Nothing in this picture shows that she was remotely leaning against the door.
Doesnt fit my definition of leaning either.
Society is well on the way down a slippery slope here. By attempting to defend the actions of someone who was drunk and on drugs, society, and by society I mean the courts, the legislators and the nanny state amongst others, are excusing degenerate behaviour, and sending out an entirely wrong message which suggests that people who are under the influence of drugs and / or alcohol are somehow not responsible for what they do, or what happens to them. In criminal trials in the crown court, some barristers are more persuasive than others, and the outcome of a case can depend on which particular version of events the jury is persuaded to believe on the day, based on what spin is put on the opposing versions of events in a defended criminal trial. Even though the British legal system is said to be one of the best in the world, the outcomes of criminal trials are still very much based on opinions formed by jury members. Those opinions become officially recorded as verdicts unless or until they are overturned on appeal to a higher court.
I agree that there are occasions where people need to be protected from their own stupidity, but like charity, I believe the responsibility for this begins at home. Sadly, some parents these days dont know any better themselves and as such are not capable of understanding the risks and dangers.
The reality is that we as a society can only go so far in our attempts to protect people from danger, their own ignorance, stupidity, life, the world, or whatever. Beyond that, and if taken to the extremes it appears to be heading towards, it begins to get ridiculous. For example, there is nothing to physically prevent a drunk person, (or anyone else for that matter) from gaining access to the tracks via a level crossing and taking a short cut along a railway line. If they were to do this they might get hit by a train, or in 3rd rail land, electrocuted. Common sense dictates that this could be avoided by them not being so bloody silly in the first place, but the way things are going now in this BSE (blame someone else) compensation culture, is that there must be someone else to blame. The question is, how far do we have to go before everything in the whole country is bolted down, fenced off, covered in yellow chevron tape, you can see where this is going. England will be so safe it will be like living in a padded cell.
Anyone remember Alexei Sayle on the episode of the Young Ones when he turned into the axe wielding homicidal maniac, and said, Boys and girls go out to play, on a busy motorway ! ? Im just waiting for someone to get run over trying it, and then blaming the BBC for broadcasting it. And why not, I mean, if the gutter press is to be believed, the BBC is to blame for everything that happened since the early 1970s.
Another aspect of this case now that a verdict has been reached is that although various possible scenarios are likely to have been presented to the court, the only one which is given credibility now is the one which is in accordance with the verdict, ie that the guard acted improperly and accordingly is guilty. As has been quite correctly stated elsewhere in this thread, unless anyone from here was actually in court, we can only speculate on what was said, what the video footage shows, and what other evidence might be relevant.
The RAIB report may make things clearer. I hope the Guard appeals; this case probably needs that further consideration by a more senior court to ensure that the law is seen to be properly applied.
At the time of writing, the RAIB report isnt yet available for public consumption on their website, and Ill be reading it with interest when it is.
The truth of the matter is, whilst we do have a duty of care towards the safety of passengers, the passengers themselves should also bear some of that responsibility towards their own safe being.
Totally agree. In civil law there is a concept called Contributory Negligence. She wasnt on trial because she is dead, but that poor girl has paid the highest price for her own contribution to her untimely demise.
One last thing. The verdict was reached by a jury in a crown court. Only the members of that jury can possibly know exactly how they reached that verdict, and what evidence they believed or disregarded. A different jury on a different day might have reached a different verdict on the same evidence. So yes, he is technically guilty at the moment, but there is still the possibility of an appeal against the conviction.
