Suicidal male on Stockport viaduct 19 Jul 18

Deafdoggie said:

If he is surrounded then there really is no excuse for this taking hours, and trains being stopped. However, I suspect he wasn't surrounded and could move. If he was surrounded a very poor response from the emergency services, as the very last thing you do with someone on a high structure is hem them in

Click to expand...

Why is this such hard work?

He's lying on top of the parapet wall.
To access the *other* side of the viaduct requires (in the absence of flying ability) that he climb down to track level, cross four tracks, and climb the opposite parapet wall.
What do you reckon the chances are of him managing that without being detained?

To move along the wall he's already on, requires that he stand up and walk, or crawl along the wall. At regular intervals there are potential obstructions, OLE and signal gantries, which would make it very easy to block his passage, without physically restraining him. He'd be able to see that he's not going to get far.

From what I have seen, he wasn't what I would call, 'hemmed in', fire/police, etc. were standing maybe 20 feet either side of him, so his range of longitudinal movement would be 40 feet at most, the word I would use is 'contained'.

I would consider it easy for him to jump to track level, keeping close to wall, and if anyone approached, jump back up onto the wall and threaten to jump. That way he could make progress from one end to the other if he wanted to. Equally, a quick jump down run across the tracks and jump up onto the other side, is equally possible if he is quick enough.

AndyW33 said:

Tell you what, if someone ever does this again, you go and forcibly remove them so the rest of us can see how it is done.
Or maybe go and have a look at the Stockport viaduct from ground level, see how high up it is, see how long it is, and just what it crosses (I'll give you a clue - city streets, business premises, a river and a motorway). If you don't get it just right it could be you who falls 111 feet, or the person you are trying to remove. While if you fall, nobody will be in a position to take out proceedings against you, if you don't but the person you are removing does, you could easily find yourself in court facing criminal or civil charges from either the authorities, the family of the deceased, the owners of whatever he falls onto, or anyone unlucky enough to be at ground level when he falls.

Click to expand...

It's not rocket science, police regularly have to use force on people who break the law. This individual has done it before, how many more times do you think he should be allowed to do it?

Deafdoggie said:

I would consider it easy for him to jump to track level, keeping close to wall, and if anyone approached, jump back up onto the wall and threaten to jump. That way he could make progress from one end to the other if he wanted to. Equally, a quick jump down run across the tracks and jump up onto the other side, is equally possible if he is quick enough.

Click to expand...

I doubt I would apply the word "quick" to any of those actions, especially the crossing of four ballasted railway lines and climbing onto the far parapet.

Of course, all this presupposes that the man in question actually WANTED to commit suicide rather than playing to the crowd.

George166 said:

It's not rocket science, police regularly have to use force on people who break the law. This individual has done it before, how many more times do you think he should be allowed to do it?

Click to expand...

The public are greatly sympathetic to mental health issues in cases like this. It’s an interesting thing to explore. This chap affected tens of thousands of people and cost tens of thousands of pounds - if not more - in delays. He’s done this before.

People would be far less sympathetic if he went around causing criminal damage to the same tune, or let down the tyres of a thousand people.

George166 said:

It's not rocket science, police regularly have to use force on people who break the law. This individual has done it before, how many more times do you think he should be allowed to do it?

Click to expand...

How?
I suggest you have a look at the rules the Police have to use before they use something like a Tazer. One of the first consderations is "Is the person in a place of danger?" Funnily enough being on the parapet of a viaduct might be just that!!

Llanigraham said:

How?
I suggest you have a look at the rules the Police have to use before they use something like a Tazer. One of the first consderations is "Is the person in a place of danger?" Funnily enough being on the parapet of a viaduct might be just that!!

Click to expand...

It's obviously up to the police to decide how they apprehend him,we're just going around in circles here. I'll ask again, if he was suicidal would he really bring beer and sandwiches with him? And would he have pulled this stunt if we were in January rather than July?

George166 said:

It's not rocket science, police regularly have to use force on people who break the law. This individual has done it before, how many more times do you think he should be allowed to do it?

