Train Guard Jailed

geordie_taxi

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. ?

her parents/friends are at fault, they are a contributing factor in her death, the guard was the primary cause.

SailorSam wrote: »

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.

your words ive made bold. she was at the end of the day one of his passengers and thats most probably why he was found guilty because one of his passenger didnt make it home safely that night

Daedalus

SailorSam wrote: »

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.

No the guard did not do that. He thought she was drunk and would move away, she could have been suffering some kind of medical fit, he didn't know, which is why he is under a legal duty to move her away from the train.

This was one drunk, if he was doing his job properly he would have noticed her quickly jumped out and moved her away, perhaps sit her down on a bench and then run back and give the signal.

Yes, we can blame everyone we want, you go do that. Doesn't change the fact that one person and only one person was under a legal duty to act, he did not act, someone died, it was his fault.

Stigy

No

As I said before, the Guard could have refused her travel, as his duty of care ends as she was 16-years old. But no, he did no such thing, probably because he thought that given her age, ironically, she was vulnerable. If she was refused travel and raped or murdered, the Guard would have, once more, been to blame, if not legally, by individuals and his employers.

flyingscotno1

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/121127_R222012_James_Street.pdf

Here is the rail accident report into it. Interesting to see how many similar incidents have happened and might help with some facts to how it happened.

Buellguy

No

Reading that it sounds like the girls 'friends' should be feeling VERY guilty indeed

Livingthedream

Yes, although not such a harsh one!

Buellguy wrote: »

Reading that it sounds like the girls 'friends' should be feeling VERY guilty indeed

+1

So much for you mates looking after you, when you've had one to many.

ljonski

No

I must admit i am a bit confused. It was the second time on that train that the girl got off and started roaming around the platform? First at Moels and then at James street?
when you mention "friends" not looking after her - What paragraph in the report are you exactly referring to ?
Is anyone really expecting drunken and drug imbibed teenage girls and possibly boys being in a fit state themselves to look after one of their group wandering around platforms?
Some people may want to lynch me if i really said what i think about the circumstances of this incident.
I will just say that the greatest tragedy for me is that an ex employee of Merseyrail has had their life destroyed,by what at most would be a momentary misjudgement, in what appears to be a regular Saturday night free for all on public transport.
Next thing they will be doing is jailing Scientists for not predicting an earthquake........

Hasbeen

No

For those that posted on this tragety / interested parties etc

The RAIB report that was asked to be withheld, by the prosecution until after the court case has now has now been made available to the public.

For your info, link below.

LINK

Sorry did not notice previous ops link

yorkie2

No

How can anyone vote "Yes" on this, when many violent crimes result in much more lenient sentences? Bonkers!

Hasbeen

No

yorkie2 wrote: »

How can anyone vote "Yes" on this, when many violent crimes result in much more lenient sentences? Bonkers!

They voted yes, as along with the jury at the trial, they were declined the RAIB report and full details of what happened as requested by the prosecution. In order to get a conviction.


My opinion, after reading the report and looking at the pictures not shown in the common redtop papers, is that this will go to appeal and he will get fully exonorated.

It appears in my opinion he did more than what is required in these tragic circumstances.

But then again others will know better?