Quote I found NOT from the Wail!
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/15/train-guard-jailed-death-teenager
The guard was clearly in the wrong but the reports tells us that the 16 year old was 3 times over the drink/drive limit (I thought under 18's weren't allowed to purchase or consume
alcohol), out at 11.30 at night (where did the parents think she was), and also had traces of a "Party Drug" in her blood. It is highly unfortunate that she is dead but I think she made some contribution to her demise, however slight.
|
Harsh but probably fair. She was drunk (16 year olds do this) but was clearly leaning against the train. And yet he gave the signal for the train to leave.
If this was a fat drunk bloke leaning against the train.... and the same happened... would that be ok too?
|
>> If this was a fat drunk bloke leaning against the train.... and the same happened...
>> would that be ok too?
>>
It would be far more tempting.
|
|
I am in no way suggesting that any aspect of the events is OK. I am noting that the deceased had a drug in her system (legal or not) and was very drunk having illegally consumed alcohol.
|
Seems unfair to me.
He didn't intend to kill her, although he was clearly irresponsible. I would have thought there was a better punishment than imprisonment, although I'm not sure what.
I doubt he could be any more remorseful than he is right now.
The trouble is there'd porbably have been a fairly significant outcry if he wasn't imprisoned.
|
Harsh.
18 months suspended would have done it. Criminal record and the tin tack.
|
Drunks are to be expected on late night trains in big cities. It was late Friday night and, on a deserted platform, the guard had a lightly clad and evidently intoxicated young woman leaning on the train. Not on a crowded, curved London underground platform with a 12 car train but an an empty, rule straight one with a three or four car train. The pictures from CCTV show his head out of the rear cab window with her also towards rear of train.
He should have recycled the doors or got off and summoned/rendered assistance. He either ignored her, or worse told her to get clear of the train and part herself from her friends. When she didn't he gave the driver 'right away' Not just recklessness, gross negligence from a man in a professional role. No sympathy at all.
The judges sentencing remarks are on the net:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-holroyde-r-v-mcgee.pdf
Note what he says on pages three and four about aggravating factors.
Sixteen year olds get drunk. Her parents presumably knew she was out with friends and were probably worried but you've got to give them some slack by that age.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 16 Nov 12 at 17:17
|
>>man in a professional role<<
Yet another job where you are considered to be a professional only when you have to answer for your actions to the public at large.
Pat
|
He has a vital safety role to prevent drunks falling under the train and being sliced in half.
He failed miserably.
A jury of his peers deemed him guilty of manslaughter.
A judge sentenced him according to the law.
If the sentence is harsh it will be reduced on appeal.
Problem?
**EDIT** - for those who don't read Bromp's link:
"I regard it as a fourth serious feature of the case that you were watching this vulnerable girl leaning against the side of the train, in the most obvious position of danger, when you pressed the bell twice to signal the driver to move the train. You were not distracted at the vital moment, or required to turn away in order to operate the controls. You had a continuous and perfect view of her: you were only about 25 metres apart, in a slightly elevated position and with nothing at all between you and her. In my judgment, the CCTV footage is unequivocal: Georgia Varley was not moving away, and she was not showing any sign of moving away, when you gave that signal. On the contrary, she was leaning against and supported by the train which you chose to set in motion. She only moved when the movement of the train deprived her of that support and caused her to lose balance and fall to her death."
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 16 Nov 12 at 17:37
|
If it was you who gave me the sour face Lygonos, I have no problem at all with that and agree with the courts decision.
If it wasn't you, I apologise but to whoever it was....
What I have a problem with is being classed as a professional when it suits the public, but not when it come to terms and conditions of employment reflected in my salary.
Problem?
Pat
|
Not my scowly - read my edit.
Professional means you get paid to do a job you have been trained to do.
Some jobs are paid more than others.
Toilet attendants are professionals as far as I'm concerned.