Click to expand...

Like I said, you think it is straightforward, you put your own life at risk removing somebody from a parapet 100 feet up. Don't sit behind a keyboard telling other people to do it.
And it is hardly the fault of the emergency services if the country's criminal justice and mental health facilities aren't fit for purpose so the person concerned is neither incarcerated nor cured, is it. Go and rant at the politicians, they set policies and allocate funding.

AndyW33 said:

Like I said, you think it is straightforward, you put your own life at risk removing somebody from a parapet 100 feet up. Don't sit behind a keyboard telling other people to do it.
And it is hardly the fault of the emergency services if the country's criminal justice and mental health facilities aren't fit for purpose so the person concerned is neither incarcerated nor cured, is it. Go and rant at the politicians, they set policies and allocate funding.

Click to expand...

This is just nonsense, a bit like saying if you don't like the way the country is being run why don't you run it yourself.

And whether mental health facilities are fit for purpose is a how long is a piece of string argument. How much funding do you think should be allocated to it? Which politicians should be ranted at? Why don't you go and show these politicians how it should be done instead of sitting behind a keyboard spouting hyperbole?

George166 said:

This is just nonsense, a bit like saying if you don't like the way the country is being run why don't you run it yourself.

And whether mental health facilities are fit for purpose is a how long is a piece of string argument. How much funding do you think should be allocated to it? Which politicians should be ranted at? Why don't you go and show these politicians how it should be done instead of sitting behind a keyboard spouting hyperbole?

Click to expand...

Not really, I'm not the one telling members of the emergency services that it is easy to remove a person by force from a parapet on top of a viaduct and they should get on with it. I'm suggesting that they see no reason to risk their own lives in removing him when eventually he may (and did) co-operate in his removal. Indeed they would probably breach their own service's regulations by attempting removal by force in these circumstances.
And it is glaringly obvious that anyone who does something like this twice represents a failure by either the criminal justice system or the mental health services. Either the deterrent effect of criminal justice didn't work, or the treatment effect of mental health didn't work. Now only this month the Secretary of State said that prison sentences of less than a year had no deterrent effect, and courts were being asked not to impose them. And anyone who has ever had a friend or family member in need of in-patient mental health treatment will know that there is a serious shortage of beds due to closure of treatment units. Quite often it takes several days or weeks of inpatient treatment to determine the correct mixture and dosage of medication to control the issues so the patient can return home and a cure can be pursued through outpatient clinics. In some cases the patient's lifestyle or the seriousness of their condition means that they need to remain in hospital for much longer, even indefinitely.
What am I doing about it - I've researched the problem, written to my MP asking her to press for mental health funding to be doubled and ringfenced to prevent it being diverted to other parts of the NHS as in the past, and joined various campaign groups. If my MP does nothing (which is quite possible) I will cast my vote for someone who says they will.

How is your campaign to persuade the police, fire services, or paramedics that removing people from parapets (when they got there of their own free will) is a worthwhile risk of their lives getting on?

flixtonman said:

George166: 'He was thoughtful enough to make sure he had enough to eat and drink'.
SignalHead: '.....he wanted to cause disruption or simply to get attention'
You should both be ashamed to jump to those conclusions when you don't know the man or his history. You may, of course, be proved to be right - but you should be cautious to express your opinions before all the evidence is in - and you should certainly not use this public forum on which to ventilate your opinions. For all you know, this man may have had a tragic history impacting on a wide family who have done all they can to minimise his effect on the rest of us.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... 'thoughtful enough to make sure he had enough to eat and drink'. I don't really see how you can argue with that, given the information we know. Unless what has been reported is factually wrong, the fact seems to be that he did bring enough to eat and drink. And that's not the kind of thing that happens just by chance.

'wanted to cause disruption'. If you want to be pedantic, then strictly speaking it's impossible to tell whether the guy wanted to cause disruption. But there's no way any person with half a functioning brain cell isn't going to realise that sitting on that parapet will cause massive disruption to thousands of people. Generally speaking, if you do something for which the main and obviously predictable result is going to be X, that invariably means you either want to cause X, or you are at least happy for X to happen in pursuit of some other objectives. In the circumstances, it really doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the person was happy to cause massive disruption and misery to thousands of other people.

