bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
I don't think anyone said that the girl deserved to die.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Merseyrail Guard on Trial
- Thread starter BestWestern
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
RichmondCommu
Established Member
So in a nut shell what you're really saying is that its fine to post comments here providing that you agree with them? Sadly for you the world doesn't operate like that. And being on the internet has nothing to do with it; sit the two of us down on a park bench in Hyde Park and my views would not change.
I think its about time that people stood up for a young girl who has lost her life rather then seeking to blacken her name.
No, neither do I. I agree with HH that the severity of the sentence may well be appealed though, but I'm not seeing how the conviction can be appealed, especially given the words of the judge, which appeared to reveal the contents of the CCTV footage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh do grow up. You are embarassing yourself.
To what end? What exactly are you trying to achieve? It's plainly obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence what the causes of this tragic accident were. Has it even registered with you that maybe, just maybe that this sorry tale might just stop somebody else from ending up the same as that young lady? What you demonstrate here is that you fail to understand that by blaming somebody else entirely, you encourage this kind of accident to repeat itself - people have to learn to take responsibility for themselves. What use is to the deceased now that you are blaming the Guard entirely?! The uncomfortable facts are, that if she hadn't been drunk, I bet she'd have been nowhere near that train as it pulled away.
Like I say, grow up, and stop embarassing yourself.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
On the contrary, I'm merely expressing an opinion, something which you seem to have a problem with. Rather than trying to insult me, why not debate instead? I'm not embarrassed in the slightest.
Oh, I have debated with you, although there is limited scope to do so when all you are interested in is being controversial. If you aren't embarassed, then you really should be - you are miles out of your depth here, and you only continue to demonstrate that fact each time you reply. Such a shame that this thread has been dragged down by you.
I don't necessarily agree with all that RichmondCommu is saying, but he makes his point of view well. I most certainly disagree that he is in any way embarrassing himself with the stance he has taken on this incident.
In no way is he trolling. He just has a different take on the incident than you. That is allowed, and shows more than a modicum of the intelligence which you infer is lacking.
Disagreeing with someone is part of debate. Questioning their intelligence, saying they are embarrassing themselves, telling them to grow up and accusing them of trolling isn't.
I just want to remind everyone that whilst this is a very emotional topic, please try to just debate the issues and not engage in personal attacks against those who might not agree with your position.
There isn't much more to be said though Ainsworth74, unless of course the RAIB wish to publish their report, which to my mind should have happened by now. By all means there probably should be some debate on their recommendations, but I can't see the point of continuing this until then
bnm - perhaps you can explain to me (preferably by PM) why it is wrong to call somebody out for peddling an unintelligent argument. The gent concerned hurled an accusation at me that was easily debunked by reading a previous posting made by myself. That falls outside the realms of reasonable debate, that's hurling wild accusations rather than considering the merits of the argument. And that *is* unintelligent, and why I feel he is out of his depth so far as this debate is concerned.
And I'm sorry, but suggesting that I'm defending one of my own, it's almost as though it's an us v them scenario, as per the school playground. The poster concerned really does need to grow up if that's how he sees things. I also have to take issue with your contention that he makes his point well - he does no such thing! His initial outburst was to call the guard a 'berk' - therein lies my point about saying something controversial to provoke a reaction, also known as trolling. Now, maybe I shouldn't get sucked into a personal row with somebody (apologies for this to all), but I really did take exception to that.
bnm - perhaps you can explain to me (preferably by PM) why it is wrong to call somebody out for peddling an unintelligent argument. The gent concerned hurled an accusation at me that was easily debunked by reading a previous posting made by myself. That falls outside the realms of reasonable debate, that's hurling wild accusations rather than considering the merits of the argument. And that *is* unintelligent, and why I feel he is out of his depth so far as this debate is concerned.
