RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[WatcherZero]

Onedirection That's what everyones been saying all along, you've been missing the distinction between intent and negligence.

 

[Gareth]

I think pretty much everyone understands that it's trial by jury.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Hallelieua. Your last sentence is exactly the point! That's exactly what it comes down too . .

That ain't what you said though. You said the jury had to decide he'd intentionally done it. That's not true. They can decide he didn't mean to do it, that it was an accident, but he was so incompetent that he was negligent, and still find him guilty.

Whether it's negligence or not is for them to decide, not me with my in-depth knowledge of what the Echo reports.

 

[robertclark125]

I'd also say that the report on the BBC red button said that the jury was shown or were to be shown footage.

Evidence is not a matter for me, or anyone else on this forum; it's a matter for a court.

 

[Onedirection]

Onedirection That's what everyones been saying all along, you've been missing the distinction between intent and negligence.

Not so!
The point I was trying to make , rather than people analysing on the sentence I was using to highlight this point, was whatever the question is asked to the jury, whether it's about negligence or intent or anything else , was not so much on the charge that the defendant is up against, but the fact that the jury would need to be completely satisfied, or satisfied beyond satisfaction for whatever question is asked to them based on what evidence they have seen or will see.

A few on here just went of on a tangent analysing on the charges he faces. That wasn't the point. It was merely to highlight whatever the charges are, it was a simple point to show that the jury has to be completely satisfied with whatever question they are asked and if they are not- then he has to be aquitted for each question that is asked based upon the evidence they have seen. ( that still doesn't mean he's not guilty even if aquitted/ just lack of evidence)

 

[trainophile]

So is this strike on 13th directly related to supporting the guard under discussion, or is it the general proposal to run guard-less trains?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So is this strike on 13th directly related to supporting the guard under discussion, or is it the general proposal to run guard-less trains?

It's anti-DOO.

 

[Robertj21a]

Not so!
The point I was trying to make , rather than people analysing on the sentence I was using to highlight this point, was whatever the question is asked to the jury, whether it's about negligence or intent or anything else , was not so much on the charge that the defendant is up against, but the fact that the jury would need to be completely satisfied, or satisfied beyond satisfaction for whatever question is asked to them based on what evidence they have seen or will see.

A few on here just went of on a tangent analysing on the charges he faces. That wasn't the point. It was merely to highlight whatever the charges are, it was a simple point to show that the jury has to be completely satisfied with whatever question they are asked and if they are not- then he has to be aquitted for each question that is asked based upon the evidence they have seen. ( that still doesn't mean he's not guilty even if aquitted/ just lack of evidence)

Well, you've lost me entirely !

I can't see that what you're now saying is any different to what has been the usual practice for any jury in the past.

Why did you put INTENTIONALLY ? - where did you get that 'inside information' from ?

As I said, you've lost me entirely !

 

[AlterEgo]

( that still doesn't mean he's not guilty even if aquitted/ just lack of evidence)

Oh, for crying out loud.

If he's acquitted, or the case collapses due to a lack of evidence, then it means he's not guilty. People in this country are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Camden]

Or at least we used to be, before we became swamped by imbeciles.

 

[JamesTT]

I have been led to believe that after a safety of the line incident, unless certain criteria are followed the staff member(s) involved cannot be disciplined. Firstly is this correct and secondly is it known whether such procedures where followed in the incident that involved the train Mr Zee was on?

Also what are the potential ramifications for Merseyrail, BTP and the RMT if he is found guilty? Considering these organisations have said there was no wrong doing on his part, again so I am led to believe.

 

[trainophile]

It's anti-DOO.

Thanks. You'd never know from the last few pages!

 

[hounddog]

I think pretty much everyone understands that it's trial by jury.

Although some seem to have made up their own mind already ...

 

[JamesTT]

Can I just say I have not made up my mind personally just asking questions.

 

[HH]

...the fact that the jury would need to be completely satisfied, or satisfied beyond satisfaction...

Not so!

They do not have to be completely satisfied, let alone satisfied beyond satisfaction, whatever that means. They have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

According to the University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology that is generally accepted as being equivalent to 91% probable.

 

[AlterEgo]

The link for today's updates appears to be here: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-guard-court-after-89-12714986

Doesn't seem to have started yet. I wonder if Zee will be giving evidence in his own defence.

 

[AlterEgo]

Apologies, previous post was put in the wrong thread...

 

[trainophile]

Just seen on twitter that Merseyrail are trying to get an injunction to prevent the strike on Monday.

 

[M28361M]

From the Liverpool Echo (link):

Merseyrail will try to block a planned strike on its network after filing for a court injunction.