I don't think I would direct language like 'You should both be ashamed' at people when all those people have done is - basically - pointed out some stuff that is almost certainly correct

AndyW33 said:

Not really, I'm not the one telling members of the emergency services that it is easy to remove a person by force from a parapet on top of a viaduct and they should get on with it. I'm suggesting that they see no reason to risk their own lives in removing him when eventually he may (and did) co-operate in his removal. Indeed they would probably breach their own service's regulations by attempting removal by force in these circumstances.
And it is glaringly obvious that anyone who does something like this twice represents a failure by either the criminal justice system or the mental health services. Either the deterrent effect of criminal justice didn't work, or the treatment effect of mental health didn't work. Now only this month the Secretary of State said that prison sentences of less than a year had no deterrent effect, and courts were being asked not to impose them. And anyone who has ever had a friend or family member in need of in-patient mental health treatment will know that there is a serious shortage of beds due to closure of treatment units. Quite often it takes several days or weeks of inpatient treatment to determine the correct mixture and dosage of medication to control the issues so the patient can return home and a cure can be pursued through outpatient clinics. In some cases the patient's lifestyle or the seriousness of their condition means that they need to remain in hospital for much longer, even indefinitely.
What am I doing about it - I've researched the problem, written to my MP asking her to press for mental health funding to be doubled and ringfenced to prevent it being diverted to other parts of the NHS as in the past, and joined various campaign groups. If my MP does nothing (which is quite possible) I will cast my vote for someone who says they will.

How is your campaign to persuade the police, fire services, or paramedics that removing people from parapets (when they got there of their own free will) is a worthwhile risk of their lives getting on?

Click to expand...

I'm sure the police are quite capable removing him if necessary. It's the second time he's done it, how many more times do you think he should be allowed to disrupt the railway network?

A member of my extended family committed suicide a few years ago but nobody has used it to whinge about funding etc. How much funding do you think mental health issues should be allocated?

George166 said:

I'm sure the police are quite capable removing him if necessary. It's the second time he's done it, how many more times do you think he should be allowed to disrupt the railway network?

A member of my extended family committed suicide a few years ago but nobody has used it to whinge about funding etc. How much funding do you think mental health issues should be allocated?

Click to expand...

A shed load more than it gets at present !!

Highlandspring said:

Tranquilizer darts? Pure Hollywood

Click to expand...

It works on elephants, why not people? Human version is urgently needed if there isn't one. Otherwise, taser. If he rolled off, so be it.

muz379 said:

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the situation he is afforded a duty of care . Giving him substances to render him unconscious whilst he is in a precarious position would not be upholding that duty .

Click to expand...

There has got to be a limit to what lengths we go to for one individual, and one in this case that is not worth much. We now live in such a crowded and inter-twined society that one individuals mischief can affect and harm thousands or millions of others out of all proportion to the culprit's value and personal problems. For example, as a result of this person, I wonder how many people might have missed important job interviews, or vital hospital appointments for which they have waited for 3 months or more.

Don't give me the platitude that life is beyond value - I have been a professional safety assessor and a monetary value for life is used; I won't say what it is (depends on circumstances) and safety professionals do not make a big clamour about it for obvious reasons.

AlterEgo said:

This chap affected tens of thousands of people and cost tens of thousands of pounds - if not more - in delays. He’s done this before.

Click to expand...

Possibly more than tens of thousands of people, and multiply that by hours and the average cost of employing a worker to get a lower bound economic value; but more than that if for example work is held up causing costs more than just someone's salary. Quite likely this delay caused more financial damage than one typical individual could contribite in a lifetime, let alone this individual.

Lucan said:

It works on elephants, why not people? Human version is urgently needed if there isn't one.

Click to expand...

It's virtually impossible to develop one. Drugs are administered relating to body weight, medical conditions, etc. And if this person is already under the influence? Just not possible.

