• 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!

Trespass incident at Manchester Piccadilly (11/03)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
He isnt advocating that at all - hes saying there could be a childcare issue as to why the kids were taken there.

... or a non-childcare issue, like wishing to use them for emotional blackmail purposes. Or as human shields for that matter, little different from a tactical view to a certain former ruler (1970s to 2003) of Iraq.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
1,057
Location
London E14
That's possible, although (in my opinion) less likely.
However as we don't know why they brought their children, nor what they knew about what was going to happen when they decided to bring their children, it is inappropriate to judge them for this decision. It is exactly the same as not judging a driver who has passed a signal at danger until it is known why they did so.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
That's possible, although (in my opinion) less likely.
However as we don't know why they brought their children, nor what they knew about what was going to happen when they decided to bring their children, it is inappropriate to judge them for this decision. It is exactly the same as not judging a driver who has passed a signal at danger until it is known why they did so.
Sorry to disagree. The child being on the track was a consequence of several, separately decided actions, each of which had the potential to harm the child.
1. The decision was made to take the child on a protest march.
2. The decision was made to breach the barrier line with the child.
3. The decision was made to either lift the child onto the running lines or walk off the ramp end.
4. The decision was made to remain on the track in the face of warnings from police/rail staff.
No comparison at all with a SPAD, which is a single action, deliberate, reckless or accidental.
 

theironroad

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
3,692
Location
London
Sorry to disagree. The child being on the track was a consequence of several, separately decided actions, each of which had the potential to harm the child.
1. The decision was made to take the child on a protest march.
2. The decision was made to breach the barrier line with the child.
3. The decision was made to either lift the child onto the running lines or walk off the ramp end.
4. The decision was made to remain on the track in the face of warnings from police/rail staff.
No comparison at all with a SPAD, which is a single action, deliberate, reckless or accidental.

How you can even think a driver would deliberately have a spad is beyond words.

If you read spad investigation reports you'll see that there is often a long lead up of factors up to the spad, rather than the 'single act' you seem to think.
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,145
Ma
How you can even think a driver would deliberately have a spad is beyond words.

If you read spad investigation reports you'll see that there is often a long lead up of factors up to the spad, rather than the 'single act' you seem to think.
Has there ever been a deliberate SPAD or has that never happened?
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
How you can even think a driver would deliberately have a spad is beyond words.
Once again the "staff can do no wrong" attitude appears.

I was simply laying out the three ways an incident can occur. I don't know about drivers, but I can certainly remember at least one incident where a signalman rehearsed for weeks, if not months, the deliberate derailing of a passenger train at speed, where he had worked out out that he could defeat the interlocking by sprinting the length of his box.
 

theironroad

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
3,692
Location
London
Once again the "staff can do no wrong" attitude appears.

I was simply laying out the three ways an incident can occur. I don't know about drivers, but I can certainly remember at least one incident where a signalman rehearsed for weeks, if not months, the deliberate derailing of a passenger train at speed, where he had worked out out that he could defeat the interlocking by sprinting the length of his box.

So let's see your source for this signalman incident and also where a driver has set out to deliberately have a spad.

Your attitude seems to be that rail staff are in the wrong until they prove themselves otherwise, a trait you appear to share with a few others on here.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
So let's see your source for this signalman incident and also where a driver has set out to deliberately have a spad.

Your attitude seems to be that rail staff are in the wrong until they prove themselves otherwise, a trait you appear to share with a few others on here.
Connington 5th March 1967.

I have already said I have no information that a driver has deliberately SPADed, and I have already said TWICE that I was merely pointing out that deliberate was one of three (theoretical) methods of something happening.

In my 34 years of work on the railways I must admit I never felt this paranoia that a few staff on this forum seem to feel.

Now, what about my analysis of the adult bringing a child onto running lines?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
So let's see your source for this signalman incident and also where a driver has set out to deliberately have a spad.

Your attitude seems to be that rail staff are in the wrong until they prove themselves otherwise, a trait you appear to share with a few others on here.
The signaller one was Connington South, 1967.
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Connington1967.pdf
The signalling equipment was in order and the points could only have been opened as a result of deliberate irregular actions on the part of Signalman Frost, who was alone in the signalbox at the time and thus solely responsible for the derailment.
...
Mr. Justice Fisher instructed the Jury to acquit Frost on the charges of manslaughter and sentenced him to two years imprisonment for unlawfully operating the signal and points mechanism of the Connington South signalbox so as to endanger persons being conveyed on a railway, on which charge Frost had changed his plea to Guilty.
So while it's extremely rare it's not unheard of.
 

