Merseyrail Guard on Trial

[A-driver]

Not matter what state the poor girl was in, he shouldn't have given the all clear! The guard had no idea what that girl had been up to that evening. All he cared about was getting the train away. Safety of customers should have been his priority, something which he sadly and regrettably ignored.

To be fair you don't know that, unless you we there at the time? You can't go on everything you read in the press. On countless occasions I have seen people approach my train after it has started moving, often trying to open doors as they missed the train. I have witnessed people running up to the train with such fore they have run into it as it was moving.

As I said before, the court has ruled what it has ruled but none of us truly know what happened and it is in very bad taste to have this kind of discussion and is really bringing out the evil in people.

 

[RichmondCommu]

That is a very distasteful thing to say.

Do you not think that the guard would be scarred forever?

What?! Good grief, perhaps you might want to remind yourself as to who the victim is here?

It might have helped if the guard had chosen to plead guilty, certainly in the eye's of the poor girls parents. Not only that but he might have been facing a leser sentence.

 

[bb21]

Not matter what state the poor girl was in, he shouldn't have given the all clear! The guard had no idea what that girl had been up to that evening. All he cared about was getting the train away. Safety of customers should have been his priority, something which he sadly and regrettably ignored.

This is not what we were debating though, is it? No one ever said that the guard is not responsible. Your point is that the guard was solely responsible and that I cannot agree with.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Don't feed the troll. Rise above it and leave him to it. He is just trying to provoke a reaction.

Troll? Pardon me but would you like to explain what you've just said?

 

[A-driver]

If you can explain why you felt the need to describe the guard as a berk.

 

[bb21]

What?! Good grief, perhaps you might want to remind yourself as to who the victim is here?

If you think that the guard is not also the victim in this case (whoever is at fault) then I have nothing to say to you.

No winners in this case. All people involved are victims.

 

[Temple Meads]

If you can explain why you felt the need to describe the guard as a berk.

Considering he was the primary cause of the death of someone who (in the eyes of the law) was a child, "berk" actually seems reasonably suitable.

However, what should be a grown-up sensible debate on the issue is not the place for such terms.

 

[RichmondCommu]

This is not what we were debating though, is it? No one ever said that the guard is not responsible. Your point is that the guard was solely responsible and that I cannot agree with.

Yes but surely he had a duty of care to that poor girl, not matter what condition she might have been in. All he had to do was to stop the train from departing. If he'd done that, this young lady would still be alive and the guard would not be facing five years behind bars.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you can explain why you felt the need to describe the guard as a berk.

Well its the same term that has been used to describe others that were unconnected to this poor girls untimely death.

 

[Temple Meads]

Yes but surely he had a duty of care to that poor girl, not matter what condition she might have been in. All he had to do was to stop the train from departing. If he'd done that, this young lady would still be alive and the guard would not be facing five years behind bars.

I think this point has already been argued enough, simply the guard had a duty of care to the girl, which he did not adhere to, thus being the primary cause of her death by giving the all clear, but he was not the only cause.

 

[bb21]

Yes but surely he had a duty of care to that poor girl, not matter what condition she might have been in. All he had to do was to stop the train from departing. If he'd done that, this young lady would still be alive and the guard would not be facing five years behind bars.

Yes, and no one disagreed. Please explain how the guard was solely responsible. Please explain why those people who supplied the poor girl with illegal substances are not jointly responsible for her death. Please explain why her choosing to put herself in a vulnerable position is not a contributing factor in her death. This is what you were arguing for at the beginning.

 

[A-driver]

Yes but surely he had a duty of care to that poor girl, not matter what condition she might have been in. All he had to do was to stop the train from departing. If he'd done that, this young lady would still be alive and the guard would not be facing five years behind bars.

But it just isn't that simple and its incredibly ignorant to assume that it is. This incident didn't occur solely because of the guard. As I have said you have no idea what happened as you were not there or involved and are just going on what you have read in the press. None of us know the full facts and so it is very distasteful to continue with this argument. You can not blame the guard 100% like you are.

 

[the sniper]

I'm surprised we haven't slipped into accusations of murder with the way this thread is going...

 

[Temple Meads]

Please explain why those people who supplied the poor girl with illegal substances are not jointly responsible for her death.