Otherwise, taser. If he rolled off, so be it.

Click to expand...

Wow.

Lucan said:

It works on elephants, why not people? Human version is urgently needed if there isn't one. Otherwise, taser. If he rolled off, so be it.

Click to expand...

I just did some Googling and came up with this Quora explanation of why there is no human version, and why what works for elephants won't work for people (scroll down to David Deitsch's answer. I can't vouch for its accuracy but it seems plausible)

DavidDeitch said:

• The animal has to be big (think bears, moose, tigers) because only large animals have large enough muscles that a marksman can hit them reliably. Humans are too small. Most darts would miss muscle.
• Even in cases of a large animal, darts often miss. If the animal is lucky, the dart and sedition will just be ineffective. If not so lucky it might be seriously injured. Humans, being smaller, are more likely to be seriously injured (and still not sedated, just more angry).
• Intramuscular sedation takes 10 to 20 minutes to be effective (another reason we give these intravenously). During that time you have a very mad and cranky animal to deal with. That is why these darts are fired from vehicles and helicopters whenever possible so that the shooter can maintain a safe distance. (You do not see this on TV shows in which animals are being sedated by darts because 20 minutes of waiting around is boring. You see the dart fired, then cut to the sleepy critter. This is not real.)
• In the case of a human you want to sedate the subject because he or she is doing something dangerous. Even if you get the dart into muscle (not likely) he or she would continue to be dangerous for several minutes. And, humans, unlike bears, are tool users. They can get you from a distance. Not good.
• Humans have hands, not paws or hooves. Hit one with a dart, he reaches over and pulls it out. Maybe throws it back at you. Definitely not good.
• When we sedate humans we administer carefully measured doses, see how the patient responds, give more as needed. This takes time, precision, and careful observation. With a dart, you give a dose and hope for the best. If you start zapping people with slugs of medicine powerful enough to render them sedated, you will kill some of them. With an animal it might be worth the risk, but not with humans.

Click to expand...

I do rather agree with you that, in principle, if there was an instant and reliable way of putting a person to sleep, it could be extremely useful (not just for this kind of situation, but for lots of fighting-crime situations). On the other hand, if such a technology existed, I'm not sure I'd like what would happen if criminals got hold of it.

George166 said:

...how many more times do you think he should be allowed to do it?

Click to expand...

George166 said:

How much funding do you think mental health issues should be allocated?

Click to expand...

The two issues are interlinked. This person is clearly not receiving the treatment that they need. They will continue to do things like this until they do.
That won't happen unless funding for mental health is dramatically increased to expand services.
As to how much that should be, the answer is honestly 'as much as it takes', like the NHS as a whole should, and education should.

EM2 said:

The two issues are interlinked. This person is clearly not receiving the treatment that they need. They will continue to do things like this until they do.
That won't happen unless funding for mental health is dramatically increased to expand services.
As to how much that should be, the answer is honestly 'as much as it takes', like the NHS as a whole should, and education should.

Click to expand...

Maybe they haven't sought any treatment? Maybe they don't want any? However much the funding is people will still say it's not enough.

I see we’ve descended into the realms of speculation, yet again.

Sigh.

Merseysider said:

I see we’ve descended into the realms of speculation, yet again.

Sigh.

Click to expand...

Isn't the whole thread speculation with people insisting without any evidence that this person MUST have a mental problem?

furnessvale said:

Isn't the whole thread speculation with people insisting without any evidence that this person MUST have a mental problem?

Click to expand...

Nail on the head.

EM2 said:

The two issues are interlinked. This person is clearly not receiving the treatment that they need. They will continue to do things like this until they do.
That won't happen unless funding for mental health is dramatically increased to expand services.
As to how much that should be, the answer is honestly 'as much as it takes', like the NHS as a whole should, and education should.

Click to expand...

That will involve increasing taxes. Are the general public willing to put up with that?

POLICE USE STUN GUN SECONDS BEFORE DEVOTED DAD OF 18 PLUNGES TO HIS DEATH FROM RAIL BRIDGE !

