No Smoke Without Fire.

[curly42]

A little bit of rail news from the local rag -

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...n-station/article-3428553-detail/article.html

 

[deltic1989]

I can understand that he was annoyed. But i think he went a bit too far. I normally find a strongly worded letter to the TOC enclosing some of my cats feaces dos the job better.

 

[Ivo]

Is it also not worth mentioning that a major contributory factor was that he had been drinking? I'm not saying this in his defence; more a case of does it not suggest that maybe there should be legal limits for how much an under-18 is allowed to consume? Why should purchasing drink be illegal but not getting "plastered" at home?

 

[junglejames]

Seems a bit light to me. Teach him a real lesson. Yes it may be because he was drunk, but he needs to learn then that he should not get drunk. Prison would be a good way. Perhaps even make him pay for the damage as well. May take a while to pay back, but it would teach him a lesson if he found he never had any money left at the end of the month.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can understand that he was annoyed. But i think he went a bit too far. I normally find a strongly worded letter to the TOC enclosing some of my cats feaces dos the job better.

I hope that isnt what you really do? If i was in charge of the TOC you sent that to, id have written back, thanking you for the present, and telling you not to bother ever stepping foot on our trains again.

There would be no apology, and no compensation.
Being pleasant works both ways. Not just one way, and cats faeces is not being pleasant. Its being quite sick/ strange.

 

[Greenback]

Is it also not worth mentioning that a major contributory factor was that he had been drinking? I'm not saying this in his defence; more a case of does it not suggest that maybe there should be legal limits for how much an under-18 is allowed to consume? Why should purchasing drink be illegal but not getting "plastered" at home?

Being drunk is not, or should not be, an excuse. But there is no suggestion that the idiot in question got drunk at home and then ventured out on a random journey to Cheltenham.

I thin it's far more likely he lives in Cheltenham and he had been out drinking in Gloucester. Whether he was drinking in bars or behind the bus shelter with his mates, this no doubt would have involved the purchase of alcohol!

 

[tbtc]

Clews asked for two other offences, of theft and grievous bodily harm, to be taken into consideration. The court heard he had taken money from an alcoholic in the street, then punched him as he lay on the ground

He sounds a lovely young man, his parents must be so proud...

Tim Burrows, defending, said Clews had not set out to cause arson, and did not remember what happened.

He said: "He was drunk and that is a common factor in all his offending

Ah, well that's okay then... the "catch all" excuse for being a danger to yourself and to society. Can't be his fault, must be the booze, eh? Idiot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seems a bit light to me. Teach him a real lesson. Yes it may be because he was drunk, but he needs to learn then that he should not get drunk. Prison would be a good way. Perhaps even make him pay for the damage as well. May take a while to pay back, but it would teach him a lesson if he found he never had any money left at the end of the month

Agreed. No excuse for what he did. Sadly the £322,000 of damage will be paid for by passengers/ taxpayers (presumably his lawyer will have been paid for by taxpayers too)...

 

[SS4]

Is it also not worth mentioning that a major contributory factor was that he had been drinking? I'm not saying this in his defence; more a case of does it not suggest that maybe there should be legal limits for how much an under-18 is allowed to consume? Why should purchasing drink be illegal but not getting "plastered" at home?

It would be very hard to enforce. Drunk and disorderly and drunk and incapable work but you have to be caught red handed so to speak.

The point is not whether he was drunk though but that fact he still committed arson. It is the fact, not the intention, that must be taken into account. How many of us have been drunk and managed to get home without incident?