found out why it was happening.

Perhaps he would have received the help he needed if he hadn't deliberately set out to deceive the medical professionals who could help him and protect others

sassy wrote:Well, I think the rules surrounding unemployment and sickness have a lot to do with this.  If he had told about his blackouts he would have lost his job, and obviously that is what should have happened.  But at his age, finding another would have been very difficult and he would not have got disability benefit, because his blackouts were intermittent.

I understand ALL blackouts are intermittent.

Anyway, it must have been very sudden, otherwise he would have felt a bit odd and immediately slowed down or stopped with no harm done.

This case should be heard by a court after he has been accused of manslaughter.
He knew very well WHY he lied and so do we all.

Mind you, how many of us have not lied to gain advantage on something very important to themselves????????????

Stormee wrote:This case should be heard by a court after he has been accused of manslaughter.
He knew very well WHY he lied and so do we all.

Mind you, how many of us have not lied to gain advantage on something very important to themselves????????????

Perhaps Stormee but would you lie if the consequences of your lie could result in the death of others?  This is not a little white lie, this is a full blown porker 

feelthelove wrote:

Stormee wrote:This case should be heard by a court after he has been accused of manslaughter.
He knew very well WHY he lied and so do we all.

Mind you, how many of us have not lied to gain advantage on something very important to themselves????????????

Perhaps Stormee but would you lie if the consequences of your lie could result in the death of others?  This is not a little white lie, this is a full blown porker 

This is not about 'if I would lie',FTL.

People lie to get benefits, driving licenses, housing, get into the armed forces at one time. and other stuff, they do not even think of consequences, it duz not enter their minds by and large.

This is a full blown porker and he should be put before our courts IMHO.

Stormee wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

Perhaps Stormee but would you lie if the consequences of your lie could result in the death of others?  This is not a little white lie, this is a full blown porker 

This is not about 'if I would lie',FTL.

People lie to get benefits, driving licenses, housing, get into the armed forces at one time. and other stuff, they do not even think of consequences, it duz not enter their minds by and large.

This is a full blown porker and he should be put before our courts IMHO.

Absolutely agree Stormee, his victims deserve justice in the courts. I don't see this as different from any other criminal act

sassy wrote:Well, I think the rules surrounding unemployment and sickness have a lot to do with this.  If he had told about his blackouts he would have lost his job, and obviously that is what should have happened.  But at his age, finding another would have been very difficult and he would not have got disability benefit, because his blackouts were intermittent.

Whilst I see your point and understand his fears, he was in a job whereby his type of "disability" could kill someone: and it did!
Six people.

If he'd been honest, he'd have got help finding another job.

His lies caused six tragedies.
He should and must, be punished.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:Well, I think the rules surrounding unemployment and sickness have a lot to do with this.  If he had told about his blackouts he would have lost his job, and obviously that is what should have happened.  But at his age, finding another would have been very difficult and he would not have got disability benefit, because his blackouts were intermittent.

Whilst I see your point and understand his fears, he was in a job whereby his type of "disability" could kill someone: and it did!
Six people.

If he'd been honest, he'd have got help finding another job.

His lies caused six tragedies.
He should and must, be punished.

Absolutely agree, he should, but I also think we should do something about rules that probably made HIM think he shouldn't, as there must be lots of people out there who are sick but daren't report it.  Who knows how many other people could be teetering on the brink of an accident like this.

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:

Whilst I see your point and understand his fears, he was in a job whereby his type of "disability" could kill someone: and it did!
Six people.

If he'd been honest, he'd have got help finding another job.

His lies caused six tragedies.
He should and must, be punished.

Absolutely agree, he should, but I also think we should do something about rules that probably made HIM think he shouldn't, as there must be lots of people out there who are sick but daren't report it.  Who knows how many other people could be teetering on the brink of an accident like this.

If we can't trust people to declare ailments which would make them dangerous, there needs to be a penalty for not doing so. His problem wouldn't have mattered in a lot of jobs, but in one where he's driving a massive bin lorry it did matter, and he should have known that.