Useless police allow man to delays thousands as he fakes attention seeking suicide attempt on busy rail line.


Both potential newspaper headlines, dammed if you do, damned I’d you don’t.

furnessvale said:

Isn't the whole thread speculation with people insisting without any evidence that this person MUST have a mental problem?

Click to expand...

To sit on a railway viaduct parapet for twenty-two hours is not a rational action. To (apparently) have done it twice surely strongly suggests some form of mental illness?

Tom Quinne said:

POLICE USE STUN GUN SECONDS BEFORE DEVOTED DAD OF 18 PLUNGES TO HIS DEATH FROM RAIL BRIDGE !

Useless police allow man to delays thousands as he fakes attention seeking suicide attempt on busy rail line.

Both potential newspaper headlines, dammed if you do, damned I’d you don’t.

Click to expand...

Or.... Shock! Horror! Man dies while attempting to commit suicide!

Joking aside, I think you raise a serious point, and I'm sure some newspapers would be tempted to print the headlines you suggest. But behind that I think there is a real problem with some of society's attitudes.

The way I see it, whether or not there are any mental health issues, this guy was committing a crime, which was having an impact on many thousands of lives, and overall would be costing many people and organisations a fortune in things like lost earnings (for some workers) or lost productivity (for businesses), delay repay (for the TOCs). Compared to something like burglary or robbery, this particular crime is unlikely to have a devastating effect on any one single person, but does have a huge aggregate effect when you add up its impact on the thousands (tens of thousands?) of people affected by it. And it seems to me that if someone is committing a serious crime, then the priority is to stop the crime, and the safety of the person committing the crime should take second place. Too often, we now expect the police to put the safety of the criminal first, and that simply has the effect of encouraging more crime (look for example at how motorcycle/moped crime has soared, largely (as far as we can tell) because the criminals have realised that the police are reluctant to chase them on their bikes). Obviously you don't want to deliberately injure or kill the perpetrator, and you must still prioritise the safety of innocent by-standers, but I think we really need much more of a sense that, if you commit a crime and refuse to cooperate with the police when they take reasonable and proportionate actions to stop you committing the crime or to apprehend you, and because of that you get killed in an accident that clearly resulted from your non-cooperation with the police, then - that's your fault, not the fault of the police.

I don't blame the police etc. for the caution they showed given the current climate around safety of people committing crimes, but I think we ought to question whether that climate is something we should be perpetuating, or whether some laws need to be changed to put the responsibility for accidents resulting from crimes more squarely on the criminal.

EM2 said:

To sit on a railway viaduct parapet for twenty-two hours is not a rational action. To (apparently) have done it twice surely strongly suggests some form of mental illness?

Click to expand...

Or a bored youth who has found a way to have a right good laugh at others expense?

We just don't know either way.

xc170 said:

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.

Click to expand...

There were THREE negotiators sent to the scene, and a suggestion that the person had petrol. It had to be dealt with carefully.

What was the alternative? An armed response unit came and blew him away?

Lucan said:

It works on elephants, why not people? Human version is urgently needed if there isn't one. Otherwise, taser. If he rolled off, so be it.

Click to expand...

It doesn't always "work" on elephants. The dosage can be miscalculated; the effect can be slight, or too much and prove fatal; elephants don't have the ability to remove the dart etc etc

"If he rolled off, so be it" - you do realise there are public areas below Stockport Viaduct? Roads, buildings.

Deafdoggie said:

I would consider it easy for him to jump to track level, keeping close to wall, and if anyone approached, jump back up onto the wall and threaten to jump. That way he could make progress from one end to the other if he wanted to. Equally, a quick jump down run across the tracks and jump up onto the other side, is equally possible if he is quick enough.

Click to expand...

I give up.

EM2 said:

And if he falls?

Click to expand...

It's still over.
He may have been struck by lightning, pecked to death by birds, had a heart attack... we already decide how much a persons life is worth by the availability of NHS treatment in the country. How much money has this incident cost the country?

The people who say they'll kill themselves but don't really mean it are the ones that cause hassle like this. If you were serious, you'd just do it.