Train Guard Jailed

Throbbe

Yes, although not such a harsh one!

timbo58 wrote: »

The facts are: a jury of his peers has convicted him of the offence.

That should be good enough for everyone not fully au fait with all of the facts.

There speaks someone who has never done jury service (hint: half the people in the country are of below average intelligence)

Your point stands though, I imagine none of the commenters on this, or countless similar threads relating to other cases, heard all the evidence, or indeed the judges directions to the jury.

Daedalus

I should clarify I don't agree with the mode of punishment, not necessary the length. 5 years of a community service like project would be more appropriate, he can carry on living at home but would be unable to get a job, his life will be frozen for 5 years.

There needs to be a strong deterrence to maintain diligence, loosing one's job isn't a strong deterrence, and we shouldn't be resting on how much the individual can show how remorseful they are.

geordie_taxi

Hasbeen wrote: »

But as stated comments/facts/picture were all taken from a railway staff forum.

the mods/admins on that railway forum should hold their heads in shame for letting such bile go unactioned but i supose it's 'looking after their own' or 'closing ranks'

SailorSam

No

Why has the guard been singled out, what about the others who were suppose to be responsible for this girl. How responsible are the parents that allow a child to go out getting drunk and taking drugs, Shouldn't her friends on the train hold some responsibility, they knew the condition she was in and made sure they looked after her to get her home safe.

Daedalus

SailorSam wrote: »

Why has the guard been singled out, what about the others who were suppose to be responsible for this girl. How responsible are the parents that allow a child to go out getting drunk and taking drugs, Shouldn't her friends on the train hold some responsibility, they knew the condition she was in and made sure they looked after her to get her home safe.

Moral responsibility is different to legal responsibility.

Parents allowed it did they?

geordie_taxi

SailorSam wrote: »

Why has the guard been singled out, what about the others who were suppose to be responsible for this girl. How responsible are the parents that allow a child to go out getting drunk and taking drugs, Shouldn't her friends on the train hold some responsibility, they knew the condition she was in and made sure they looked after her to get her home safe.

i dont know but if parents/friends were equally responsible why aint they been found guilty by a court? after reading sum railway forums that Hasbeen been on about its seem its something to do with 30k+ wages to be 'safety critical' and have a 'duty of care' towards his pasengers.

SailorSam

No

She was 16yrs old, Why did her parents allow her out like that ?
Why didn't her friends do more to take care of her. ?
The guard was responsible for a train full of people he did his best to make sure they got home safely and not delayed by a young drunk.

Daedalus

geordie_taxi wrote: »

i dont know but if parents/friends were equally responsible why aint they been found guilty by a court? after reading sum railway forums that Hasbeen been on about its seem its something to do with 30k+ wages to be 'safety critical' and have a 'duty of care' towards his pasengers.

Yes that is why there is a difference between a legal duty and a moral duty, only breaches of legal duties can be punished.

SailorSam wrote: »

She was 16yrs old, Why did her parents allow her out like that ?
Why didn't her friends do more to take care of her. ?
The guard was responsible for a train full of people he did his best to make sure they got home safely and not delayed by a young drunk.

Did the parents know what the girl was doing? Not that it makes a difference. Is a parent responsible for a 18 year old? No? Why? Because they are suddenly adults? there is little difference to them being a day before 18 and a day after, yet most would say an 18 year old is a complete adult.

The morally the friends should have taken care, were they in a better state? I doubt the dangers would have occurred to them, the same way the danger probably didn't occur to the guard. Difference is, the guard is legally obliged to have that danger in his mind at all times, the friends are not.

If you and I are friends, you are drowning in a duck pond, I could reach in a pluck you out and save your life but I don't, you die. I am in most people's opinion morally responsible because I could have stopped your death, legally, I am not responsible because the only time I have to help someone in danger is if I have a legal duty to do so.

SailorSam

No

Listening to the debates this week for the election of Police Commissioners one of the things they most complaints about is anti social behaviour. How many times have we read letters in the paper or posts on the Internet asking why isn't someone doing something to protect us from the dead beats, why do we treat them with kid loves, why don't we stand up against them. The guard did just that,unfortunately he made a bad call and a young girl died. It shouldn't be him in jail. it should be the bosses of Merseyrail for making cutbacks that have put the travelling public at risk. Years ago there would have been enough staff on each station to make sure drunks didn't even get passed the gates.
The guard made a terrible mistake but he shouldn't have been i the dock alone, we can make a list of those at fault.

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny

Yes

A totally avoidable tragedy

But we should be carefully of the martyrdom we have created.