UK guard faces prison after waving train off with drunk passenger leaning on carriage

Run_to_da_hills

Apparently CCTV images caught a woman staggering out of a carriage and leaning against the side of a carriage as a train guard gave the go ahead for the driver to move on. Not a nice way to go.

A railway guard accused of causing the death of a teenager who fell under a train was convicted of manslaughter today.

Christopher McGee, 45, gave the signal for the driver to depart as Georgia Varley, 16, was leaning against the carriage.

The sixth-form college student, who was drunk on a night out in Liverpool with friends, fell between the train and the platform at the city’s James Street station in October last year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232974/Railway-guard-accused-causing-death-teenage-girl-fell-carriage-guilty-manslaughter.html

Cookie_Monster

and nothing at all mentioned that she was 16 yet smashed off her face on both alcohol and drugs?

MadsL

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and nothing at all mentioned that she was 16 yet smashed off her face on both alcohol and drugs?

Ah well. Deserved to die a horrible death then so. :rolleyes:

Could he not have least held her away from the train.

Run_to_da_hills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and nothing at all mentioned that she was 16 yet smashed off her face on both alcohol and drugs?

That's a horrible thing to say.

cbl593h

MadsL wrote: »

Ah well. Deserved to die a horrible death then so. :rolleyes:

Could he not have least held her away from the train.

Thats a horribler, and totally uninformed, thing to say. He was on the train so how could he "hold her back" ???

Cue appeal/big traincrew strike in UK.

Thoie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and nothing at all mentioned that she was 16 yet smashed off her face on both alcohol and drugs?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That's a horrible thing to say.

No it's not, it's perfectly accurate according to the link. In case you missed it:

A blood analysis following her death showed she had 236mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in her system - the legal driving limit is 80mg.
She also had 0.083mg of the drug mephedrone, or Mcat, in her system at the time of her death.

Cookie_Monster

MadsL wrote: »

Ah well. Deserved to die a horrible death then so. :rolleyes:
Could he not have least held her away from the train.

I never said that but it certainly was a factor in her death and probably the main one, doubt it would have happened were she sober.

It sounds like the gaurd waved the train off as she was exiting, what exactly is he supposed to do in the next second or two when she turns around and leans on the train, even if he had raised a flag / whistle / tried to help there is no way the train is going to stop in time between momentum and driver reaction

Run_to_da_hills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I never said that but it certainly was a factor in her death and probably the main one, doubt it would have happened were she sober.

It sounds like the gaurd waved the train off as she was exiting, what exactly is he supposed to do in the next second or two when she turns around and leans on the train, even if he had raised a flag / whistle / tried to help there is no way the train is going to stop in time between momentum and driver reaction

There was obviously something in the CCTV images that swung the jury to accept negligence on behalf of the guard.

Being the time and date what it was, IE 11.30pm, on a Saturday night rail staff manning a city platform would be expected to find intoxicated passengers and would be their duty to take this into consideration.

Cookie_Monster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Being the time and date what it was, IE 11.30pm, on a Saturday night rail staff manning a city platform would be expected to find intoxicated passengers and would be their duty to take this into consideration.

in which case it's the fault of staff who let them on the train at the departing station as it's against bye-laws to be drunk on trains, or even shockingly enough the person themselves for flouting the laws in the first place...
Since you're getting nit picky about it.

Everything about this case screams scapegoating the poor attendant IMO

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/TfL_Railway_Byelaws.pdf
TFL laws but I'm sure they're the same for whatever railway operator it was. P4 section 4. (1)

Wicklowandy

I saw an interview with the mother on sky news where she describes their lives having been ruined by this evil man ( the railway guard ) when she was only doing what 16 yr olds do....

If you are any age, drunk and out of it on a banned substance, i think the responsibilities of any transport provider should be mitigated. But if you are under 18, the parents, nobody else should be responsible.

I feel sorry for the girl and her family, but have more sympathy for a man now convicted of manslaughter.

foggy_lad

Wicklowandy wrote: »

I saw an interview with the mother on sky news where she describes their lives having been ruined by this evil man ( the railway guard ) when she was only doing what 16 yr olds do....

If you are any age, drunk and out of it on a banned substance, i think the responsibilities of any transport provider should be mitigated. But if you are under 18, the parents, nobody else should be responsible.