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
1,057
Location
London E14
Re post #266 (the forum software wont allow me to quote it for some reason)

No, my attitude is that nobody (staff or otherwise) should be judged to be in the right or in the wrong until the evidence is known.
We don't know why the children were brought to this protest march - so let's not assume the parents are either saints or devils (or anywhere in between) for doing so unless and until we know why they brought them. This is separate to why they went on the tracks, but again we don't know the reasons why they did so, so let's not judge their motivations until we do.
When a SPAD happens it could be the fault of the driver, the signaller, the signalling system, the track, another driver or something else. If the fault lies with a human it could be deliberate, preventable accidental (e.g. fatigue, inattention) or unpreventable accidental (e.g. medical). My point is that you shouldn't judge the driver until you know the cause.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,753
Location
Epsom
Once again the "staff can do no wrong" attitude appears.

I was simply laying out the three ways an incident can occur. I don't know about drivers, but I can certainly remember at least one incident where a signalman rehearsed for weeks, if not months, the deliberate derailing of a passenger train at speed, where he had worked out out that he could defeat the interlocking by sprinting the length of his box.

Just testing for you... ( and assuming you mean #366 rather than #266 as your other post about this links to #366 )
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
... or a non-childcare issue, like wishing to use them for emotional blackmail purposes. Or as human shields for that matter, little different from a tactical view to a certain former ruler (1970s to 2003) of Iraq.
I'm guessing there is the emotional aspect to it as kids will always draw some extra sympathy but that's a massive difference to human shields
 

theironroad

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
3,692
Location
London
The signaller one was Connington South, 1967.
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Connington1967.pdf

So while it's extremely rare it's not unheard of.

Thanks for posting that link. Can't say I read it fully, but a skim through is certainly interesting. Seems Frost had some motives which weren't fully uncovered by the inquiry. If he intentionally circumvented the interlocking, which the inquiry implies, that certainly seems irregular. I wonder if his final guilty plea was acknowledgement of that or he was advised to plead guilty to reduce his sentence. Don't suppose he said anything in later life about the incident.
 

theironroad

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
3,692
Location
London
Once again the "staff can do no wrong" attitude appears.

I was simply laying out the three ways an incident can occur. I don't know about drivers, but I can certainly remember at least one incident where a signalman rehearsed for weeks, if not months, the deliberate derailing of a passenger train at speed, where he had worked out out that he could defeat the interlocking by sprinting the length of his box.

Where in the Connington report, linked in post #369, does it show that the "signalman rehearsed for weeks , if not months, the deliberate derailing......."?
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
Where in the Connington report, linked in post #369, does it show that the "signalman rehearsed for weeks , if not months, the deliberate derailing......."?
It was common knowledge at the time so probably the court records will show it.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
Don't think anyone is paranoid mate.

Out of interest, what do you do on the railway?
Now retired. Started in 1964 on the perway. Left to join a county police force but returned to BTP giving me a total of 34 years on the railway.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
What do we think of this direct action, and what if the protesters had taken children with them?
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ists-prepared-to-go-to-prison-to-force-action
Air pollution protesters say they are prepared to go to prison as they step up their campaign against the poisonous air that kills tens of thousands of people in the UK each year.
A group of campaigners including pensioners and young parents, were arrested on Monday after targeting the offices of London mayor Sadiq Khan, spraying slogans on the walls calling for tougher action on air pollution.
The group – called Stop Killing Londoners – has previously brought traffic to a standstill at some of the capital’s busiest junctions in a series of direct action protests highlighting the scale of London’s air pollution crisis.
They obviously didn't do anything life-threatening (apart from entering central London!) Do we agree that the action is necessary? Justified? In the long-term interest of all of us?
 
Last edited:

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,145
What do we think of this direct action, and what if the protesters had taken children with them?
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ists-prepared-to-go-to-prison-to-force-action
They obviously didn't do anything life-threatening (apart from entering central London!) Do we agree that the action is necessary? Justified? In the long-term interest of all of us?
Idiots - should be banged up.