When a driver becomes 70, to retain their driving licence they have to self certify and say they can read a number plate at 45 feet or summut.
If I remember right they have to tick some boxes to say they do not have certain ailments.

I have filled in this form but forgot it really.

How many people have lied on it??????????????????

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:

Whilst I see your point and understand his fears, he was in a job whereby his type of "disability" could kill someone: and it did!
Six people.

If he'd been honest, he'd have got help finding another job.

His lies caused six tragedies.
He should and must, be punished.

Absolutely agree, he should, but I also think we should do something about rules that probably made HIM think he shouldn't, as there must be lots of people out there who are sick but daren't report it.  Who knows how many other people could be teetering on the brink of an accident like this.

the system as it is has been on place for many years and has worked ok....

we now have a case where someone has actually dared to l;ie about things and screw up the system

NOW there are LAWS to deal with that...perfectly adequate laws

what should happen of course is that this guy should be hung out to dry as a warning and example of what WILL happen if you do this...

he SHOULD get 20 years to life for negligent manslaughter....

we DO NOT need either new laws OR millions spending on new systems, a change in the system OR the inevitable 10,000 "public servants" that would inevitavbly be needed to implement this....

thats MY cash thank you ....I dont want it spending on pointless job creation schemes...and even more pointless regualtion...

see heres one problem of the left...they think vast overbearing regulation is the way, throwing money at a problem THEY find (rather than the real issue)

so things end up with oversized public bodies and things regulated out of existance

Lord Foul wrote:

sassy wrote:

Absolutely agree, he should, but I also think we should do something about rules that probably made HIM think he shouldn't, as there must be lots of people out there who are sick but daren't report it.  Who knows how many other people could be teetering on the brink of an accident like this.

the system as it is has been on place for many years and has worked ok....

we now have a case where someone has actually dared to l;ie about  things and screw up the system

NOW there are LAWS to deal with that...perfectly adequate laws

what should happen of course is that this guy should be hung out to dry as a warning and example of what WILL happen if you do this...

he SHOULD get 20 years to life for negligent manslaughter....

we DO NOT need either new laws OR millions spending on new systems, a change in the system OR the inevitable 10,000 "public servants" that would inevitavbly be needed to implement this....

thats MY cash thank you ....I dont want it spending on pointless job creation schemes...and even more pointless regualtion...

see heres one problem of the left...they think vast overbearing regulation is the way, throwing money at a problem THEY find (rather than the real issue)

so things end up with oversized public bodies and things regulated out of existance

What on earth are you talking about.  What new regulations?  If the ones we have were applied correctly and people weren't penalised for telling the truth, as they are under the rules at the moment, there wouldn't be a problem.  Yes, what he did was criminal, but, if there are other people out there doing the same thing, and there probably are, one of the reasons they are doing it is because they know that the disability scheme at the moment does not take anything into account that is not permanent.  It includes things like MS, that can change from day to day.  Good grief Victor, heard you going on about it enough before now.

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

the system as it is has been on place for many years and has worked ok....

we now have a case where someone has actually dared to l;ie about  things and screw up the system

NOW there are LAWS to deal with that...perfectly adequate laws

what should happen of course is that this guy should be hung out to dry as a warning and example of what WILL happen if you do this...

he SHOULD get 20 years to life for negligent manslaughter....

we DO NOT need either new laws OR millions spending on new systems, a change in the system OR the inevitable 10,000 "public servants" that would inevitavbly be needed to implement this....

thats MY cash thank you ....I dont want it spending on pointless job creation schemes...and even more pointless regualtion...

see heres one problem of the left...they think vast overbearing regulation is the way, throwing money at a problem THEY find (rather than the real issue)

so things end up with oversized public bodies and things regulated out of existance

What on earth are you talking about.  What new regulations?  If the ones we have were applied correctly and people weren't penalised for telling the truth, as they are under the rules at the moment, there wouldn't be a problem.  Yes, what he did was criminal, but, if there are other people out there doing the same thing, and there probably are, one of the reasons they are doing it is because they know that the disability scheme at the moment does not take anything into account that is not permanent.  It includes things like MS, that can change from day to day.  Good grief Victor, heard you going on about it enough before now.

