Train Guard Jailed

Hasbeen

No

real1314 wrote: »

"position yourself on the platform so that you can see the whole length of the train.

From this position, you must carry out the train safety check.
If it is safe for the train to start, you must:"

Hasbeen - you seem to be suggesting that there is no requirement to look out of the window - that would appear to be correct based on what you have quoted, simply because he should have been out of the train to do the safety check (based on what you have posted) and therefore looking out of the window is a less safe approach.

From what I have read, she was at no point truly clear of the train, but the guard gave the signal without any regard to this.

Her death was entirely preventable; being drunk/drugged does not diminish this - it could have been an elderly person having a dizzy spell, someone with physical disabilities or just anyone having a moment of distraction.

The guard might be suffering, but he brought it on himself. :cool:

Yes you are perfectly correct, as per my reading of the rules document! He should in my opinion be on the platform prior to closing relevant passenger doors, then close his door last.
But did he do this? only the cctv can say and I am not sure if this has been shown to anyone else? Although judge / jury appear to be convinced as per the trial verdict/remarks etc, so probably not?

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-holroyde-r-v-mcgee.pdf

Jeff Bridges Hair states that doors can be operated from his cab, then if he did do it this way or by instructions from his company then why have a rule book stating procedures?

Then again as Jeff has stated re unit types perhaps they do not have door controls at doors?

Wail

There is an RAIB report to be released soon for those who are interested.

tripled

Yes, although not such a harsh one!

Altarf wrote: »

Rail company knows that kids trespass, and does nothing to stop them, whilst leaving a 250,000 volt power cable accessible.

Doesn't seem too unfair to me.

People trespass on railways across the country daily. On that basis presumably they should stop running electric trains (especially those with a third rail which can be accessed easily by just walking up the track at a level crossing), and trains should have someone walking in front of them waving a red flag. As should any motor vehicle for that matter.

Daedalus

Altarf wrote: »

The fact that he read a pre-prepared statement at each interview with the police and answered “no comment” to further questions, tells me all I need to know.

Nonsense, any solicitor worth his salt will instruct their clients to not say anything when being interviewed, they would even discourage a prepared statement.


Sound conviction. As for the sentence, I would have to disagree as I think only those who are a threat to society should be put in prison and the rest should face other punishments. I don't believe he is a threat to society and just did a foolish act.

Contains_Mild_Peril

No

I agree: a sentence like that is not in the public interest. Since he would have lost his job in any case, it's not like there's a risk of him doing it again, and the case was already a safety lesson for others even without the lengthy jail sentence.
Quite apart from humanitarian considerations, keeping people locked up is a huge drain on taxpayers' money, and its effect on things like ex-cons' future employment prospects makes it even more expensive. Of course there are very good reasons why some criminals should be behind bars for a long time, but this train guard is not a continuing threat to the public.

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote:

He was charged with manslaughter which brings that sort of sentence.

Not always. Manslaughter sentences vary widely depending on the circumstances, as they should. A previously law-abiding citizen whose actions cause a tragic accident should not be treated the same as a violent criminal who intends to injure someone just not to kill them.

Hasbeen

No

Took Jeff Bridges Hair advice and had a quick look at railway crews opinions on forums, and found out that the guards company to safeguard their staff had added local ammendment to rule book?
re these as im told local staff call them scroat runs? where the train is full of druggies, intoxicated, violent people???

So below probably explains why he operated door controls from cab and not in vestibule with passengers?

Sorry for my previous posts where I stated that he should have been on platform or at vestibule door!!

Quote's From staff rail forum below.

1) Not permitted to leave cab after Birkenhead North (Local Instructions) due to Underground section & emergency evacuation route via nose end
2) Birkenhead area at 11pm at night is known for gun/knife crime, so staff instructed to remain at rear if they feel unsafe. RPIs must be accompanied by BTP/Security Staff at night on this line.
3) She was never leaning against the train. She was "in contact" with the train, by knocking on the windows and being close. If she was "fit" she would have moved away from the train as the train started to move, like everyone else.
4) Merseyrail only allows a 30 second dwell time at every station bar Sandhills, with 1 minute scheduled for crew change. Literally split second judgement calls or you are writing a delay attribution report and being questioned by a GSM.
5) How do you know he was lying and simply hadn't intpreted the situation incorrectly? What frame of mind do you think he was in an hour after the incident when he wrote his initial reports?