"Those people" are not jointly at fault, they are a contributing factor in her death, the guard was the primary cause, but (as said many times above) is not solely to blame.

 

[bb21]

"Those people" are not jointly at fault, they are a contributing factor in her death, the guard was the primary cause, but (as said many times above) is not solely to blame.

Yes. Typing too fast has its hazards.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yes, and no one disagreed. Please explain how the guard was solely responsible. Please explain why those people who supplied the poor girl with illegal substances are not jointly responsible for her death. Please explain why her choosing to put herself in a vulnerable position is not a contributing factor in her death. This is what you were arguing for at the beginning.

This young lady didn't die because of the alcohol / drugs that were in her body i.e. an over dose. She died because a railway employee failed her. As I've already stated, in no way can this case be compared to what happened to Leah Betts.

 

[bb21]

This young lady didn't die because of the alcohol / drugs that were in her body i.e. an over dose. She died because a railway employee failed her. As I've already stated, in no way can this case be compared to what happened to Leah Betts.

It may not be the direct cause of her death. It is still a contributing factor, is it not?

Look we are clearly going around in circles. You can have your opinion on it, albeit that it is one I disagree with, and I will have mine. We are not going to agree so I will just leave it like that.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It may not be the direct cause of her death. It is still a contributing factor, is it not?

Look we are clearly going around in circles. You can have your opinion on it, albeit that it is one I disagree with, and I will have mine on it.

Agreed. Perhaps we should agree to disagree? I'm a parent of three teenage children, I think that perhaps explains a lot of things!

 

[sevenhills]

This young lady didn't die because of the alcohol / drugs that were in her body

She could actually have died from the fall, due to being intoxicated, nothing to do with the train.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Agreed. Perhaps we should agree to disagree? I'm a parent of three teenage children, I think that perhaps explains a lot of things!

I have 2 teenage girls both 16 or over, 1 goes out at weekends the other is tee total, as I have already said numerous times yes the Guard is completely guilty. However the girls condition has a significant impact on what happened' to deny that is just stupidity in the extreme, there are 2 sets of people who significantly failed in their duty of care, the guard who is now spending more time in prison then some rapists and murderers and the girls parents for burying their heads in the sand, no winners, just losers

 

[hello]

[.

This 'mixed grade' BS has probably come from some berk who has told a spotter that he is 'mostly a guard but drives trains too' which is utterly lies. Even under BR, there were no multi graded traincrew.

afraid their was mate, they were called relief drivers, trainman d were their normal duties, then when they were short of drivers they did driving turns

 

[sevenhills]

It may not be the direct cause of her death. It is still a contributing factor, is it not?

Being drunk was the cause, but if the guard had more hindsight he could have saved her.

I drive my vehicle 5 days per week, doing around 100 miles per day, no accidents.

If I went out and got my blood alcohol level to the same as this 16 year old, I would be likely have an accident - caused by the alcohol numbing my senses.

 

[Ferret]

That is a very distasteful thing to say.

Do you not think that the guard would be scarred forever?

I think it's blatantly obvious that this guy is trolling, saying controversial things to provoke a reaction. The kind of unintelligent rantings about the guard being a berk are devaluing the thread. In any case, what more is there to be said that hasn't already? Until the RAIB report appears, I don't see the point in continuing.

 

[Robert Taggart]

A Facebook tribute page was posted for the girl - GV - shortly after her death.
It was deluged with hatred towards her - dismissed as the work of trolls - methinks it was removed. But, many of those 'trolls' posted comments which could only have come from those who knew her - they took a dim view of her - she was no angel.
This was covered as much as the accident itself at the time by our regional television news - on 'both sides'.
Methinks the prison sentence for the guard be harsh on him, it was a terrible accident, but, where it not for her...

 

[bnm]

I think it's blatantly obvious that this guy is trolling, saying controversial things to provoke a reaction.

Having an alternate point of view is not trolling. RichmondCommu has stated his views clearly and rationally. I don't necessarily agree with all his points, but I feel they add to the debate. And of course an alternate point of view is going to provoke a reaction. Or would you, Ferret, prefer a forum where only those who agreed with you had a voice? That'd be pretty dull.