If they leave a floor slippery without warning and someone wanders in and hurts themselves they also are culpable for their actions.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 16 Nov 12 at 17:41
|
|
Sour puss faces are an occupational hazard Pat. BAdge of honour for being controversial.
|
Controversial me?
Never, I'm a rebel;)
Pat
|
|
Whether they like it or not those with positions of responsibility have a duty of care and not make judgements. Drunks are unpredictable. He should have made sure she was well clear before moving that train.
|
>>If it was you who gave me the sour face Lygonos
For the avoidance of doubt it wasn't me either. I think the whole thumbs up / scowly face thing is awful and somehow kind of underhand.
Having said that, professional these days just means getting paid to do something rather than doing it for free, doesn't it?
It used to mean qualified in some way by a recognised association of some kind, but that seems to have gone by the way.
Still, professional or paid employee or whatever, he was wrong. Horribly wrong and negligent is putting a shine on it. He probably was feeling mean and decided to give her a shock. or whatever, but I doubt he was trying to either injure or kill her.
We've all done stupid things where the consequences have been unexpected. Probably not as stupid as the guard, and probably not with such severe consequences, but I think he was being an idiot rather than a killer.
If he'd have got the train to move, and she'd fallen over and banged her head, but had survived intact, what would then have been his punishment?
I genuinely don't know what it would have been, but I'd say that we should be punishing the act and the intent, not the unforeseen consequences.
And also I think that the punishment should somehow attempt to compensate for the crime, or at least pay back somehow.
Languishing in jail will teach him nothing and benefit society not at all.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Nov 12 at 00:59
|
>> We've all done stupid things where the consequences have been unexpected. Probably not as stupid as the guard, and probably not with such severe consequences, but I think he was
>> being an idiot rather than a killer.
>>
>> Languishing in jail will teach him nothing and benefit society not at all.
>>
Agreed.
One spark at the wrong time and I could have blown most of the Aluminium Foils factory in North Woolwich sky high when I went and had a tea break leaving a valve open, resulting in about 500 litres of Ethyl Acetate over the floor. The four of us who mopped it up were as high as kites for the rest of the shift.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Nov 12 at 00:59
|
>> but I think he was being an idiot rather than a killer.
Which is why he was given two years and not life.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Nov 12 at 00:59
|
>>Which is why he was given two years and not life.
Sorry, I must have lost the plot somewhere, I thought he was given more than that.
Mind you, two years doesn't make any sense either. What is he in prison for? If its negligence, then would he have got the same 2 years if she hadn't died?
If so, I guess fair enough. But if she;d been uninjured, then would he have got prison?
It seems to me he's getting the jail because of the results, not because of what he did.
What he actually did wrong would seem better punished by a number of years of onerous, unpaid public service more than by jail.
|
>>Languishing in jail will teach him nothing and benefit society not at all.
Maybe, but if I was a train guard/bus driver/etc right now I'd be trying pretty hard not to 'teach anyone a lesson' by being a tool.
|
"we should be punishing the act and the intent, not the unforeseen consequences."
Which is why the charge was manslaughter, not murder.
|
I am not talking of the charge, or even the conviction. I was talking of the penalty.
What would have been the punishment/penalty if he had moved the train, she had fallen over, got up and staggered off relatively unharmed?
Would it have been different?
|
The difference is she would have been still alive if this caracter checked if she was ok?
He didn't, he blow the whistle.If she had got up and staggered off he would have got away with it.
|
Yes.
I punch you - you live - I suffer XX penalty.
I punch you - you fall and die - I suffer XXXX penalty.
Not a new thing.
|
>>Not a new thing.
No, but still not a good thing.
We punish too much.
|
>> when you have
>> to answer for your actions to the public at large.
Thats what makes a professional, as you keep telling us. Lets face it, lorry driving is a low skilled role, most people can train to do it, its the responsibility on the road that makes the job different.
Back to the Guard. He had, as a key part of his job, a responsibility to the passengers within his care. It was why he was there. He knew what the possible outcomes of his actions could be, yet, driven by whatever he was thinking, deliberately set the train off in an unsafe condition.