And I'm sorry, but suggesting that I'm defending one of my own, it's almost as though it's an us v them scenario, as per the school playground. The poster concerned really does need to grow up if that's how he sees things. I also have to take issue with your contention that he makes his point well - he does no such thing! His initial outburst was to call the guard a 'berk' - therein lies my point about saying something controversial to provoke a reaction, also known as trolling. Now, maybe I shouldn't get sucked into a personal row with somebody (apologies for this to all), but I really did take exception to that.
90019
Established Member
Do you think that being drunk should absolve you of all liability of your actions?
When you make the conscious decision to drink in excess, you are still responsible for what you choose to do whilst under the influence.
Last edited:
This is the thing - as a society we seem to have moved away from the culture of taking responsibility for our own actions. And it would be better for all concerned if we did.
Even the Guard in this case could be accused of not taking responsibility - he pleaded not guilty, when to my mind he maybe should've considered a guilty plea. The evidence does appear damning, so far as the law is concerned.
Where did I say, or even intimate, that? My point is that if you deal with the public you will have to deal with drunks. Regularly. It's part of the job.
I look at it from a practical viewpoint. People have been getting drunk since the discovery of fermentation in the stone age, i.e. it's a lot older than civilisation. And we all know that drunk people do stupid things.
I have a counter question for you, "Do you think that if a person is drunk that it absolves you of any responsibility towards them?".
O L Leigh
Established Member
I have been following this discussion and must confess to not having read every word posted. Up to this point I've not been moved to contribute, but I feel I must point something important out.
This case is a sad but timely reminder that this is not a discussion about the rights or wrongs of any given behaviour but what happens when people fail to correctly discharge their legal responsibilities.
The courts are not excusing Georgia's behaviour; in fact her state and behaviour at the time of her death are only tangential to the outcome of the case. What they are doing is trying McGee to find out whether or not he was criminally negligent in his duties. It really is as simple as that. Sad but true.
O L Leigh
This case is a sad but timely reminder that this is not a discussion about the rights or wrongs of any given behaviour but what happens when people fail to correctly discharge their legal responsibilities.
The courts are not excusing Georgia's behaviour; in fact her state and behaviour at the time of her death are only tangential to the outcome of the case. What they are doing is trying McGee to find out whether or not he was criminally negligent in his duties. It really is as simple as that. Sad but true.
O L Leigh
This is very true. But (and it's a big but!), we must understand that the young lady was committing an offence at the time of her death. That's not to say that she deserved to die, but by her own actions, she increased the risk of her coming to some form of harm. I do feel strongly that the line of argument that we should expect people to break the law and make allowances for that is a very wrong-headed approach.
Although not aimed at me, I'll still attempt to answer it. The law is what matters here. And clearly it doesn't, hence the manslaughter verdict that was returned by the jury. And surely that's right - we can't just see a drunk passed out on the station and go 'tough, he deserves everything that comes, choking on his own vomit or whatever else comes his way'. We can say 'he risks that happening to him, but it's my job to try and prevent that by doing xyz'.
90019
Established Member
Absolutely not, but there seems to be an attitude amongst some people that when they go out and get drunk, the responsibility is totally with everyone else, and none of it lies with them.
Hello, and please excuse me while I add m2c.
I've also followed this very sad case closely.
I was not in court so I haven't seen all the evidence, only what has been reported. Though I trust that covered all of the salient points.
To my mind absolutely everything has been damning to the unfortunate guard.
He put himself in the worst position possible when he told that train to go with her stood were she was.
He was a complete div for not opening the door or making sure she was leaving.
That much is clear to anyone.
Her being p****d was never going to count as a defense.
That bit is not quite so obvious but any legal pro would know it! I would imagine the judge instructed the jury to disregard that aspect of the case. And it is not a sign of our times, that bit of law has been around for over a hundred years, it is very well established and has been well tested in the courts. I believe it to be correct.
As for her friends and parents, it would be impossible to prove a case against them. Even a child neglect charge would not stand up, at 16yrs she was pretty much free to make her own choices and the young lady herself paid the ultimate price for her stupidity.
I think every court in the land would find the guard guilty. He never stood a chance!