As for the 'berk' comment. That really is a pretty mild term to call Christopher McGee. Look at what the trial judge said of his actions. But if you really are offended by the term then can I also be permitted to take offence at some of the comments others have made about Georgia Varley?

One thing I really do not like on internet forums though, is folk publicly calling for threads to be locked, or intimating as such, particularly when they disagree with another's point of view. Leaves them with the satisfaction of having the last word I suppose but denies the opportunity for others to comment. State your case privately to the moderators if you feel the thread has run its course (I don't agree it has) and let them make the decision.

 

[falcon]

I'm surprised we haven't slipped into accusations of murder with the way this thread is going...

Well now you mention it. If you look at the process before he got to court and what went on with his Solicitors they were very worried about this matter.
If he (the Guard )looked down the side of the train and saw the girl leaning on the train and thought F*** you ,you silly C*** your ****ed if you fall down the side of the train and get killed it's your own fault. It might well have been a murder charge. But, when interviewed by the police he would not answer questions and read from a prepared statement saying he THOUGHT she was moving away from the train, and then he went no comment from that point onwards.

 

[mumrar]

Just wanted to add that I agree there are no winners here, only losers. He has found himself in a very frustrating situation with the incident - already delayed when she got off at the wrong stop, worried about further delay to passengers, can't physically move the person away from the train, larger group associated to the passenger if he walks down to remonstrate so his safety is at risk, control will be on at him if he sits and waits.

When humans are faced with such a chioce of conflicting options we make a judgement call based on what we have infront of us and this is what he chose.

Ultimately he should never have given the buzzer signal with her against the train, regardless of her state of intoxication etc., I say this as a guard myself, safe desptach is the ultimate responsibility of the guard of the train (where applicable), so in law this could be the only conclusion from the investigation with the evidence infront of them.

 

[bnm]

The full text of the sentencing remarks from Mr Justice Holroyde in the case of R v Christopher James McGee can be read here:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resourc...entencing-remarks-mr-j-holroyde-r-v-mcgee.pdf

 

[Zoidberg]

It's disappointing that the RAIB report is not coming out as quickly as, at least I, expected. A further update to their website at http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2012/report222012.cfm

states ...

...
The trial has now concluded and we will place the report on this website in due course. In line with our usual practice, we will issue a news alert via our alert service at that time.
...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The full text of the sentencing remarks from Mr Justice Holroyde in the case of R v Christopher James McGee can be read here:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resourc...entencing-remarks-mr-j-holroyde-r-v-mcgee.pdf

Thanks, very helpful post.

 

[Greenback]

Just wanted to add that I agree there are no winners here, only losers. He has found himself in a very frustrating situation with the incident - already delayed when she got off at the wrong stop, worried about further delay to passengers, can't physically move the person away from the train, larger group associated to the passenger if he walks down to remonstrate so his safety is at risk, control will be on at him if he sits and waits.

I agree Mumrar. I have been giving this very sad incident a great deal of thought, and have refrained from posting here in haste since the verdict. On reflection, my thoughts are very similar to yours.

Only the guard will know for certain what went through his mind on that fateful night, and why he took the decision that he did to dispatch the train, but I would not be surprised if at least some of the factors you mention would have been in his thoughts.

When humans are faced with such a chioce of conflicting options we make a judgement call based on what we have infront of us and this is what he chose.

Indeed. Ultimately he made the wrong decision, and I am sure that this will haunt him for the rest of his days.

Ultimately he should never have given the buzzer signal with her against the train, regardless of her state of intoxication etc., I say this as a guard myself, safe desptach is the ultimate responsibility of the guard of the train (where applicable), so in law this could be the only conclusion from the investigation with the evidence infront of them.

I haven't seen the evidence, so I will not comment on the conclusion or the sentence given.

What I will say is that I have sometimes been surprised and a little critical of platform staff ordering people to stand behind yellow lines etc, but given the penalties that could befall them for not exercising their responsibilities to keep other people safe, I now understand completely why they do it.

 

[scotsman]

That is a very distasteful thing to say.

Do you not think that the guard would be scarred forever?

The fact that Guard has been diagnosed with severe anxiety and depression would suggest that he has.