-
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
I'd been interested to see the legislation that backs up that assertion.
I was under the impression that it was not illegal for someone aged 5 and over to drink alcohol in the home or other private premises. Nothing I can see in current legislation that requires parental, or even adult, supervision.
sevenhills
Member
I do feel sympathy with the guard, the picture shows the girl in reasonably safe position. The guard made a genuine mistake and has got 5 years for it.
Many car drivers take risks, knowingly, and get let off very lightly.
Many car drivers take risks, knowingly, and get let off very lightly.
Not really....people have been drinking for a long time. Perhaps a shard more now, but its always been there.
If somebody is acting in a threatening manner then perhaps moving the train slowly out isn't a bad thing.
Somebody who is too laggered for their own good....perhaps not? Its obvious that somebody who is a bit drunk has prolly got the capability to fall in between train and platform.
Surely if you are giving the 'all clear' when its not 'all clear' and there probably isn't any risk to your own safety then that is neglect of duty?
If somebody is acting in a threatening manner then perhaps moving the train slowly out isn't a bad thing.
Somebody who is too laggered for their own good....perhaps not? Its obvious that somebody who is a bit drunk has prolly got the capability to fall in between train and platform.
Surely if you are giving the 'all clear' when its not 'all clear' and there probably isn't any risk to your own safety then that is neglect of duty?
Grief or do you mean guilt. If the Guard is found guilty then it's not my fault my sixteen year old daughter drunk 2/3 of a bottle of vodka,took drugs put on 4 inch high heels,refused many attempts by her friends to go home in a taxi and then fell down the side of a train and got killed. Phew! thank god for that jury,I would felt awful if he had been found not guilty.:roll:
amcluesent
Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 877
And if they kill someone they get charged with causing death by dangerous driving!
Guard will be free on parole in a couple of years, Paula Redmond has a life sentence without her only child.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cliveblackpool
Member
The girl appears to be banging on the train.
Depending on the fps, the cctv may not show the full picture.
Guilty or not guilty the Guard witnessed an horrific accident, which will haunt him for the rest of his life.
Her mates are partly responsible.
In hindsight maybe the correct action would have been to reopen the doors.
Running the train on time goes out the window. Other potential fates could have happened to a girl on her own in that state..
Should there be a RA code to the driver to pull away slowly and be ready to stop? For use on crowded platforms and in this situation? Or would that be just an omission that it was not safe to give the RA?
Should the driver have cctv to cover the blind side.
Probably have far reaching implications, and hopefully save many lives.
Depending on the fps, the cctv may not show the full picture.
Guilty or not guilty the Guard witnessed an horrific accident, which will haunt him for the rest of his life.
Her mates are partly responsible.
In hindsight maybe the correct action would have been to reopen the doors.
Running the train on time goes out the window. Other potential fates could have happened to a girl on her own in that state..
Should there be a RA code to the driver to pull away slowly and be ready to stop? For use on crowded platforms and in this situation? Or would that be just an omission that it was not safe to give the RA?
Should the driver have cctv to cover the blind side.
Probably have far reaching implications, and hopefully save many lives.
I've always thought that too. Does the forum have any views on this? I'll start a new topic.
Matt Taylor
Established Member
Judge's comments at sentencing:
"In my judgment, the CCTV footage is unequivocal, Georgia Varley was not moving away and she was not showing any sign of moving away.
"She only moved when the movement of the train deprived her of support and caused her to lose balance and fall to her death.
"I am satisfied that you merely hoped and assumed she would get out of the way when the train began to move, and on that wholly inadequate basis you took a terrible risk."
Damning comments, and a pertinent reminder to all of us operating trains that we cannot ever assume that something will happen based on previous experience.
"In my judgment, the CCTV footage is unequivocal, Georgia Varley was not moving away and she was not showing any sign of moving away.
"She only moved when the movement of the train deprived her of support and caused her to lose balance and fall to her death.
