|
|
Post by Nortube on Jan 21, 2016 12:49:37 GMT
In 2012, a Merseyrail Guard was jailed for five years for manslaughter following the death of a drunk who fell against the train as it was pulling away: [ Click here ]
RAIB report - this makes for interesting reading:
[ Click here ]
Another Merseyrail Guard is now being prosecuted by the CPS following an accident where an 89 year old womal fell between the train and track while trying to board the train as the doors were closing. The prosecution is despite the Guard being cleared by a safety enquiry.: [ Click here ]I must admit that I don't know the ins and outs of these stories, but on the face of it it's a very worrying trend. I know from experience on the tube - both as a Guard and a Driver, that it is often very difficult to have a clear view of the platform at times and it is also very difficult to predict passengers' actions. Many of the newer stock have monitors in the cab which show the platform, usually split over two or more cameras. The picture quality on these was sometimes so poor as to be almost useless, yet drivers were still expected to go by the monitor and not cause any delays. In rush hours, with packed platforms, it was often impossible to see if passengers were clear of the doors, even on fully working monitors, because passengers stood so close to the train. Even on almost empty platforms, there was always the unpredictable actions of passengers - such as the last minute dash from a passageway as the doors were closing or the drunk staggering around on the platform, or the passenger in the car suddenly realising it was their stop as the doors were closing. LU's policy was always "no delays" and "bollock the driver" if there is a delay. Thus there is always pressure to get the train moving. Too many drivers didn't care and would just go by a monitor that was showing an unclear picture rather than follow the correct procedure (thus leaving themselves open to disciplinary action, or worse if an incident occurred). If there is a fault with the one of the platform cameras / no cameras working / monitor failure, then there is a set procedure to follow which varied depending on the nature of the problem. I have often stopped at a platform with one camera not working and the station staff are standing in the wrong position to give me the "right". When I've refused to move until the member of staff is in the correct position, they have told me "your the first one to complain", meaning that all the other drivers have not followed the correct procedure. It's not always that staff's fault. As they've told me "I was just told to go see the trains out because a camera had failed" without being given exact instructions on what to do. Hindsight, as they say, is a wonderful thing. You can bet that a scapegoat will always be found somewhere, whether it is their fault or not. As it is, as the safety enquiry cleared the Guard in the latest incident and Merseyrail were quite happy that the Guard did everything correctly, I'm not sure why the CPS are now going to prosecute the Guard. In the first incident, if the Gyard had followed Merseyrail's correct platform despatch procedure (closing the Guard's door then giving the start signal), there would have been even less chance that the Guard would have seen anything wrong and the outcome would still have been the same. It would appear that by following the unauthorised procedure (this later became the official procedure) of still having the Guard's door partly open when giving the start signal, the Guard then left himself open to the prosecution and jail sentence that followed. For staff, it's a no win situation On the Underground where there might be a potential problem with passengers, then the Driver should get on the radio to the Line Controller and request assistance from station staff to ensure that it is safe to depart. From my own experience, it could take anything up to five minutes for staff to apppear as they would usually have to come from the top of the station. An overall delay could be up to ten minutes. This is just one station. On a late evening, after the pubs etc. turn out, there are often lots of drunks on the platforms, especially in central London. If the driver wanted to cover himself to make sure that there was no risk to passengers, he may have to repeat the procedure at other stations. The driver would be the one that got bollocked for the delays, not the passengers. It is quite likely that the driver would end up having disciplinary action taken against him if he kept causing delay for whatever reason, despite the fact that he would be behaving correctly. However, LU possibly sack the driver if there was an incident and the driver didn't follow the correct procedure. Always a win for LU and a lose for the driver! |
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Jan 21, 2016 19:12:35 GMT