Now with that in mind, review the situation.
|
Reports say:-
"Georgia was three times over the legal drink-driving limit and had 0.083mg of the drug mephedrone, or Mcat, in her system at the time of her death"
"McGee had received a police caution in 2009 for growing nine cannabis plants at his home "
IIRC reading somewhere that she was deemed to be 20% to blame.
>>I doubt he could be any more remorseful than he is right now.
>>The trouble is there'd porbably have been a fairly significant outcry if he wasn't imprisoned.
I agree with those comments
|
I'll repeat this in case it's been missed:
Judge-> "the CCTV footage is unequivocal: Georgia Varley was not moving away, and she was not showing any sign of moving away, when you gave that signal. On the contrary, she was leaning against and supported by the train which you chose to set in motion. She only moved when the movement of the train deprived her of that support and caused her to lose balance and fall to her death"
Whatever the state of the girl, whether she was high/drunk/mad/having a seizure, this was gross negligence at the highest end of the scale.
|
|
A young girl died in tragic circumstances that seemed avoidable.
|
It certainly was, I agree with that.
Pat
|
|
My old line of work I was well trained, carried a high level of responsibility internally and externally in my role. I was well paid for this and I was considered a professional. In my new life, I get paid a pittance, I'm well trained and carry no internal responsibility (apart from supervising volunteers), I carry a shedload of responsibility to the public, people could suffer as a result of my decision making - I still consider myself to be a professional. I don't think you can switch it on and off. This guy was well trained (from what I've read) - carried a responsibility for the well-being and safety of the public (clue in the job title, he clearly failed through ignoring what he saw or neglecting to act professionally so someone died. The way he behaved amounted to criminal negligence - so he's paid the price.
|
tinyurl.com/bonf22x
2 years for this - I wonder where and by whom the lines are drawn
|
Seems unduly harsh from the report - not convicted of a sexual offence so one can only presume the CPS decided the sexual acts were consensual.
Doctors on occasion are struck off for inappropriate relationships but I would be surprised if any had been jailed for it.
|
|
I think the taking advantage of the vulnerable may have had some thing to do with the sentence.
|
>> taking advantage of the vulnerable
The 'vulnerable' individuals either gave consent, or did not (or were incapable) in which case sexual assault/rape is the charge.
Having sex when you're meant to be working is a sackable offence.
Doing so while working 'in public office' obviously appears to commit a non-sexual breach-of-trust offence.
I expect this one will be much reduced on appeal unless the aggravating factors are quite extreme (in which case the CPS should look at the ability of the 'vulnerable' individuals to have given consent in the first place)
|
>> The 'vulnerable' individuals either gave consent, or did not (or were incapable) in which case
>> sexual assault/rape is the charge.
>>
>> Having sex when you're meant to be working is a sackable offence.
>>
>> Doing so while working 'in public office' obviously appears to commit a non-sexual breach-of-trust offence.
>>
>> I expect this one will be much reduced on appeal unless the aggravating factors are
>> quite extreme (in which case the CPS should look at the ability of the 'vulnerable'
>> individuals to have given consent in the first place)
I suspect they were vulnerable as victims of crime; upset and emotional. A different thing from being incapable of consenting due drink or mental incapacity. He took advantage because his being a policeman gave him access and a role, power even, as 'rescuer'.
We've probably all known blokes who've picked up a girl distraught on break up and sha88ed her. Pretty low behaviour at best of time but unforgiveable while in a professional role.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 17 Nov 12 at 09:50
|
>> Pretty low behaviour at best of time but unforgiveable while in a professional role.
Worthy of being stripped of career and pilloried.
Jailable?
Perhaps - doctors tend to be struck off for the same actions but not jailed.
AFAIK it's not an offence for a policeman to ask a MOP they've been in contact with through their duties out on a date - presumably there are significant aggravating factors in this case that were judged a very serious breach.
|
My experience is that anyone who goes anywhere near a train on the platform after the 'doors locked' lights have come on gets shouted at to move away in no uncertain terms by at least one of the platform staff.
