Self appointed crossing keeper...

[GB]

How moronic can someone be!

XXX advises that a MOP has called in from XXX xing to state that he is manning the xing and has allowed several people to cross.
Signaller has advised the MOP that he is not allowed to do so and should not appoint himself as a Xing keeper as all MOP should contact the signaller for permission to cross. MOP known as XXX has replied that he knows the timetable and knows that it is safe.
Signaller states that all people wishing to cross can only be given permission by him and has requested that he stop authorising people to cross the line.

This is apparently a regluar occurence on a Sunday and the MOP has been spoken to several times.

XXX advises that XXX has now reported to him that he has authorised several cars to cross the track with out first getting permission to do so

 

[Ferret]

How moronic can someone be!

What in the name of bloody hell?!

 

[wintonian]

??? :roll::roll:

Well they say it takes all sorts, and as for knowing the timetable, even a MOP must know trains can run late not to mention there maybe frieght, ECS etc.

 

[OxtedL]

Everyone remember that incident on the Cambrian?

Familiarity with the crossing...

 

[GB]

If someone wants to risk their own life well thats their own lookout, but what on earth possesses someone to think they can act in this manner and "authorise" others to cross? He should be done for endangering railway safety....or sectioned!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

IHe should be done for endangering railway safety....or sectioned!

Both!

What an absolute idiot.

 

[wintonian]

Both!

What an absolute idiot.

Agreed!

 

[Nym]

Both!

What an absolute idiot.

Seconded

 

[blue sabre]

Wouldn't they be able to send BTP? Surely that is in breach of some railway bylaw? I fact wouldn't 'endangering public safety' cover it?

 

[Yew]

What a nice man, he knows the timetable and is authorising people to cross when its safe. Brilliant. Until a train is early/late, or there is a special working.

Maybe if he is so willing to help, network rail/the toc should give him a bit of training? So that he doesnt sent people into the path of an oncoming train

 

[scotsman]

What a nice man, he knows the timetable and is authorising people to cross when its safe. Brilliant. Until a train is early/late, or there is a special working.

Maybe if he is so willing to help, network rail/the toc should give him a bit of training? So that he doesnt sent people into the path of an oncoming train

Maybe he should go home and not be so damned stupid - if you legitimise what he's doing, then you'll get more trying this. How about we just let people use the phone like they're meant to?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Wouldn't they be able to send BTP? Surely that is in breach of some railway bylaw? I fact wouldn't 'endangering public safety' cover it?

Endangering the safety of the railway is a serious enough offence.

 

[EM2]

He needs to be arrested. Give him a bloody wake-up call.

 

[GB]

The BTP were called but not sure of the outcome. Apprantly it is not the first time this person has done this.

 

[Tom B]

Forgive me, but what's a MOP? (Other than a thing used to wash floors!)

 

[GB]

What a nice man, he knows the timetable and is authorising people to cross when its safe. Brilliant. Until a train is early/late, or there is a special working.

Maybe if he is so willing to help, network rail/the toc should give him a bit of training? So that he doesnt sent people into the path of an oncoming train

If he/she wants to play crossing keeper then he should apply for a proper job like everyone else. No amount of training will be suitable as this is a UWC so there is already set procedures that users MUST take.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Forgive me, but what's a MOP? (Other than a thing used to wash floors!)

Railway short speak for Member Of Public.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The BTP were called but not sure of the outcome. Apprantly it is not the first time this person has done this.

I would hope he has been arrested, or at least told in no uncertain terms to desist.

 

[Jonny]

Forgive me, but what's a MOP? (Other than a thing used to wash floors!)

TLA for Member of the Public.

Or, some random member of the public.

 

[bluenoxid]

How moronic can someone be!

When and Where?

 

[Express Link]

MOP = Member of Public

 

[HugePilchard]

I'm not a legal expert, but let's just say that this kindly 'crossing keeper' lets somebody across the line when their knowledge of the passenger timetable says it's safe. The trusting member of the public is in the middle of the line when a freight service flattens their car. Oops. Wouldn't that be manslaughter?

Wikipedia (I've lost my copy of the Perry Mason Book for Boys, so Wiki will suffice) says that:

• The defendant must do an unlawful act.
  ...it goes on to add that it must be criminal, and not civil; would there be a railway byelaw that covers this?
• The act must be dangerous.
  Well, duh. They directed someone in front of a train.
• The act must cause the death of the victim.
  Let's go for yes, otherwise this whole discussion about manslaughter is a non-starter.

What do you reckon? Am I right? Or should I avoid offering my services as legal counsel in exchange for a few pints?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Surely this would come under "Endangering the safety of the railway"?

 

[SS4]

I couldn't have been the only one who was thinking of Mr Falletio (or similar) when reading this thread!

Unfortunately I can see this being another media darling storyline "RED TAPE PREVENT LOCAL MAN FROM HELPING HIS NEIGHBOURS "

 

[trentside]

Replace helping with 'KILLING' and you might be closer...

I despair at the stupidity of some people. I do wonder about the people who listened to him when he said it was safe to cross. Did they assume he was a crossing keeper (was he dressed like one, I wonder?) or did they just not think...?