This is what the judge said when sentencing the Guard for manslaughter regarding the 2011 incident: [ Click here ]
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jan 22, 2016 11:25:26 GMT
This is what the judge said when sentencing the Guard for manslaughter regarding the 2011 incident: [ Click here ]
Reading the summation by the judge it is clear that the sentence was justified, no ifs, no buts ! H&S is, as it must be, everyone's 'bae' in the modern world because that is the way that English Law has been modified to be interpreted year on year for the last 40 years, that interpretation becoming stronger each decade as a result of many fatal events where lives would have been saved had those events occurred in safer environments. So many workers have simply not kept up with their H&S responsibilities, often turning a blind eye to unsafe practices and procedures because they had been the custom for years. Having been at sharp end of the dangerous environment that is LUL for almost three decades I was well aware that many managers were willing to look the other way and then find someone to carry the can when the brown stuff hit the fan. I have no doubt whatsoever that the same attitudes existed in other rail networks and the rest of the transport industry and I suspect that it will still be found in some quarters today especially where KPIs are seen as the most important pages on the notice board. It is up to every individual to responsible for her/his own safety and that of everyone else, the laws are quite clear in that regard as are the written rules, regulations and procedures of a public transport authority. There is no excuse for ignorance and must be no room for intimidation but as we all know managers will routinely use intimidation or the threat thereof to maintain a service. Staff have only themselves to blame should they either 'play the game' or succumb to threats to carry on when it is unsafe to do so. Obviously it is not nice to face intimidation but one has to recognise not only that some things are worth standing up to be counted for but that it is often a necessity to do so. 'Bending the rules', 'custom and practice', 'playing the game', call it what you will is definitely dangerous to one's personal health and well being and if one values one's future one must put H&S BEFORE ALL ELSE. So what if the service is delayed or even cancelled, that happens all the time for engineering works, whether essential or not, people's lives are more important than engineering works and I am amazed that train staff cannot or will not appreciate that. As long as staff are cajoled into working in unsafe ways the issues will never be properly addressed and more staff will end up in court if they don't get with the law of the land. Never forget that you don't have to accidentally cause a fatality to end up in gaol, lesser outcomes can equally result in goal sentences and / or £1k+ fines for transport staff and managers. The subject of H&S is a tin of worms to some extent but the bottom line is that it must be observed no matter what, it is a key competence to know and respect its bounds to maintain one's employment let alone anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by peteuxb on Jan 22, 2016 16:29:27 GMT
I find 2 aspects of this very annoying.
1. The official procedure for train dispatch on Merseyrail (at this time) called for the guard to close his own door before giving the starting buzzer. Had he done this he would NOT have been able to see the 16-year-old return to the train and lean against it but she would still have died. It could be said that he was being more cautious than required by the procedure.
2. Train staff have to make judgement calls like this over and over again during each working day. As mentioned in the report, if train staff took absolute care the resulting delays would make the system unworkable. As stated in the report, passengers would soon learn that the departure of a train can be prevented simply by walking toward it or standing close to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by peteuxb on Jan 22, 2016 23:38:55 GMT
For reference here is Paragraph 49 from the Report:
"Train dispatch on the mainline railway is a routine, repetitive task
carried out many millions of times each year without incident. However
there are occasions when people put themselves at heightened risk as a
train departs, for example when they lean against it, bang on its side,
attempt to board it or run alongside it. On such occasions the person
responsible for train dispatch is forced to make a judgment call in a
short space of time and in a rapidly changing situation. If they exercise
too much caution and stop trains too readily then there is a risk of
unnecessary delay. Some passengers would also realise that a way to stop
a departing train would be to stand too close to it or to run alongside
it and bang on its side."