So, as someone else has already asked. Who thought it would be a good idea to plead not guilty? Was that another colossal mistake by the guard? or did he receive the worst advice in history?
Had he pleaded guilty and showed some contrition, put it down to a moment of madness but ultimately accepted his responsibility. His sentence would not have been nearly so long, could even have been suspended given the effect it has had on his mental health.
Now the incident will be go down as, girl died, guard jailed. Justice done and seen to be done.
Instead of a girl died in what is a perilous and isolated environment where, incapable people, often mere children! are expected to be supervised by a lone adult who is just passing through.
I think the original negligence is leaving station platforms unmanned.
Every rail worked to pay close attention to this tragedy and never make the same mistake that this guard did, even if you have to stay there for a week! Until suitable safeguards are put in place any one of you could find yourself facing the same charge in the blink of an eye.
I believe platforms should always be manned, if they were this accident would probably not have happened.
I really can't see any appeals being successful, no chance of overturning the verdict and a sentence appeal could make things worse! While the appeal court won't increase it, if it is deemed that the appeal has no merit and he is not released during the appeal, the duration of the appeal process may not count against his time served.
I hope the guard is quickly categorized and moved to an open prison, I'm sure he will be eventually, he does not warrant a high level of security.
A very sad state of affairs, no matter how you look at things.
I've also followed this very sad case closely.
I was not in court so I haven't seen all the evidence, only what has been reported. Though I trust that covered all of the salient points.
To my mind absolutely everything has been damning to the unfortunate guard.
He put himself in the worst position possible when he told that train to go with her stood were she was.
He was a complete div for not opening the door or making sure she was leaving.
That much is clear to anyone.
Her being p****d was never going to count as a defense.
That bit is not quite so obvious but any legal pro would know it! I would imagine the judge instructed the jury to disregard that aspect of the case. And it is not a sign of our times, that bit of law has been around for over a hundred years, it is very well established and has been well tested in the courts. I believe it to be correct.
As for her friends and parents, it would be impossible to prove a case against them. Even a child neglect charge would not stand up, at 16yrs she was pretty much free to make her own choices and the young lady herself paid the ultimate price for her stupidity.
I think every court in the land would find the guard guilty. He never stood a chance!
So, as someone else has already asked. Who thought it would be a good idea to plead not guilty? Was that another colossal mistake by the guard? or did he receive the worst advice in history?
Had he pleaded guilty and showed some contrition, put it down to a moment of madness but ultimately accepted his responsibility. His sentence would not have been nearly so long, could even have been suspended given the effect it has had on his mental health.
Now the incident will be go down as, girl died, guard jailed. Justice done and seen to be done.
Instead of a girl died in what is a perilous and isolated environment where, incapable people, often mere children! are expected to be supervised by a lone adult who is just passing through.
I think the original negligence is leaving station platforms unmanned.
Every rail worked to pay close attention to this tragedy and never make the same mistake that this guard did, even if you have to stay there for a week! Until suitable safeguards are put in place any one of you could find yourself facing the same charge in the blink of an eye.
I believe platforms should always be manned, if they were this accident would probably not have happened.
I really can't see any appeals being successful, no chance of overturning the verdict and a sentence appeal could make things worse! While the appeal court won't increase it, if it is deemed that the appeal has no merit and he is not released during the appeal, the duration of the appeal process may not count against his time served.
I hope the guard is quickly categorized and moved to an open prison, I'm sure he will be eventually, he does not warrant a high level of security.
A very sad state of affairs, no matter how you look at things.
Is there? I've not seen any evidence of anyone saying that in this forum. I'm as keen on personal responsibility as the next man. I just don't hold everyone else to my standards of behaviour. Perhaps I've seen too much to get as uptight about youngsters getting drunk as some.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well the offence is a railway bye-law that is broken multiple times every day in every part of the UK. Let's not get carried away about that. The guard would not have been in court if he had refused to allow her to get on the train, even if it had ultimately led to her death.
People, and not just drunk people, do stupid things every day that puts their lives in danger. Most people would actively try to help them, regardless of what they thought about the person or their actions.