I feel sorry for the girl and her family, but have more sympathy for a man now convicted of manslaughter.

Parents have to answer for the actions of their offspring. They knew their 16yo was out drinking and taking drugs and might even have aided in getting her drums or drugs.

aN.Droid

foggy_lad wrote: »

Parents have to answer for the actions of their offspring. They knew their 16yo was out drinking and taking drugs and might even have aided in getting her drums or drugs.

That is a serious accusation to make.

While many may not agree with the juries decision (including me) it was their decision to make and the found him guilty.

I am sure he will make an appeal and might get off then.

I think the mother is going overboard on the man making him out to be a murderer, which he is most definitely not.

Either way there is not much more to be said but RIP to the poor girl and hopefully other will learn from it.

Peregrinus

The fact that she was drunk or on drugs doesn't make any difference. It's in the nature of public transport that some of its users will be drunk (blind, in a wheelchair, ill, tired . . .) or otherwise temporarily or permanently incapacitated. It's precisely because you cannot assume that everyone will step smartly away from the train that you have protocols by which a guard is supposed to check that it is safe for the train to leave before the train leaves.

Cookie_Monster

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that she was drunk or on drugs doesn't make any difference. It's in the nature of public transport that some of its users will be drunk (blind, in a wheelchair, ill, tired . . .) or otherwise temporarily or permanently incapacitated. It's precisely because you cannot assume that everyone will step smartly away from the train that you have protocols by which a guard is supposed to check that it is safe for the train to leave before the train leaves.

I guess it's time to have multiple staff members on every platform / train in Ireland just in case so

CIE

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

And nothing at all mentioned that she was 16 yet smashed off her face on both alcohol and drugs?

They still want the government to replace the family across the EU.

Peregrinus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I guess it's time to have multiple staff members on every platform / train in Ireland just in case so

So you think that the only options are either massive over-reaction, or no safety precautions at all?

The notion of simply continuing to operate the train guard system that's been in place for over a hundred and thirty years doesn't strike you as feasilble, then? You know, the one where the guard's job is to check that it's safe to depart, and signal the driver to go when it is?

CIE

Peregrinus wrote: »

So you think that the only options are either massive over-reaction, or no safety precautions at all?

The notion of simply continuing to operate the train guard system that's been in place for over a hundred and thirty years doesn't strike you as feasilble, then? You know, the one where the guard's job is to check that it's safe to depart, and signal the driver to go when it is?

Is there another way to get society to unlearn Marxism (which has "abolition of the family" as its greatest doctrine) and re-learn family life...? Pretty sad that the concept of personal responsibility is no longer taught, but that's part of abolition of the family too, and cradle-to-grave statism.

Joey the lips

Its very sad for both familes. The girl should not have been so drunk but the conductor had a duty of care and in most stations there is a yellow line that must be free of people.

I dont think he should loose his freedom considering he prob has lost everything else.

Peregrinus

CIE wrote: »

Is there another way to get society to unlearn Marxism (which has "abolition of the family" as its greatest doctrine) and re-learn family life...? Pretty sad that the concept of personal responsibility is no longer taught, but that's part of abolition of the family too, and cradle-to-grave statism.

So it's the passengers' families' jobs to make sure that trains are not operated in an unsafe manner? Train operators have no role in the process?

Heaven forbid that train operators should have to bear any responsiblity for the way trains are operated!

Sponge Bob

Parents are responsible when 16 year olds are wandering around out of it. When are her parents in court?

the_syco

He had said he thought she was moving away from the train, so without seeing CCTV, I cannot say either way. For all I know, she may have started walking away, he would have signaled the driver, and she could have then gone back to the train.

Whilst drunks are irrational, the train station are not babysitters for the drunken public.

kingshankly

This is a sad case and I have sympathy for parents and the guard.
But the simple fact here without sounding to harsh is the guard didn't do his job correctly, although this was aided by the state the 16 year old was in plus you could re run this event 100 times and the 16yo would fall on the platform. It takes many elements for an accident to happen (Swiss cheese affect).
But the fact is the train departed with someone leaning against it.
I am a train driver myself and we are well aware if you **** up you don't just lose your job you could end up in jail.

ScouseMouse

What is the guards job on a train?

Why does he give the go ahead for the train to move off?