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jan 23, 2016 16:53:28 GMT
I find 2 aspects of this very annoying. 1. The official procedure for train dispatch on Merseyrail (at this time) called for the guard to close his own door before giving the starting buzzer. Had he done this he would NOT have been able to see the 16-year-old return to the train and lean against it but she would still have died. It could be said that he was being more cautious than required by the procedure. 2. Train staff have to make judgement calls like this over and over again during each working day. As mentioned in the report, if train staff took absolute care the resulting delays would make the system unworkable. As stated in the report, passengers would soon learn that the departure of a train can be prevented simply by walking toward it or standing close to it. I would suggest that Merseyrail knew only too well that a procedure compelling a guard to keep the door open as the train departed would have left both the guard and the company open to prosecution in the circumstances of the event that took place. Thus so long as the signal to depart is given under the prevailing rule neither guard nor company can be seen to be negligent or contributing to manslaughter. As it was the guard may be said to have used his initiative in the first instance and then failed to do the same thereafter. It seems to be a widespread disease that people do what they think rather than what they are instructed to do and thereby leave themselves wide open to criticism and worse. As for judgement calls, we all make those day in day out in a private capacity and have to live with the results. IMHO what is really wrong is the law that allows irresponsible individuals to ruin everyone else's day and I therefore to some extent have sympathy for the guard who is a victim of circumstance in that he has fallen foul of the unintended consequence of the rule of law. However, I stand by my comment that the guard was rightly found guilty, no ifs and no buts. FWIW I believe that those who endanger themselves have only themselves to blame for the outcome of their reckless action and that no blame should attach to anyone but themselves but the laws of this land demand that everyone has to be protected from themselves no matter what and so it is incumbent upon the rest of us to cover our derrieres by being H&S conscious BEFORE ALL ELSE as I mentioned earlier. People will not suddenly learn the many ways to stop a train, they have been well known to passengers for decades. Being a train guard or driver, bus conductor etc can all be compared to being a police firearms officer, the same judgement calls albeit with different intentions and expectations of outcome but equal under the law. It is this fact that people in all walks of life have simply failed to understand or have simply ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by peteuxb on Jan 24, 2016 19:36:25 GMT
Seems that it is OK for this passenger to lose her life then, with both Merseyrail and the CPS being content with that, as long as the guard had carried out his duties exactly to procedure. In such a version of events the guard would have correctly closed his own door at the same time as the passenger doors and thus had no sighting of the events. We still have a death but it doesn't matter because Merseyrail are out of the manderines and can publish the usual "lessons to be learned" rubbish.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jan 26, 2016 16:27:20 GMT
Seems that it is OK for this passenger to lose her life then, with both Merseyrail and the CPS being content with that, as long as the guard had carried out his duties exactly to procedure. In such a version of events the guard would have correctly closed his own door at the same time as the passenger doors and thus had no sighting of the events. We still have a death but it doesn't matter because Merseyrail are out of the manderines and can publish the usual "lessons to be learned" rubbish. It's difficult to know what is and is not ok isn't it ! The Met Police slay an innocent unarmed man on a tube train in front of witnesses but no-one is held to account and prosecuted for that manslaughter while our armed forces are being hounded for suspected war crimes more than a decade ago with almost absolute certainty that any of them prosecuted and found guilty we be gaoled. Is a suicide anyone's fault but the subject's, when I was a lad I recall that attempting suicide was a criminal offence and perhaps rightly so for all the trouble they cause? Is it really right to expect our politicians, public servants, businesses large and small and individuals to protect all citizens from the potential outcomes of their own wilfulness? People die day in day out, we are all headed for the same destination sooner or later, it is the only certainty in life. Death is, whether it is okay or not okay is a matter for much conjecture and discussion or it would be in a democracy but we do not live in a democracy in any real sense. Call it what you will, the Nanny State at present but I expect it will become the Police State within this century. Common sense went out the window as New Labour, in its years in government ushered in the PC environment that now exists and which seems to control everything we do and say by allowing anyone and everyone to be a self proclaimed victim of something or another. The Conservatives are no better, indeed almost all the politicians have lost the plot turning our country into one of the most unfair places in the world in many ways. The big companies and governmental organisations get away with what they are allowed to and much of that is consigned to notes and files which will be hidden from public scrutiny until all the players have snuffed it. In the final analysis was the guard guilty of manslaughter for his action, was the victim to blame for wilful neglect of her own safety, was it perhaps her parents who might have better taught her how to behave in public, was it the barman, manager, proprietor or other individual at the venue where she became intoxicated the guilty party? So many might possibly be prosecuted for the 'crime' including the corpse but surely blame must fall upon Parliament, the politicians and lawmakers who decree what we can and cannot do as individual British citizens. As sure as eggs is eggs the upper echelons of the chain will not be held to account, they rarely are because there is always someone in the lower echelons just like the guard in the case who will be shown to have been properly trained, tested and licensed or otherwise legally held to account, who is ripe for prosecution if needs be, regardless of where the buck really should stop. There you have my pound's worth, if the government really cared it would do much more of the right things, making everyone wholly responsible for their own actions in law would be a good start, ditching PC nonsense, restoring common sense and properly identifying mitigation, simplifying the plethora of laws and the legal system to lay blame in the proper quarters at all times etc. When you reach this point think about all the occupational training you were given in your various employments and just how many people you know that despite being signed off as competent were nothing of the kind. Everybody will know more than one I'm sure, I certainly knew several. Licensing people made no difference at all, an incompetent with a licence is still incompetent, equally a competent without a licence is still competent and of course it makes no difference to the company either way so long as there is an audit trail with a rubber stamped or demonstrable competence history. |
|
|
|
Post by peteuxb on Jan 29, 2016 17:33:14 GMT
My apologies to Admin for briefly going 'off-topic' but I want to express my anger on a particular aspect of the shooting at Stockwell. In press and TV interviews senior police officers like Iain Blair and Cressida Dick repeated the lie that Jean Charles de Menezes "ran into the station and jumped over the gateline". CCTV showed him walking calmly up to the gateline and continuing through when his ticket was confirmed as valid and the gate opened.