 

[SS4]

Replace helping with 'KILLING' and you might be closer...

I despair at the stupidity of some people. I do wonder about the people who listened to him when he said it was safe to cross. Did they assume he was a crossing keeper (was he dressed like one, I wonder?) or did they just not think...?

Closer to the fact: yes. Closer to what the media would report: no
I fully agree with the sentiment already posted on here about his behaviour.

I don't reckon the people who took his advice thought about it too much to be honest, it comes down to either trusting this guy or taking the time to ring the signal box (I assume a direct phone line is provided?) and, as network rail's ad campaign testifies to, there are always some idiots willing to make an ass of themselves at level crossings
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not a legal expert, but let's just say that this kindly 'crossing keeper' lets somebody across the line when their knowledge of the passenger timetable says it's safe. The trusting member of the public is in the middle of the line when a freight service flattens their car. Oops. Wouldn't that be manslaughter?

Wikipedia (I've lost my copy of the Perry Mason Book for Boys, so Wiki will suffice) says that:

• The defendant must do an unlawful act.
  ...it goes on to add that it must be criminal, and not civil; would there be a railway byelaw that covers this?
• The act must be dangerous.
  Well, duh. They directed someone in front of a train.
• The act must cause the death of the victim.
  Let's go for yes, otherwise this whole discussion about manslaughter is a non-starter.

What do you reckon? Am I right? Or should I avoid offering my services as legal counsel in exchange for a few pints?

I would say you're heading at it from a different avenue as the people who they tell do not have to heed this person's advice in much the same way if I told you to jump off a cliff would I be responsible if you did?
If he was dressed in a manner resembling a person officially connected with the railway it would be a whole new ball game though.

 

[trentside]

Closer to the fact: yes. Closer to what the media would report: no
I fully agree with the sentiment already posted on here about his behaviour.

My original line of though was that any media response to a resulting fatality would probably read along the lines of blaming railway staff for not monitoring the crossing more closely, or blame them for not having a permanent real crossing keeper. That sort of story seems to crop up every time there is a level crossing accident.

 

[the sniper]

I'm not a legal expert, but let's just say that this kindly 'crossing keeper' lets somebody across the line when their knowledge of the passenger timetable says it's safe. The trusting member of the public is in the middle of the line when a freight service flattens their car. Oops. Wouldn't that be manslaughter?

Wikipedia (I've lost my copy of the Perry Mason Book for Boys, so Wiki will suffice) says that:

• The defendant must do an unlawful act.
  ...it goes on to add that it must be criminal, and not civil; would there be a railway byelaw that covers this?
• The act must be dangerous.
  Well, duh. They directed someone in front of a train.
• The act must cause the death of the victim.
  Let's go for yes, otherwise this whole discussion about manslaughter is a non-starter.

What do you reckon? Am I right? Or should I avoid offering my services as legal counsel in exchange for a few pints?

Well it'd depend on how it was being done I suppose, as SS4 suggests. Going with it though, in the situation you describe, if the person did indeed die, then I'd imagine that Involuntary Manslaughter would be the conviction the Police would likely be going for.

Two unlawful acts under the railway byelaws that the self appointed crossing keeper probably committed were these under Section 12:

12. Safety instructions
(1) An Operator may issue reasonable instructions relating to safety on any part of the railway by means of a notice on or near that part of the railway. No person shall, without good cause, disobey such notice.
(2) An authorised person may, in an emergency or in other circumstances in which he believes he should act in the interests of safety, issue instructions to any person on the railway. No person shall, without good cause, disobey such instructions.

You'd have to imagine that there were signs/notices informing users of the need to ring the signaller before a vehicle crossed, so the guy would be in contravention of (1) if it were proven that notices were shown. Saying that though, would the offence not be committed by the vehicle driver rather than our crossing keeper, depending on the wording of the signs/notices?

From the account given we know that (2) was breached, as the signaller is an authorised person and the guy disobeyed his instructions. I guess the only questionable bit there is whether he was on railway property when he spoke to the signaller.

I'm afraid I don't know enough to say whether these loose ends would be enough to block a manslaughter conviction.

It'd probably run off the offence detailed below though.

Surely this would come under "Endangering the safety of the railway"?

Yes. As it is, I think it's a clear cut case of an offence that could be prosecuted under Section 34 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. For those that are interested in the wording of the offence:

Doing or omitting anything to endanger passengers by railway.

Whosoever, by any unlawful act, or by any wilful omission or neglect, shall endanger or cause to be endangered the safety of any person conveyed or being in or upon a railway, or shall aid or assist therein, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.

 

[Ticket Man]

while were in the spirit of self appointing, I might appoint myself to airline pilot because I know what makes planes fly

What a prat!

 

[PinzaC55]

It would be interesting to know if he was claiming unemployment benefit since this would count as unpaid work, which he would not be allowed to do.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It would be interesting to know if he was claiming unemployment benefit since this would count as unpaid work, which he would not be allowed to do.

Ridiculous. This isn't unpaid work as there wasn't a job in the first place!