Is it his job to check its safe?

Is it his job to see that everyone is clear of the train?

If it is, he did wrong. If it isnt, why is he there? Is it for decoration.

It could have been a child who escaped from their mum. But if its not his job, then why is he there.

It doesn't matter she was drunk/high/young/old.

If he didnt do his job, its his fault
If it is his job to check its safe, and he didnt do his job, then of course its his fault.

Einhard

Love the fact that nobody here ever touched a drop of alcohol until their 18th birthday, and then only in tiny amounts. Also, must be nice having God-like, omnipresent parents who know exactly what their teenage offspring are doig every single moment of the day, and are therefore responsible for every single one of their actions. Pity, I only have normal, human parents. Have I missed out on much?

Jack breen

A lot of bullcrap being posted on this forum.

What if it was a frail old woman that stumbled and leaned against the train to get her balance or a man who suffered a heartattack or stroke. Is it OK to say they shouldnt have been there or its their own fault.

I am totally shocked by some of the comments here,the value of human life must not be worth now. I hope the bastard rots in jail.

Peregrinus

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Parents are responsible when 16 year olds are wandering around out of it. When are her parents in court?

I don't know of any legal theory which would hold that train operators are responsible to their adult passengers for the safe operation of their trains, but not to their juvenile passengers.

Her parents may or may not be responsible for the fact that she was drunk in a public place; we don't have the facts on that. But they are not responsible for the fact that the train was cleared to leave when she was leaning against it, which was the proximate cause of her death. The fact that she was leaning against it because she was drunk doesn't change this.

Peregrinus

the_syco wrote: »

He had said he thought she was moving away from the train, so without seeing CCTV, I cannot say either way. For all I know, she may have started walking away, he would have signaled the driver, and she could have then gone back to the train.

Neither you nor I know this. But the jury does; they heard the evidence. And they convicted him. It's possible that they convicted him wrongly, but so far I see nothing to suggest that. The fact that she was under 18, and the fact that she was drunk, do not suggest that he was wrongly convicted.

Morrika

I think if you actually look at the CCTV still you can see the girl leaning on the train and you can see the guards head poking out one of the windows. He knew she was there and should have waited. I think the guards job is to ensure the safety of the train and passengers etc. he was at least partially responsible for her death all the other stuff about how drunk she was and her age don't have any bearing on his guilt.

Vic_08

kingshankly wrote: »

This is a sad case and I have sympathy for parents and the guard.
But the simple fact here without sounding to harsh is the guard didn't do his job correctly, although this was aided by the state the 16 year old was in plus you could re run this event 100 times and the 16yo would fall on the platform. It takes many elements for an accident to happen (Swiss cheese affect).
But the fact is the train departed with someone leaning against it.
I am a train driver myself and we are well aware if you **** up you don't just lose your job you could end up in jail.

That doesn't make it right though.

There were many people whose actions (or inactions) contributed to this event;

The girl herself for getting drunk and high or is personal responsibility now considered some sort of stupidity and all persons safety is now to be leveled on the nearest working person.

The parents for allowing a 16 year old the freedom that she was obviously unable to deal with responsibly.

The friends who were in the train doing what while she got off at the wrong station and tried to get back on.

Whoever gave/sold underage persons alcohol.

Various other persons who could have stopped her from continuing her journey in an unfit state, other rail staff, police, bar/nightclub staff, etc.

Society in general which accepts and promotes this sort of behaviour in teenagers so much that most of the above will be shrugged off as stupid or unworkable as city centres are full of drunken, high people of all ages unable to take care of themselves every weekend night.

And yes the train guard who made one small error of judgement in a split second by not halting the dispatch procedure to shoo away this individual drunk.

As per usual it is far easier to just ignore all the other factors and condemn one individual for one fleeting judgement call that he should not have been put in the position of making in the first place. It is scapegoating of the worst kind to put criminal charges against someone for that at all.

ScouseMouse

He got 5 years in prison.

Link to the local newspaper Liverpool Echo.

dowlingm

Vic 08 - I'm all in favour of prosecuting the people you list to the extent the law as it existed allowed rather than throw up my hands and say "if I can't punish everyone I won't punish anyone".

A jail sentence usually is not reached lightly especially since a jury only has the power to convict on a charge whereas a trained judge sets the sentence.