Members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union are to walk out for 24 hours in a row over driver-only trains (DOO) and the role of conductors.

But Merseyrail are trying to stop the strike from happening late in the day, with the case listed at the High Court for 2pm this afternoon.

The company are claiming that the union's dispute should be with Merseytravel, the company bringing the new fleet of trains onto its network.

The RMT are unhappy that 220 guard roles will be lost when the new £460m fleet arrives in 2020, with the roles becoming redundant as drivers will operate the doors on the new vehicles.

After a vote last month, the 24-hour strike is due to begin just after midnight on Monday.

In a statement Merseyrail said this afternoon: “Merseyrail can confirm that we are seeking an injunction to prevent strike action from taking place on March 13.

“This is in relation to on-board staffing arrangements on the new fleet of trains that Merseytravel will introduce on to the network in 2020.

“Merseyrail argued to the High Court that decisions about the design and operation of the trains under DOO principles were taken by council leaders and councillors in December 2016 and that Merseyrail had no choice but to implement these plans.

“As such, the RMT’s dispute is with Merseytravel and not Merseyrail.”

The case will be heard in the High Court in London later today.

The RMT said it has been made aware of Merseyrail’s attempt to block the strike and said it will be “robustly defending” its position.

A spokesman said: “RMT has received correspondence from Merseyrail which is now with the union’s lawyers. RMT will robustly defend the union’s position in the current dispute with the company over the threat to the guards grade and the safety of the rail network.

“Instead of dashing to the courts under the cloak of the anti-union laws the company should be around the table with the union negotiating a guarantee of a safe and sustainable solution to this dispute that retains a guard on their trains.”

RMT members on Arriva Trains North and Southern Railway are also due to strike for 24 hours on Monday in similar dispute.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This afternoon, Mersey Rail brought an application for an injunction against the RMT to prevent the Union from carrying out its proposed industrial action.
The question would have to turn on the narrow question of whether this was a 'trade dispute' or was the RMTs broader campaign against DOO trains and the safety issues.

There was argument that the ballot paper was very misleading and therefore invalid.

Mitting J found that the ballot was sufficiently clear and that if the matter went to trial then it would succeed and so refused Merseyrails application for an injunction.

MerseyRail will have to pay the costs.

 

[Statto]

Just been announced on Granada Reports that the RMT are reporting the injunction by Merseyrail has failed

 

[HH]

Well the lawyers will be happy at least; a nice little earner.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Well the lawyers will be happy at least; a nice little earner.

The RMT were very happy - and I'd hope everyone who supports the Trade Union movement is also very satisfied that the Courts will not grant an injunction to prevent a union from taking industrial action in a legitimate dispute over trade and employment issues. If the Union had tried to focus on the safety of DOO and to try to disguise the fact that it was really about protecting jobs, then the outcome might well have been otherwise.

 

[6Gman]

Happened to be at Liverpool Central this afternoon and watched the despatch procedures carefully. Reinforced my view that "the man at the back" should be retained.

Two things struck me:

1. The Guard had a clear view along the doorline, in a way that platform staff didn't.

2. The Guard had a clear view not only down the trainside but also of the escalator bringing people down to the platform and reacted appropriately. Not sure how a driver (or platform staff) could do that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why can platform staff not stand where they wish to get the required view?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[74A]

The RMT were very happy - and I'd hope everyone who supports the Trade Union movement is also very satisfied that the Courts will not grant an injunction to prevent a union from taking industrial action in a legitimate dispute over trade and employment issues. If the Union had tried to focus on the safety of DOO and to try to disguise the fact that it was really about protecting jobs, then the outcome might well have been otherwise.

So in court the RMT had to say the dispute is not about safety but is about jobs.

 

[6Gman]

Why can platform staff not stand where they wish to get the required view?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They could indeed stand where the Guard currently stands. But they would not be controlling the doors.

 

[Holly]

So in court the RMT had to say the dispute is not about safety but is about jobs.

Isn't it rather obvious that it's about both safety and jobs.

 

[HH]

The RMT were very happy...

I was a little too cryptic; I had meant to intimate that (IMO) the action by MR was trivial and deserved to be thrown out.

 

[Holly]

Guards Must Stay On Trains - They Saved My Son's Life
http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-f774-Guards-must-stay-on-trains-they-saved-my-sons-life

Saturday 11th
A MOTHER who says a Merseyrail guard saved her diabetic son’s life this week has made an emotional radio appeal to keep the safety-critical staff on trains as they prepare for strike action next week.
Giving her name as Mary, the woman said her son Karl was slipping into a hypoglycaemic coma on the train at ...

A guard's job does not include that of a paramedic - but perhaps it should.