Back on-topic now...
Nortube has mentioned his concerns about the most recent arrest of a Guard on Merseyrail and I must agree. In spite of being cleared by a safety enquiry he is still likely to be convicted and sent to prison. Every day on LU (and other metros must be similar) train doors are set to close while passengers are boarding. How else can the service operate with an almost constant flow of people walking or running toward the train? Should the partly-closed doors be re-opened over and over again until the train is rammed? Not only would this cause a delay, with platforms further along the line filling-up (and possibly station entry gates having to be closed), but there is also the problem of then getting all the doors fully closed on the overcrowded train.
Yet again it seems that this Guard is likely to be tried by a Judge who has little knowledge of the practicalities of train operation - and being sent to prison with no one else being bothered about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jan 30, 2016 6:10:19 GMT
My apologies to Admin for briefly going 'off-topic' but I want to express my anger on a particular aspect of the shooting at Stockwell. In press and TV interviews senior police officers like Iain Blair and Cressida Dick repeated the lie that Jean Charles de Menezes "ran into the station and jumped over the gateline". CCTV showed him walking calmly up to the gateline and continuing through when his ticket was confirmed as valid and the gate opened. Back on-topic now... Nortube has mentioned his concerns about the most recent arrest of a Guard on Merseyrail and I must agree. In spite of being cleared by a safety enquiry he is still likely to be convicted and sent to prison. Every day on LU (and other metros must be similar) train doors are set to close while passengers are boarding. How else can the service operate with an almost constant flow of people walking or running toward the train? Should the partly-closed doors be re-opened over and over again until the train is rammed? Not only would this cause a delay, with platforms further along the line filling-up (and possibly station entry gates having to be closed), but there is also the problem of then getting all the doors fully closed on the overcrowded train. Yet again it seems that this Guard is likely to be tried by a Judge who has little knowledge of the practicalities of train operation - and being sent to prison with no one else being bothered about it. If staff are coerced into unsafe working with the risk of causing death or injury they have only themselves to blame. Back in the day the Underground was pretty safe and I expect Merseyrail and other lines were too because the travelling public was more disciplined and there were generally more platform staff around at the busiest periods. If guards and drivers value their freedom, livelihood and reputation they surely have no choice but to take appropriate action when they are unable to perform their jobs in accordance with the laid down rules, regulations and procedures. The unions should be calling for proper crowd control at all problem stations and/or blacking those platforms deemed to be unsafe. Managers attempting to coerce guards / drivers to carry on regardless should be reported on the grounds of Health & Safety. The unions often call for strike ballots for trivial issues but when real issues loom they seem to be rather backward in coming forward. Why? Because the Management v Unions relationship is a game with two willing partners putting on a show and knowing full well that the issue(s) will be resolved as and when it suits them. With reference to your point about the lies told by the Met over the slaying of Jean Charles de Menezes, ask yourself why nobody from LUL went to the media or the press and told the truth ! The establishment is corrupt in more ways than there are bus lanes in London, it's all about the mandarins at the top and the old pals act. These days I have little faith in the propaganda disseminated by those politicians and high level bureaucrats heading police forces and ministries. I don't believe in the honours system which perpetuates what I have long seen as 'jobs for the boys'. For some 25 years of my 28 year membership of the NURMTW I saw that as very corrupt too, dishonesty has become an ever larger part of the culture over the last 45 years to such an extent that I trust nothing to any extent nowadays! |
|
|
|
Post by peteuxb on Jan 30, 2016 17:23:01 GMT
"With reference to your point about the lies told by the Met over the slaying of Jean Charles de Menezes, ask yourself why nobody from LUL went to the media or the press and told the truth !"
Briefly 'off-topic' again, I don't have to ask myself anything. The facts of this were given to the media by LUL staff and it was briefly reported. Following this Iain Blair and Cressida Dick stopped telling the lie, but they had already repeated it so many times that it was entrenched in many people's minds.