However this bloke was a train guard rather than platform staff - presumably there weren't any of the latter at this station, and perhaps a guard's training for this situation is less rigorous.
|
>>and perhaps a guard's training for this situation
>> is less rigorous.
>>
How much training do you need for safe / not safe to start a train ?
|
>> How much training do you need for safe / not safe to start a train?
Well yes, should be straightforward. But to actually shout at someone, loudly, might not be easy for some people (he doesn't look like an assertive type). If for example he'd been shown pictures of people who had met the same fate as the girl, he might have done more.
Not disagreeing with the sentence BTW - just trying to understand why he ended up where he is.
EDIT: although in this case he didn't even have to shout, just not press a button twice or something, so I don't really understand his actions
Last edited by: Focusless on Fri 16 Nov 12 at 19:03
|
|
He deserved to be locked up.Callous b...... He might have a tough time in jail I hope.
|
He had probably been in that position more than once or similar with plenty of nuts running to catch a moving train and got away with it but not this time.
He was told McGee had received a police caution in 2009 for growing nine cannabis plants at his home in Wallasey, Wirral.
Bet he never got a random drug test.
Yet he could have stopped the train by pulling the passcom the emergency brake application handle in all units.
|
>> Yet he could have stopped the train by pulling the passcom the emergency brake application
>> handle in all units.
But it wasn't that he didn't stop the train - he started it: "when you pressed the bell twice to signal the driver to move the train".
|
>> Yet he could have stopped the train by pulling the passcom the emergency brake application
>> handle in all units.
He didn't even need to do that. Another ding of his bell and driver would have stopped train.
In other circs a passenger might have pulled the alarm. One suspects, even without influence of drink, her friends would lack knowledge or confidence to do so.
|
|
He didn't care brompt.I would have been devastated if i caused this accident.Apparantly he never showed any emotion in court.Total Moron if that is the right word.
|
>> Total Moron if that is the right word.
It probably is Dutchie. Decently paid job with pension, in return for fairly simple routines to ensure passenger safety. Really dumb to chuck away a deal like that.
Of course the public, and drunk teenagers in particular, must often cause annoyance. But dealing with that is part of the job. There's no excuse really. Well deserved porridge.
|
I think I read in one of the reports that the guard's defence had tried to make the most of the girl's drunkenness to offload the blame. If true, I wonder if the judge took exception to that, leading to a harsher sentence than it might have been had they just concentrated on accepting the blame and showing remorse.
EDIT: mother - "'We have listened as our daughter was portrayed as being a drunken liability"
Last edited by: Focusless on Sat 17 Nov 12 at 16:37
|
|
Well clearly she was, it did not absolve the guard of any blame or responsibility however.
|
>> it did not absolve the guard of any blame or responsibility however.
Exactly, hence annoyed judge?
|
That's appalling. Some of the comments sum it up well.
|
|
Clearly some people did quite a bit. You can hear that the emergency handle has been pulled and paramedics have been called as they turn up. The passengers that got him up actually did the wrong thing.
|
>> Duty of care? By anyone.
>>
The standard advice to Joe Public as well as Public Officers is : "Don't get involved. Let the professionals deal with it".
Hence the reports now and again of "Police" and "Firemen" standing idly by while someone drowns.
|
Bloke who collapsed looked unkempt and scruffily dressed. Some of those keeping clear probably thought drunk, druggie or mental health case.
Suspect a man (or woman) in business dress collapsing would get more attention.
|
>>Suspect a man (or woman) in business dress collapsing would get more attention.
You'd think.
I was in a posh hotel in New York about 2 years ago and a waitress collpased with what appeared to be a fit of some kind (pretty dramatic though).
Other than me and some 60ish female school teacher, everyone else hastened away, including two who stepped over her lying on the floor.
A delightful thing, the human race.
|
|
What you describe, in USA, might be due to the litigatious nature of Society there? Intervene in a situation with a bad outcome and you just might be sued despite doing your best and being well-intentioned.
|
>>What you describe, in USA, might be due to the litigatious nature of Society there?