The irony is that the environmental cost of their protest will be significant.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
Re post #266 (the forum software wont allow me to quote it for some reason)

No, my attitude is that nobody (staff or otherwise) should be judged to be in the right or in the wrong until the evidence is known.
We don't know why the children were brought to this protest march - so let's not assume the parents are either saints or devils (or anywhere in between) for doing so unless and until we know why they brought them. This is separate to why they went on the tracks, but again we don't know the reasons why they did so, so let's not judge their motivations until we do.
When a SPAD happens it could be the fault of the driver, the signaller, the signalling system, the track, another driver or something else. If the fault lies with a human it could be deliberate, preventable accidental (e.g. fatigue, inattention) or unpreventable accidental (e.g. medical). My point is that you shouldn't judge the driver until you know the cause.

We don’t have to know a whole heap of information about the parents to know that it’s wrong to bring a child to a protest and then go onto the track. It’s wrong, dangerous and should be condemned.

It’s either just plain wrong, and dumb, or there may be exacerbating factors like them doing it for attention or to prove an extra political point. We won’t know.

There aren’t any circumstances where we can say it’s okay they did what they did, with the child.
 

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
1,057
Location
London E14
We don’t have to know a whole heap of information about the parents to know that it’s wrong to bring a child to a protest and then go onto the track. It’s wrong, dangerous and should be condemned.

It’s either just plain wrong, and dumb, or there may be exacerbating factors like them doing it for attention or to prove an extra political point. We won’t know.

There aren’t any circumstances where we can say it’s okay they did what they did, with the child.
That wasn't the point I was making - obviously going on the track was not sensible regardless of why they did it. The post I was responding to was condemning, in absolute terms, bringing children to the protest in the first place, regardless of what they did or did not do once at the protest.
I was also taking issue with those who were assuming, without evidence, that the children were brought to be used as human shields or similar and those calling for the parents to be hung, drawn and quartered (not quite literally, fortunately) for gross child abuse.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
That wasn't the point I was making - obviously going on the track was not sensible regardless of why they did it. The post I was responding to was condemning, in absolute terms, bringing children to the protest in the first place, regardless of what they did or did not do once at the protest.
I was also taking issue with those who were assuming, without evidence, that the children were brought to be used as human shields or similar and those calling for the parents to be hung, drawn and quartered (not quite literally, fortunately) for gross child abuse.
You say going on the track was not sensible. I would say it was wreck less. Can you give me any reason why you would not condemn bringing children to this protest?
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
You say going on the track was not sensible. I would say it was wreck less. Can you give me any reason why you would not condemn bringing children to this protest?
A misunderstanding of the safety culture of the country you are in, complete desperation over the plight of your people and their future? Just a couple of reasons people may have done it. Loads of British people break the traffic laws with their kids in the car and I don't see the same hand wringing. It's more like "Why is there this war against the motorist" than "How can you do that to your kids".
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
A misunderstanding of the safety culture of the country you are in, complete desperation over the plight of your people and their future? Just a couple of reasons people may have done it. Loads of British people break the traffic laws with their kids in the car and I don't see the same hand wringing. It's more like "Why is there this war against the motorist" than "How can you do that to your kids".
I would still condemn it if they were the reasons but you make a fair point about the motorist.
 

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
1,057
Location
London E14
You say going on the track was not sensible. I would say it was wreck less. Can you give me any reason why you would not condemn bringing children to this protest?
I'm making a distinction between "bringing children to this protest" and "taking (or letting) children on the track".
There are many possible good reasons for doing the former (for example when the parents decided to bring their children to the protest they did not know that it would involve going onto the track, parents having the choice of attending the protest with children or not attending the protest, etc), there are no good reasons for the latter (although there are several possible explanations for why they may not have perceived it as being as potentially dangerous as it was).
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
What do we think of this direct action, and what if the protesters had taken children with them?
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ists-prepared-to-go-to-prison-to-force-action

They obviously didn't do anything life-threatening (apart from entering central London!) Do we agree that the action is necessary? Justified? In the long-term interest of all of us?


Odd, isn't it, that the law'n'order element in this country never seems that bothered when emanations of the state break their own laws
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894

STANDISH

Member
Joined
10 Jun 2013
Messages
228
Pleased to note there are now photographs of six protesters at Man Picc ,who the police would like to speak to on the front page of the on line edition of the Manchester Evening News
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,902
Location
Leeds
From past experience it's clearly very posdible to deploy more officers wuickly for a major incident, and the BTP should quickly call on the GM police for assistance if necessary.

Are you saying that people in numbers should be allowed to break the law in ways that individuals could not?
Ya know, like riots and that? They haven't been 'allowed' to break the law. It's been safer to take action post-event, not at the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top