Also they are a bit upset about the mothers comments. Blaming the guard, for all, not her friends who were with or even taking any resposibility for her daughters upbringing?

Given that Georgia was three times over the legal drink-driving limit and had 0.083mg of the drug mephedrone, or Mcat, in her system at the time of her death,

" Paula Redmond, 41, described her daughter as "wonderful" and said:

We have listened as our daughter has been portrayed as a drunken liability when all she did was no more than what many teenagers do at the weekend - she went out to celebrate a friend’s birthday.
“The only liability that night was the train guard whom she had the catastrophic misfortune to encounter.

Does that explain the parents standards / upbringing of Georgia and why they feel the guard did not do better?

Also from same site below

One of the "victims" friends, (again around 16/17)m on Facebook has posted:

Will be having a drink for you this weekend xx

Do they ever learn?

Also, this picture says a lot. (It is the deceased 16 year old girl)



All above taken from a certain rail staff chat site.

Their opinion appears to be that the guard made a judgement call expecting the girl to move back / away when the train started to move, Unfortunately for him she was either that intoxicated/drugged or stumbled on her 4" high heels she did not. Perhaps both?
Unfortunately she then fell under train.

I really sympathise with her parents on their loss and can understand their anger and frustration on wanting to blame someone!

I can also sympathise with the guard and his family, their lifes have also been destroyed and he will have to live with his decision for the rest of his life.

Will wait also on publication of actual report.

Hasbeen

No

Have also looked at their local papers and surprisingly 99% comments think this was also a wrong decision and have started an e petition to get sentence altered.
Will not post link here as I think the governments e petitions or similar are these days worthless.
But google if you want to.

geordie_taxi

Hasbeen wrote: »

Does that explain the parents standards / upbringing of Georgia

Hasbeen wrote: »

One of the "victims" friends, (again around 16/17)m on Facebook has posted:

Will be having a drink for you this weekend xx

Do they ever learn?

Hasbeen wrote: »

Also, this picture says a lot. (It is the deceased 16 year old girl)

Hasbeen wrote: »

stumbled on her 4" high heels

What you have chosen to post is nothing short of disgraceful. Try telling that to the parents who have lost their daughter. There is only one person to blame for all of this and that is the guard.

Teenagers get drunk, its part of teenage life. All the guard had to do was to not let the train depart. In doing so he caused the death of that poor girl.

Hasbeen wrote: »

stumbled on her 4" high heels

another crass statement so now she was asking for it?

BethanyD

Yes

This young lady had travelled from Hoylake to Liverpool - a 30 minute journey - during which time she had inadvertently (presumably due to here drunken and drugged state) departed the train at the wrong station before re-boarding.

What amazes me is that, for all the CCTV, fellow passengers, and the extensive onboard security, nobody intervened to help prior to her untimely death.

Merseyrail, it should be remembered, is the company renowned for fining passengers for putting their feet on seats - I'm certain that if they have time to watch for such perpertators they must have seen that this poor young girl was in a distressed state.

She was, after all, their client.

My view is that the Guard was not the only person culpable.

Hasbeen

No

geordie_taxi wrote: »

What you have chosen to post is nothing short of disgraceful. Try telling that to the parents who have lost their daughter. There is only one person to blame for all of this and that is the guard.

Teenagers get drunk, its part of teenage life. All the guard had to do was to not let the train depart. In doing so he caused the death of that poor girl.



another crass statement so now she was asking for it?

Yes totally agree with you! It now seems to be the guards fault.

But as stated comments/facts/picture were all taken from a railway staff forum. Picture they had was from her friends tribute page.

Not my opinions!



As said I am sorry for parents but also for the guard and his family for him making a mistake.