Back on-topic...
I do not agree that staff only have themselves to blame if they accept unsafe methods of working. It is the employer's responsibility to organise a safe method of working, not the employee's. I also disagree with your thoughts on trade unions getting heavily involved with safety issues. By all means they should point out problems, in writing for proof, but I believe it is unreasonable to expect staff to lose a large amount of earnings in the repeated strikes which would be necessary to try and change things. Many people live right up to their incomes nowadays.
Anyway, in my humble opinion a member of staff who has been cleared by an official safety enquiry should not be facing being sent to prison.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jan 31, 2016 13:11:21 GMT
"With reference to your point about the lies told by the Met over the slaying of Jean Charles de Menezes, ask yourself why nobody from LUL went to the media or the press and told the truth !" Briefly 'off-topic' again, I don't have to ask myself anything. The facts of this were given to the media by LUL staff and it was briefly reported. Following this Iain Blair and Cressida Dick stopped telling the lie, but they had already repeated it so many times that it was entrenched in many people's minds. Back on-topic... I do not agree that staff only have themselves to blame if they accept unsafe methods of working. It is the employer's responsibility to organise a safe method of working, not the employee's. I also disagree with your thoughts on trade unions getting heavily involved with safety issues. By all means they should point out problems, in writing for proof, but I believe it is unreasonable to expect staff to lose a large amount of earnings in the repeated strikes which would be necessary to try and change things. Many people live right up to their incomes nowadays. Anyway, in my humble opinion a member of staff who has been cleared by an official safety enquiry should not be facing being sent to prison. There is much more that I might say but much of it would be OT because the topic is a rather small piece of a very large tin of worms and labouring any of the points already made would add nothing to the on topic discussion. However, I will simply reiterate the point of H&S law in which any and all parties that are, or may be deemed to be, involved in any way with a H&S breach are liable to prosecution, fine and imprisonment. You may draw from that what you will and indeed depending upon one's view it is should be possible to deduce that the result in this case is fair in one way and unfair in another but there are more than two views to be seen! As for the de Menezes case I would simply say that I watched media coverage surrounding the whole issue and never once saw anything broadcast except the official Met account of the event so perhaps LUL weren't shouting out the truth for rather obvious reasons! Going right OT just don't get me started on the way that people live their lives on their incomes! Only once in my continuous 35 year working life was I near to true hardship and that was 25 years ago when I had a large mortgage and LU failed to pay correct or any wages for two months or so following devolution of engineering and staff regrading from old to new grades. Payrolls made promises that were never honoured and I spent all my savings to keep my home until I reached a point of ultimatum where I had to declare that I could no longer afford to come to work as I was down to my last couple of quid. It took a row with my manager to get some action following a series of polite requests, both verbal and written, outlining my financial circumstances and being fobbed off week after week with Payrolls promises. At the time I felt as though I was working for nothing and there was no help from the union on that score! Apologies in advance for being doubly OT but there are some things that really get my goat. Living right up to or beyond one's means is just one of them! I think it's time for me to join the majority of members for a while now. |
|
|
|
Post by peteuxb on Jan 31, 2016 17:18:49 GMT
I also see no point in discussing this further. Neither of us are going to have a change of mind on this so best to leave it as an 'agree to disagree' jobbie.
|
|
|
|
Post by peteuxb on Jan 31, 2016 18:22:46 GMT
By the way, on the de Menezes case, I can't remember for certain whether I actually heard a broadcast or was told of it by someone else. It was quite a long time ago after all.
What I am totally certain of, though, is that I later read it in a lengthy article in a national newspaper. In this article a full 'blow-by-blow' account was given of the actions of everyone involved in the period prior to the actual shooting (including one of the police officers leaving his post to urinate). It was also stated that Mr de Menezes, rather than as previously reported, in fact walked calmly into Stockwell station and did not jump over the gateline.
I have no 'proof' one way or the other (and this isn't actually what we've been arguing about!) so I'll leave it there.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Feb 7, 2016 15:41:23 GMT
peteuxb,
What are you getting uptight for you seem to have a thing about the Stockwell incident, if you know the Met police then you will know what they are like and trigger happy and that is just the front line ones. Can I ask what your background is as it might well explain why.
|
|
