The Railway guard who cause the death of the girl in Liverpool (GUILTY)
PlausibleDenial
Posts: 978 Forum Member
✭✭
After reading the article and seeing the photo where he is looking at her leaning against the train. I hope he goes to prison for a very long time. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232974/Railway-guard-accused-causing-death-teenage-girl-fell-carriage-guilty-manslaughter.html
Its about time people in positions of 'power' were held to account. Its a shame police officers, social workers and doctors (liverpool care pathway) get off when it is due to their negligence that people die.
Its about time people in positions of 'power' were held to account. Its a shame police officers, social workers and doctors (liverpool care pathway) get off when it is due to their negligence that people die.
0
Comments
What a horrible way to go.
When someone's popped up and behaves stupidly, why is it always someone elses fault?
Do we have to assume everyone is drunk now - and treat them as such?
She was also 16! She shouldn't have been out in public drunk! But no, it's someone elses fault.
I agree, its one of those photos which will always stay with you like the picture of the chinese man holding up the tanks
http://1.2.3.11/bmi/cdn8.wn.com/ph/img/1e/5e/2f6ca74a02a84e0eff0da0b227df-grande.jpg
or the girl running from the napalm
http://1.2.3.9/bmi/3.bp.blogspot.com/-o8jNd1iHpn4/T8ncI8D4cJI/AAAAAAAAAtQ/fOAXl7VJ7OU/s640/vitnam+-+1.jpg
It is clear that it is the guards fault in this.
Look at the photograph. He see's her. He still signals for the train to go. It is obvious she will slip. The cause of her slipping is him. Its terrible.
So many things wrong in that story that it's hard to throw blame in only one direction.
In any case how was he to know that moving the train off would cause her to fall? He didn't know how drunk she was and would have probably assumed that anyone seeing a moving train would back away from it. He had to make a decision to get the train out on time (his job) or delay it for a drunk person who, to him, probably didn't appear to be doing anything other than shouting at someone inside the train.
Why are you so insistent on attributing no blame to the drunken person?
It's easy, with hindsight, to analyse CCTV footage, pause it, enhance it, etc. and make a decision.
The guard didn't have any of that, he had to go on what he could see in that brief moment and make a decision.
There's clear culpability on both sides here, being very drunk in a train station is an accident waiting to happen in one way or another, especially when the person involved is only 16.
So many wrongs but sadly she paid the ultimate price for her stupidity, now the guard will pay his.
so according to the mother it is 100% the fault of the train guard who mistakingly thought she got out of the train carriage to walk away from it and gave the signal to leave. no fault at all of course that this underraged person was drinking so much that she put herself in this dangerous situation by being unable to think properly. on the outside it seems to be a ridiculous decision.
Completely agree. Although it's a lot easier to blame someone else other than the drunk, photogenic 16 year old. What are people supposed to do now, go about their jobs 2nd guessing all their actions because they're supposed to assume that everyone is drunk? I wonder, will they now be suing whomever it was who served her alcohol?
Its part of the job description of a train guard to ensure the safety of their passengers. Some say its the main job.
With regards to the person who said 'how would he know she would slip'. As a train guard they will know all the dangers associated with a train. They would have been through lots of training.
Blaming the girl for being drunk is the equivilent to blaming women for being raped due to being 'drunk' or wearing 'short skirts'.
It was not the girls fault that on that particular evening that she would come across a guard who would flout health and safety and act in a completely dangerous way. The picture shows him staring at her and her leaning. He was callous.
If you were leaning against a train, drunk or not you will slip.
Its terrible what he did
Apparently it's what every teenager does at the weekend. I may have forgotten to tell my kids that... I'm such a bad parent.
Train conductor puts a passenger in harms way, and its the passengers fault. Sounds about right in this day and age..
Firstly, no, it's nothing like comparing a rape victim. This girl was drunk (through her own actions) and was apparently leaning on a train (totally her own actions again) and fell because she was too drunk to notice what was going on around her. She was the one not using common sense by firtsly getting off the train at the wrong stop and then leaning on the damn thing!
How can you say he was staring at her? That picture is a freeze frame, he may have glanced at her for a second for all you know. We would need to see the entire video before making that judgement.
If I was stupid enough to be leaning on a train (which I am still not 100% sure this girl was even doing) then I would back the hell away if I saw the doors close, noticed the door open button wasn't responding to my touch, heard the guards whistle, heard the engines starting up and then saw/felt the thing started to very slowly move away from the station. That would have given me plenty of warning. Not only that, but she seemed to have plenty of train to "lean" on before it would have got to a break in the carriages, or the end of the train before she fell off the platform.
I don't really know who's fault it is, but it's a wonder it doesn't happen more.
Even the doctor that killed Michael Jackson wasnt found guilty of manslaughter despite killing him by giving him too many drugs
I've read some complete rubbish on here before, but that takes the top-spot.
The defendant grossly breached that duty, and was therefore convicted. For what it's worth I don't think there's anything to be gained from sending him to prison, but he did grossly fail to do what he promised to do, leading to a death. The deceased did not fail to do anything she promised to do. That is the distinction the law makes. I think the law has a lot going for it. It does leave something of an uneasy feeling when the deceased did not herself act reasonably (because she was drunk) but I think the best way of looking at it is this: The defendant did not undertake to care for only sober passengers, he undertook to care for all passengers. Of course a drunk person can act so dangerously and unpredictably that the guard may fulfil his duty of care but the drunk will still end up getting killed. That was not the case here. The jury were sure that, even accounting for the unpredictability of the deceased's behaviour, the defendant was still so negligent that his breach of duty could properly be described as being 'gross'. In light of that some public acknowledgement by a court of his failings simply has to take place, or else what is the point of duties of care at all? As I say, it doesn't follow that he must go to prison.
You like the word "duty" don't you! Just because you use it over and over and over does not make you right or sound any more intelligent.
Were her being drunk and drugged up have some bearing on this case, possibly, but we only see what was reported.
Very sad story.
If I'd have been out at that age with that level of alcohol in my system, my feet wouldn't have touched.
Oh, I forgot parents aren't responsible for their kids anymore, just everyone else.