"I am satisfied that you merely hoped and assumed she would get out of the way when the train began to move, and on that wholly inadequate basis you took a terrible risk."
Damning comments, and a pertinent reminder to all of us operating trains that we cannot ever assume that something will happen based on previous experience.
The RAIB report is going to make for interesting reading.
175001
Established Member
I agree, this incident has put our duties as guards in the spotlight, and shows how important our duties are, where the McNulty report wants to do the total opposite.
90019
Established Member
How many people do you know who deliberately take substances to make themselves ill?
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Might I suggest you look up the case of R v Pittwood 1902 TLR 37. It dealt with a Railway Crossing Keeper.
Very damning comments indeed, reflected in the severity of the sentence that has been handed down. Lots of discussion in the messroom about what this means for us.
Well if the girl never removed her hands from the train and he just let the train go - he was in the wrong! The train ain't 'all clear'. Blame perhaps does not solely rest with the guard but its besides the point and it appears he did not adequately prevent the situation from happening - and thats his job.
Giving the train the right to proceed surely, surely is there to state that it is safe for it to proceed in respect to people not getting squashed or whatever. If there was somebody as close to the train as this girl was then surely it wasn't.
Sevenhills not really sure what you are going on about driving different speeds in a car when we are talking about somebody leaning on a train but ok
Giving the train the right to proceed surely, surely is there to state that it is safe for it to proceed in respect to people not getting squashed or whatever. If there was somebody as close to the train as this girl was then surely it wasn't.
Sevenhills not really sure what you are going on about driving different speeds in a car when we are talking about somebody leaning on a train but ok
I can't help but think that if the TOCs and BTP took byelaw offences more seriously and prosecuted or spoke to people who don't stand behind the yellow line or try to board or even force the doors when they are closing, then it would dissuade people from doing so and make situations similar to the one that which led up to this incident rarer.
Until passengers are accountable for their actions then there will always be passengers who make guards' jobs difficult. At the moment though, TOCs are only interested in clamping down on passengers for revenue-related things.
Regarding this specific incident, I would have to agree with earlier posters that the passenger's state and actions were a large contributory factor, but the guard was also wrong to give the all clear.
Until passengers are accountable for their actions then there will always be passengers who make guards' jobs difficult. At the moment though, TOCs are only interested in clamping down on passengers for revenue-related things.
Regarding this specific incident, I would have to agree with earlier posters that the passenger's state and actions were a large contributory factor, but the guard was also wrong to give the all clear.
90019
Established Member
Perhaps if she wasn't of the opinion that underage drinking and the taking of class B drugs is normal and acceptable behaviour for a 16 year old, then her daughter would still be with us.
Is there a bye-law dealing with intoxication on railway premises? And how often is it used?
Yes, Byelaw 4 cover this:
(2) is used very regularly as part of creating 'dry' trains but I have no idea how often (1) is used. Byelaw 5 probably also applies:
(2) is used very regularly as part of creating 'dry' trains but I have no idea how often (1) is used. Byelaw 5 probably also applies:
trainophile
Established Member
Given that the guard had no way of knowing that the girl was drunk and drugged, he might reasonably have expected her to move away as soon as the train started to move, as anyone in full control of their faculties would do. Perhaps he'd inadvertently noticed her young age, evidenced by her style of dress and apparently juvenile behaviour, and it never crossed his mind that she might be inebriated at such an age and time of night. It was an error of judgement in my opinion, not a deliberate criminal offence.
As regards future prevention, why don't all station platforms with a high frequency of traffic have a despatcher, thus removing the responsibility from the guard, who has enough to do on the train? I'd have thought this was as prerequisite for DOO trains anyway.
(I write as a passenger, with no in-depth understanding of railway workings, so I apologise for anything stupid that I might say.)
