Given they were at the Heaton Norris Junction end of the viaduct, it may well be they actually walked down the track from Heaton Chapel and not Stockport.
Or Reddish South
Given they were at the Heaton Norris Junction end of the viaduct, it may well be they actually walked down the track from Heaton Chapel and not Stockport.
Not really, do you?
Do you really think it's acceptable for one individual to cause so much disruption? Obviously I wasn't there so I'm not in a position to say what should have been done, seems he drunk himself into oblivion and eventually fell asleep.
The emergency services? Oh yes, the emergency services who should have let this man die because they had more convenient lives to save elsewhere.Mental illness/depression/whatever - he's still caused mass disruption for thousands of people and wasted the valuable time of the emergency services.
This could have been resolved in an hour if we hadn't become so soft.
This could have been resolved in an hour if we hadn't become so soft.
And some are also losing their sense of priority.
If there's a chance of a life being lost, then ALL THE TRAINS CAN WAIT. Virtue Ethics, people.
I was puzzled that the BBC appeared either to ignore or embargo this story completely, both on the Web site and in its news broadcasts that I saw, although the Manchester Evening News covered it throughout the day, much as it could anyway. The BBC seemed to think that people who might be affected could discover this themselves through other routes, and maybe that's generally true nowadays, but it seemed strange that such a major disruption appeared to go unreported.
Don't bank on it. He did exactly the same thing a month ago, so give it a month or so and he will be back.
I genuinely don't know. But a day's delay certainly doesn't seem out of the question if it could prevent a life from being lost.How long should the trains wait for? Philosophical question.
Perhaps. But that is dependent on the circumstances. The fact is that this individual didn't kill themselves. The facts also suggest that they were acting irrationally - an important distinction to make.You can use virtue ethics to justify suicide, as well.
And some are also losing their sense of priority.
If there's a chance of a life being lost, then ALL THE TRAINS CAN WAIT. Virtue Ethics, people.
I genuinely don't know. But a day's delay certainly doesn't seem out of the question if it could prevent a life from being lost.
When did I ever pass comment on roads?What a shame the same doesn't go for the roads, where we seem to accept nearly 2000 deaths a year and they are left essentially unsupervised for people to break the law as they please. I don't say that just to drift the thread but to point out that in one situation we go to extraordinary lengths to deal with the well being of one individual whilst in others we apparently don't care at all about thousands. It's this disparity that actually makes it quite difficult to decide what society should "put up with" when it comes to preventing harm and death in a specific situation, because there's already such a wide range of responses in different circumstances. The fact is that many people act in ways that are dangerous and harmful, to themselves or others, simply on the grounds that they can't or won't wait.
Mental illness/depression/whatever - he's still caused mass disruption for thousands of people and wasted the valuable time of the emergency services.
This could have been resolved in an hour if we hadn't become so soft.
Mental illness/depression/whatever - he's still caused mass disruption for thousands of people and wasted the valuable time of the emergency services.
This could have been resolved in an hour if we hadn't become so soft.
When did I ever pass comment on roads?
Then I've made a 'false start', so to speak. My apologies.You didn't, I did. I have no idea why you are asking that question because I clearly did not suggest that you had passed comment on the roads.
What a shame the same doesn't go for the roads, where we seem to accept nearly 2000 deaths a year and they are left essentially unsupervised for people to break the law as they please. I don't say that just to drift the thread but to point out that in one situation we go to extraordinary lengths to deal with the well being of one individual whilst in others we apparently don't care at all about thousands. It's this disparity that actually makes it quite difficult to decide what society should "put up with" when it comes to preventing harm and death in a specific situation, because there's already such a wide range of responses in different circumstances. The fact is that many people act in ways that are dangerous and harmful, to themselves or others, simply on the grounds that they can't or won't wait.
Yes I do have experience of suffering from Clinical Depression, following an injury at work that is likely to mean me losing a finger. I look forward to your apology.
Whether I feel it acceptable or not is immaterial. There is no humane, safe or quick way of dealing with this type of situation, and frankly some of the suggestions on here are disgusting.
oh dear. Another silly posting: Let him jump. Sod the people who have to witness the situation and then pick up the bits.
Honestly, does somebody intent on taking their own life really bring a picnic along with them? Beer, sandwiches etc.
People in this situation are not thinking rationally.Honestly, does somebody intent on taking their own life really bring a picnic along with them? Beer, sandwiches etc.
People in this situation are not thinking rationally.
How were they? Your own argument is that someone intending to take their own life doesn't take a picnic. So they were not thinking rationally.But this individual clearly was thinking rationally.
But this individual clearly was thinking rationally.
Mental illness/depression/whatever - he's still caused mass disruption for thousands of people and wasted the valuable time of the emergency services.
This could have been resolved in an hour if we hadn't become so soft.
Secondly, a waste of emergency service time? Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that the emergency services are there to deal with?
I feel I should a link to Forum Guidelines on this kind of thing here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/service-disruption-threads.160272/
BBC News said:Train passengers in Greater Manchester faced disruption to rail services while police dealt with a man on a viaduct in Stockport.
British Transport Police said its officers were called to reports of a man on the track at 05:30 BST on Thursday.
Some lines between Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport were blocked and subject to delays.
It took emergency services almost 24 hours to bring the man to safety.
Network Rail said the line was cleared at 04:20 BST and British Transport Police Greater Manchester later tweeted that the "trespass incident" at Stockport was "resolved".
"We would like to thank the public for their support and understanding as we tried to bring the man to safety as quickly as we could," Network Rail added.
The incident led to significant disruption with some trains diverted.
Virgin Trains, which operates services between Manchester and London Euston, did not serve Stockport and Macclesfield stations while the incident was ongoing and instead ran a bus service between Macclesfield and Wilmslow.
Trains are now running as normal.