Penalised for telling the truth? You mean they don't get a job driving a massive bin lorry because they have tendency to blackout at the drop of a hat? That's not penalising them, it's ensuring they don't kill anyone, including themselves.

The man could have got a different job, but he didn't bother.

Are you really suggesting that someone should get disability benefits for something that would only affect them in a particular job?

thats rubbish....IF he has a medical condition that affects his work then BY LAW his employer is obliged to find him suitable alternative work... a desk job for instance or yard work, whatever....

only if they can PROVE there is no "suitable work" can they let him go....and then they have to do so under redundancy terms....

of course in HIS case he lied, so they could probably have claimed his fraudulent activity amounts to "gaining employment by falsehood" and thus rightly merely sack him.....

Lord Foul wrote:thats rubbish....IF he has a medical condition that affects his work then BY LAW his employer is obliged to find him suitable alternative work... a desk job for instance or yard work, whatever....

only if they can PROVE there is no "suitable work" can they let him go....and then they have to do so under redundancy terms....

of course in HIS case he lied, so they could probably have  claimed his fraudulent activity amounts to "gaining employment by falsehood" and thus rightly merely sack him.....

Oh yea, and of course that's what they do - not!

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

What on earth are you talking about.  What new regulations?  If the ones we have were applied correctly and people weren't penalised for telling the truth, as they are under the rules at the moment, there wouldn't be a problem.  Yes, what he did was criminal, but, if there are other people out there doing the same thing, and there probably are, one of the reasons they are doing it is because they know that the disability scheme at the moment does not take anything into account that is not permanent.  It includes things like MS, that can change from day to day.  Good grief Victor, heard you going on about it enough before now.

Penalised for telling the truth? You mean they don't get a job driving a massive bin lorry because they have tendency to blackout at the drop of a hat? That's not penalising them, it's ensuring they don't kill anyone, including themselves.

The man could have got a different job, but he didn't bother.

Are you really suggesting that someone should get disability benefits for something that would only affect them in a particular job?

and herein lies ONE great value of the £155 citizens payment

In fact, I don't think employers can ask about your health an an interview can they? They can ask about it later of course, and you should be truthful. You won't necessarily be sacked, but they can make allowances for you if your condition warrants it.

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:thats rubbish....IF he has a medical condition that affects his work then BY LAW his employer is obliged to find him suitable alternative work... a desk job for instance or yard work, whatever....

only if they can PROVE there is no "suitable work" can they let him go....and then they have to do so under redundancy terms....

of course in HIS case he lied, so they could probably have  claimed his fraudulent activity amounts to "gaining employment by falsehood" and thus rightly merely sack him.....

Oh yea, and of course that's what they do - not!

hmmm.....MY experience is somewhat different....

AND the DWP WILL enforce this if asked....they are quite keen on this idea for some reason.....

Raggamuffin wrote:In fact, I don't think employers can ask about your health an an interview can they? They can ask about it later of course, and you should be truthful. You won't necessarily be sacked, but they can make allowances for you if your condition warrants it.

YES...if your health is relevant to the job I think they can.. but only in the form of requiring you to declare that you see no reson why you shouldnt be able to properly carry out your duties....

AND in any case you have already declared yourself fit...if you hold that licence.....

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:In fact, I don't think employers can ask about your health an an interview can they? They can ask about it later of course, and you should be truthful. You won't necessarily be sacked, but they can make allowances for you if your condition warrants it.

YES...if your health is relevant to the job I think they can.. but only in the form of requiring you to declare that you see no reson why you shouldnt be able to properly carry out your duties....

AND in any case you have already declared yourself fit...if you hold that licence.....

Well then they must have asked him if he ever had problems like that, and he must have lied.