As regards future prevention, why don't all station platforms with a high frequency of traffic have a despatcher, thus removing the responsibility from the guard, who has enough to do on the train? I'd have thought this was as prerequisite for DOO trains anyway.
(I write as a passenger, with no in-depth understanding of railway workings, so I apologise for anything stupid that I might say.)
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Sorry, but you need to let all this bye law stuff go as you risk making yourself look petty and stupid. It doesnt matter in this case anyway. The breach of the duty of care outweighed any contributory negligence from the victim.
This is a tragic accident. An accident that the industry needs to consider carefully and learn from. The industry, at all levels, also needs to ensure that the RAIB recommendations are implemented and that steps are taken to ensure it does not happen again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Apologies it is NOT aimed at any poster in particluar. Rather the suggestion from some quarters that the breach of the railway bye laws is equal to the breach of the duty of care that led to a death.
This is a tragic accident. An accident that the industry needs to consider carefully and learn from. The industry, at all levels, also needs to ensure that the RAIB recommendations are implemented and that steps are taken to ensure it does not happen again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Apologies it is NOT aimed at any poster in particluar. Rather the suggestion from some quarters that the breach of the railway bye laws is equal to the breach of the duty of care that led to a death.
Is that aimed at me? Because I was simply answering the question as to whether there is a Byelaw that covers intoxication or not. I'm not sure how answering a simple question with a simple answer makes me (or anyone else) look petty or stupid?
Matt Taylor
Established Member
Quite agree with DarloRich, people still keep confusing morality, personal responsibility and legal responsibility. The law is quite clear, McGee was negligent.
I would be interested to see how the following situation might now play out (and be in no doubt that it will happen tonight somewhere on the network). Someone who appears underage and is under the influence of alcohol/drugs falls over on a platform, gets up and then attempts to board a train. Do we turn them away as per the byelaws? Doing so could result in another guard being in the dock for failing in their responsibility to a 'vulnerable person' (child in this instance). Or does the guard take them and any associated risk that goes with it. If the guard takes them and the person then ends up asleep at journeys end there is the further possibility of 'he touched me inappropriately' claims when trying to get them off the train.
I don't think I've ever seen such a big can of worms.
I would be interested to see how the following situation might now play out (and be in no doubt that it will happen tonight somewhere on the network). Someone who appears underage and is under the influence of alcohol/drugs falls over on a platform, gets up and then attempts to board a train. Do we turn them away as per the byelaws? Doing so could result in another guard being in the dock for failing in their responsibility to a 'vulnerable person' (child in this instance). Or does the guard take them and any associated risk that goes with it. If the guard takes them and the person then ends up asleep at journeys end there is the further possibility of 'he touched me inappropriately' claims when trying to get them off the train.
I don't think I've ever seen such a big can of worms.
A breach of railway bye laws isn' t equal to a guard's breach of the duty of care, but I still think that if the byelaws had been enforced then her death may have been avoided.
Passengers who are so badly intoxicated shouldn't be able to make it past the gateline in the ticket hall, which means they'd be well away from the platform edge. That doesn't mean I don't think the guard wasn't also negligent however in this case
Passengers who are so badly intoxicated shouldn't be able to make it past the gateline in the ticket hall, which means they'd be well away from the platform edge. That doesn't mean I don't think the guard wasn't also negligent however in this case
Matt Taylor
Established Member
Very few stations have working barriers past 10pm, the guard is often the last line of defence.
Only around 10% of UK rail stations have ticket barriers. What do you propose happens at the other ±90% stations?
michael769
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 2,006
You would be surprised! I have been known to eat far to much chocolate on occasion!
90019
Established Member
But you're presumably doing that because you like chocolate - not deliberately trying to make yourself ill.
The level of weighting to each constituent part of the circumstances that ended with this tragic incident matters not one jot. It's just that it in my opinion, it's remiss of us not to understand that there are several factors that resulted in that girl's death, the Guard's criminal negligence being the one that was dealt with yesterday and today.
- Status