Last edited:
I doubt 90019 is speaking about anyone on this forum specifically. He is probably referring to a general belief that 'someone else will be there to look after me if I drink too much'.
I'm not at all sure that such an attitude is widespread, by the way, but I think that as a whole, society has moved too far towards 'rights' as against 'responsibilities'.
Do you realise how many stations there are around the country, and how many extra staff would be required to man them all the time? And how much that would increase fares by? Might as well say stop the trains at 8pm and then anyone can catch a taxi if they need to get home.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well I'd agree with that.
Last edited:
This ^^ and is exactly what ANG was saying earlier yet people still wish to comment on the girl and try and make out she is the bad person in all of this because of what she was wearing in a picture and what she had drank.
The simple things of this case and who was being prosecuted under what charge seems to have been missed by many people .
junglejames
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 2,069
Forgive me for barging in. I hear all this talk on here of the girl messing about on the platform and by the train, therefore it not being the guards fault.
However, the first i heard of this story, I heard that she was leaning against the train when the doors were shut. Is this the case? If so, then the guard should not have shut the doors.
However, the first i heard of this story, I heard that she was leaning against the train when the doors were shut. Is this the case? If so, then the guard should not have shut the doors.
Wouldn't he? I wish I could be so certain of that. Remember, Guards are instructed not to put people off trains at unstaffed stations if there could be a risk to their safety, especially young females. It's those words 'duty of care' again.
As you observe, that offence is a railway byelaw that is broken many times, probably as we type - is that acceptable and right?! Do you not think that byelaw exists in part for the safety of the people concerned?
She was leaning against the train (I'm unsure if it was the doors specifically) when the guard gave the driver the bells to depart. When the train began moving she lost her support and fell between the train and the platform.
I don't think that fact has been missed by anybody who is contributing to this thread. On the other hand, what does seem to be being missed by some is that however you dress things up, that poor girl also contributed to her own sad demise. I'm aware that that is not a very palatable conclusion to draw, but it is the truth. And sometimes the truth hurts.
O L Leigh
Established Member
At the risk of going over ground already well-trodden, no-one doubts that she was rendered incapabe due to alcohol intoxication which may have impaired her judgement and safety. But it has no bearing on the court case, and that is the painful truth.
McGee was convicted solely on the basis of criminal negligence which resulted in her death. His actions could have caused the death of anyone, irrespective of their state of intoxication. That Georgia happened to be drunk at the time is immaterial. Yes her judgement would have been impaired, but she didn't need to have been drunk to find herself in a position where her life was in danger. Once she found herself in that position it was down to the guard to ensure that nothing untoward happened to her.
O L Leigh
I don't disagree with a single word that you say here. It's a case of very painful truths I'm afraid. The only good that can come out of it is for it to be a warning to others - those who like a drink and train crew working on late night services - of what the consequences can be of your actions.
You say that Ferret but time and again yourself and others have mentioned her being drunk or having a bra showing or something or other. She and the people who supplied her with drink or drugs were not on trial here and it had no baring on the case.
Its quite simple really. The guard was on trial for his actions that led to her death and he has been found guilty.
Its quite simple really. The guard was on trial for his actions that led to her death and he has been found guilty.
I'm at a loss here Clip, really I am. At no point have I said that her intoxication had any bearing on the case. Please read what I'm saying, not what you *think* I'm saying.
Rightly so, as I and others have said countless times.
The offence charged would not have been speeding in that case. It would have been careless driving, or something more severe.
I think anybody saying that either the deceased or the guard were exclusively responsible is wrong. The guard contributed by giving the right away when he shouldn't, and had the deceased not been in an inebriated state, she could well have realised the danger in which she was and moved away from the train before coming to harm.
True, but if the lady had not been drunk, the fact that the guard had not prevented the train from departing may not have mattered either.
Wasn't there an incident caused on FCC where the dispatcher couldn't check the platform properly because he was afraid if he released the CD button without giving the RA, the driver would reopen the doors?
- Status