It might be, but it seemed more like just not wanting to be involved in anything difficult.
|
In the states they will sue you for not doing anything..
You are bu, errr well you know what I mean.
|
>>
>> I was in a posh hotel in New York about 2 years ago and a
>> waitress collpased with what appeared to be a fit of some kind (pretty dramatic though).
>>
>> Other than me and some 60ish female school teacher, everyone else hastened away, including two who stepped over her lying on the floor.
>>
>> A delightful thing, the human race.
>>
I think it's a crowd phenomenon. The more people around when someone is in trouble the less likely people are to step in and help, probably out of embarrassment at standing out by taking responsibility. If there were only one or two bystanders when a person collapsed they would almost certainly go to assist.
|
What short memories everyone has. I remember crowded commuter trains leaving Waterloo with passengers still in the act of opening doors and clambering on the moving train. The guard didn't wait for everyone to be either on or clear of the train - he blew his whistle and the train started.
The same with buses. People jumped on and off while they were moving.
|
Cliff makes a fair point - people continually put themselves at risk by jumping on and off buses, standing over the yellow line on the tube, and trying to squeeze in as the doors are closing. And crossing roads in the City, not at designated crossings. Other users of the service would get pretty miffed if they kept delaying trains and buses every time someone was at risk.
However in this case his actions were somewhat harsh, esp with her being clearly young, drunk and incapable.
|
>> Cliff makes a fair point - people continually put themselves at risk by jumping on
>> and off buses, standing over the yellow line on the tube, and trying to squeeze
>> in as the doors are closing. And crossing roads in the City, not at designated
>> crossings. Other users of the service would get pretty miffed if they kept delaying trains
>> and buses every time someone was at risk.
>>
>> However in this case his actions were somewhat harsh, esp with her being clearly young,
>> drunk and incapable.
I have no doubt the late shift sees drunken twits holding up trains every day of the week. The guard no doubt acted in accordance with this knowledge.
Should he have been more cautious?...IN HINDSIGHT...of course.
Was he guilty?....Yes
Did he deserve 5 years?...No....(not when you consider the sentences of most crooks).
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Nov 12 at 01:00
|
>> I have no doubt the late shift sees drunken twits holding up trains every day
>> of the week. The guard no doubt acted in accordance with this knowledge.
He acted in accordance with his annoyance and impatience, Thats why he was jailed, the intent of the act.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Nov 12 at 01:01
|
>> What short memories everyone has. I remember crowded commuter trains leaving Waterloo with passengers still
>> in the act of opening doors and clambering on the moving train. The guard didn't
>> wait for everyone to be either on or clear of the train - he blew
>> his whistle and the train started.
>>
>> The same with buses. People jumped on and off while they were moving.
They were not leaning on them, clearly drunk and nearly incapable. Times have moved on since then as well.
|
>> They were not leaning on them, clearly drunk and nearly incapable. Times have moved on
>> since then as well.
There were daily minor cuts/bruises and a regular run of life changing injuries and fatalities from slam door rolling stock. A then colleague had time off work with broken arm after being hit by door of a Class 310 at Watford.
The main line trains that remain in service with slam doors, mostly BR Mk3 carriages in IC125 formations, have electronic locks and lights. Only exception is heritage stock for steam and other excursion trains.
|
Rail accident report on St James St accident published today.
www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources/121127_R222012_James_Street.pdf
The causal factors were that:
a. The guard sent the driver the ‘ready to start’ code, and no subsequent
‘stop’ code, while the young person was leaning against the train;
b. The young person fell as the train was moving out of the station;
c. The platform edge gap was wide enough for her to fall through onto the
track; and
d. The guard had no direct and immediate way to stop the train from
moving.
Makes reference to drink as affecting victim, unlikley that recreational drug was a factor but also mentions high heels as factor affecting her balance.
|
Train guard jailed - Harsh or Fair? - rtj70
