Train Guard Found Guilty Over Girl's Death

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are we not applying double standards here? If someone was found by the police together with their car keys in an intoxicated state in close proximity/leaning against their car [ a mechanically propelled vehicle designed for the carrying of passengers- but also capable of causing death or severe injury under certain circumstances] and found to have 236mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in their system - (the legal driving limit is 80mg.) and the drug mephedrone in their system Mephedrone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia what would happen to them and more importantly why? Remember at this point in time they have not driven the car or actually been involved in an accident .

She was never going to drive the train, not even attempt to.
 
finisterre said:
He killed that girl.

I imagine a smirk on his face as he releases the train hoping she will slightly injure herself because he doesn't like drunk girls. They are an inconvenience. Annoying, a bit gobby and stupid.

.

We know this for a fact?

Again it's one of "those" threads.
 
the net effect now will be further delays. Every guard will now say "I did not think person X was safe so I held the train". Of course it will also mean no one will ever go under a train again too.
 
You have lots of opinions and know few facts?

The facts are clear and opinions are everyone's.
You cannot believe Finisterre's post was his opinion.
So what are you saying?
 
He killed that girl.

I imagine a smirk on his face as he releases the train hoping she will slightly injure herself because he doesn't like drunk girls. They are an inconvenience. Annoying, a bit gobby and stupid.

I expect he will be sentenced to less than five years. Fifteen would be better but I have no real hope of people being held properly to account with our justice system.

Poor kid, poor family.

There is no suggestion (other than yours) that he was smirking. It seems far more likely that he was just trying to do his job - one which involves having to deal with problematic drunks both on the train and at stations every Friday and Saturday night. He made a poor decision, a girl died and he has been punished. However, your suggestion of some perverse pleasure is wide of the mark as is your desire for an even heavier sentence.

Both the family and the guard will have to live with this tragedy for the rest of their lives. The mother (who was eager to condemn the guard) will also have ample time to ponder the wisdom of allowing her daughter to drink to excess, take drugs and wander around the centre of a major city at night whilst only 16 years of age. The guard isn't the only person here with serious questions to answer.

He was given 5 years yesterday.


I think many people will feel that the sentence is too long and I have a strong feeling that it will be reduced on appeal. If he'd been drunk and driving without insurance when he killed someone he may only have been given a three year sentence:



BBC News - Drunk driver who killed woman jailed in Londonderry
 
I think many people will feel that the sentence is too long and I have a strong feeling that it will be reduced on appeal. If he'd been drunk and driving without insurance when he killed someone he may only have been given a three year sentence:

Given that it's extremely unlikely he wanted the fatal outcome, five years seems heavy to me. That a stiff punishment to act as a deterrent was required I don't dispute, but somehow five years for what was in essence (I hope) a lapse of judgement seems harsh to me.
(Partly my thinking here may be coloured by my belief that jail should be for the dangerous-to-society and those unresponsive to alternative punishments, and although I wouldn't trust him as a guard ever again I'm not convinced he is a danger to society).
 
I agree with both of the last posts.

The train driver should have got (at most) a suspended sentence.

The drunk driver should have got 5 years...without parole.
 
Bellow said:
The facts are clear and opinions are everyone's.
You cannot believe Finisterre's post was his opinion.
So what are you saying?

That finisterres post is conjecture. How would he know what the person in questions view was of drunken people.

It's a bit judgemental in nature ;)

Let's stick to the actual facts, not the facts that are made up in MBclubland.

As for the punishment to the gaurd, I would feel from the article loss of job would be a more suitable punishment or disciplinary action as I don't from the article see deliberate intention to kill or injure. He's, from what I've read, not done his job properly.

However I don't know the facts and maybe more was revealed in the court room to lead to this. I'm not even going to mention any other factors that could have lead up to this, that would set off the wolves on here.

I've said my bit but I can see this thread going into an MBclub 29 page hot air/wind bag audience chamber/weird your letters type thread so I'm not saying anymore.

Have fun chaps. Make a weekend of it.
 
Last edited:
If only he had re-opened the door & let her back on the train.....
 
That finisterres post is conjecture. How would he know what the person in questions view was of drunken people.

It's a bit judgemental in nature ;)

Let's stick to the actual facts, not the facts that are made up in MBclubland.

Finisterre is the only one who can comment further on his posting.



As for the punishment to the gaurd, I would feel from the article loss of job would be a more suitable punishment or disciplinary action as I don't from the article see deliberate intention to kill or injure. He's, from what I've read, not done his job properly.

A death ocurred due to his failure to his job correctly. A criminal conviction was most definitely required.



I've said my bit but I can see this thread going into an MBclub 29 page hot air/wind bag audience chamber/weird your letters type thread so I'm not saying anymore.

Have fun chaps. Make a weekend of it.

Why the patronising? You're not short of blaw yourself.
 
Bellow said:
Why the patronising? You're not short of blaw yourself.

These threads go nowhere other than the the way I mentioned. I recognise I add a lot of conjecture to things I'm not fully conversant with. I'm not prepared to waste time on doing that anymore on here anymore. No one ever agrees and it's IMHO how the people think, noone will change that. These threads go round and round in circles with spurious drivel, rhetoric being spouted.

Its a sad story. That's all. Why everyone wants to be the inspector in an inspector calls beats me (I decided to read the play again) but I do not.
 
Last edited:
I read that last week too.

Goole = angel, ghoul or ???????
 
I'm not prepared to waste time on doing that anymore on here anymore. No one ever agrees with me and it's IMHO how the people think, noone will change that. These threads go round and round in circles with spurious drivel, rhetoric being spouted.

Fixed that for you.
 
Bellow said:
Is the concept of debate lost on you?

What respect you show your fellow forum members.

See Scott Fs post and ask him what sort of respect that shows me?

I've nailed it? These threads post people a unique platform in which to spout their "it's everyone else's fault" rhetoric.

And ad for respect, have a look at the insults you've put my way about my job and yours. Go and do one!!!
 
See Scott Fs post and ask him what sort of respect that shows me?

I've nailed it? These threads post people a unique platform in which to spout their "it's everyone else's fault" rhetoric.

And ad for respect, have a look at the insults you've put my way about my job and yours. Go and do one!!!

Was that not in reply to Neilrr?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom