Two jailed for blocking rail line

[mikeg]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/two-jailed-for-blocking-95mph-rail-line-2045615.html

Four and four and a half years! Result!

As much as I dislike CrossCountry, I do hope they'll be trying to recover as much of the damages as possible from the convicted.

 

[455driver]

What would be the point, this scum wont have any money so it would cost XC more than they would get back!
Just another example of how this country is set up to look after the chavy scum!
Good result, but it will be interesting to see how long they actually serve!

 

[theblackwatch]

Probably down to half, then another few months off for good behaviour.

 

[Kernowfem]

Obviously their aim was to cause death and serious injury, what this scum did in my eyes is equal to attempted murder......I hope that a four and a half year sentence will be seen as a deterant to other idiots.....however i wont hold my breath.

 

[StoneRoad]

Well I think that those two bits of XXXXX should have been convicted of attempted murder, (and have got 'life' in prison - they risked killing 50 people!) and their assets should be confisiticated to cover the cost of repairs, compensation for the disruption and damages for the distress to the crew and passengers.

just look at the 20 and 16 years for robbing a jewellers!!

 

[43167]

Their intentions were to derail the train & cause harm to the passengers. It should have been attempted murder with 25 years minimum sentence's.

Its about time proper examples were made of people who try to derail trains.

 

[9K43]

This act is an offence under the following legislation;
You will see that it carries a maximum sentence of Penal Servitude for life.


Section 5, Malicious Damage Act 1861.35

Placing wood, &c. on railway, with intent to obstruct or overthrow any engine, &c Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously cut, place, cast, or throw upon or across any railway any wood, stone, or other matter or thing, or shall unlawfully and maliciously take up, remove, or displace any rail, sleeper, or other matter or thing belonging to any railway, or shall unlawfully and maliciously turn, move, or divert any points or other machinery belonging to any railway, or shall unlawfully and maliciously make or show, hide or remove, any signal or light upon or near to any railway, or shall unlawfully and maliciously do or cause to be done any other matter or thing, with intent, in any of the cases aforesaid, to obstruct, upset, overthrow, injure, or destroy any engine, tender, carriage, or truck using such railway, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for life . . . F1 or to be imprisoned . . . F2

As a Safety Rep, my ASLEF mate and I came accross this sort of problem on a regular basis.
It can happen anywhere on the system.
I have had wall toppings thrown at the train I was workng, which if this missile had hit the cab, it would have taken the cab off the loco.
When approaching bridges, and you see anyone on them, I look where thier hands are, if you cant see them, it could be you are about to get a broad side.
This usually takes place in the school holidays.

 

[CarterUSM]

This act is an offence under the following legislation;
You will see that it carries a maximum sentence of Penal Servitude for life.


Section 5, Malicious Damage Act 1861.35

Placing wood, &c. on railway, with intent to obstruct or overthrow any engine, &c Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously cut, place, cast, or throw upon or across any railway any wood, stone, or other matter or thing, or shall unlawfully and maliciously take up, remove, or displace any rail, sleeper, or other matter or thing belonging to any railway, or shall unlawfully and maliciously turn, move, or divert any points or other machinery belonging to any railway, or shall unlawfully and maliciously make or show, hide or remove, any signal or light upon or near to any railway, or shall unlawfully and maliciously do or cause to be done any other matter or thing, with intent, in any of the cases aforesaid, to obstruct, upset, overthrow, injure, or destroy any engine, tender, carriage, or truck using such railway, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for life . . . F1 or to be imprisoned . . . F2

As a Safety Rep, my ASLEF mate and I came accross this sort of problem on a regular basis.
It can happen anywhere on the system.
I have had wall toppings thrown at the train I was workng, which if this missile had hit the cab, it would have taken the cab off the loco.
When approaching bridges, and you see anyone on them, I look where thier hands are, if you cant see them, it could be you are about to get a broad side.
This usually takes place in the school holidays.

I remember the Branchton crash, concrete blocks staggered across the line, driver and two(?) passengers dead. Two arrests and jail terms of around ten years if I recall. Can't seem to find the exact sentence anywhere. They are out now though.

 

[lm321412]

Good to see this lowest form of life behind bars. Why you would want to potentially cause so many deaths is beyond me, small minded idiots like this really annoy me.

I am also very pleased to see that BTP, Network Rail and Cross Country managed to get these idiots prosecuted for their behaviour.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Agree completely it's attempted muder, i presume it was a 170?

Although i must say i was on train from sheffield to leeds via barnsley and just near my stop (chapeltown a "lovely area" absolutely riddled with chavs) the train came to quite a quick halt, later turned out armed police were on track as a gang of kids had put parts of a stolen car on line, quite alot actually, and it was a gang known to have knives.

So they do try to catch them. but i feel in this case they got no where near what they deserved and should be forced to do a suitabel amount of hours cleaning litter, graffiti, weeds and muck off stations in the area. Also cleaning graffiti off stock.

 

[crewmeal]

If this sort of thing happened in say Iran they would be publicly executed. Elsewhere in the Middle East at least 20 years in a hard labour jail with 99 lashes. They would have been brought to their knees and never commit another crime.

I'm afraid that is the harsh reality of living in the Middle East today.

 

[Metroland]

The top comment on the Daily Mail is

'They obviously came from the shallow part of the gene pool - sterilise them to make sure they don't produce more waste of space idiots.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-derail-passenger-train.html#ixzz0vuPAW018


Hmn? Now didn't someone 60 years ago have similar ideas?

Seriously though, I'd suggest they probably have some mental impairment as criminals often have, namely lack of empathy with others, and inability to see the consequences of their actions.

 

[Snapper]

Their intentions were to derail the train & cause harm to the passengers. It should have been attempted murder with 25 years minimum sentence's.

Its about time proper examples were made of people who try to derail trains.

What they were charged with carries the same maximum penalty as attempted murder (life). Attempted murder is much much harder to prove as it has to be what they really intended to do - a death as a by-product of another action simply isn't good enough and if they were charged with the wrong thing they would almost certainly be found not guilty- which is why it's important not to listen to armchair lawyers.

I realise this is little comfort to the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade who seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the idea of charging people with attempted murder every time something is placed on a railway line - whatever the consequences are.

The sad thing about these things being posted on rail forum is that as soon as they are - you know you'll get a peeing up the wall competition from the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade as they try to outdo each other with pointless one-upmanship in suggesting outlandish punishments, charges and comparisons
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seriously though... namely lack of empathy with others, and inability to see the consequences of their actions.

That doesn't just describe criminals...

 

[TDK]

What they were charged with carries the same maximum penalty as attempted murder (life). Attempted murder is much much harder to prove as it has to be what they really intended to do - a death as a by-product of another action simply isn't good enough and if they were charged with the wrong thing they would almost certainly be found not guilty- which is why it's important not to listen to armchair lawyers.

I realise this is little comfort to the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade who seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the idea of charging people with attempted murder every time something is placed on a railway line - whatever the consequences are.

The most levelheaded post on this thread, better getting what they got than off free with a poor case. Attempted murder is as it says, did they know or did they have the intensions of derailing a train? If so you need conclusive evidence to prove this. I know it is wrong and they should be banged up for life but unfortunatley it dosn't work this way.

 

[222666]

Well done to the driver for braking effectively enough to stop while keeping it on the tracks.

Oh & materials that can be moved by persons without lifting gear being left near the track?

Obviously scum are scum & will be punished, but why leave stuff out for people like this?

 

[Ferret]

The most levelheaded post on this thread, better getting what they got than off free with a poor case. Attempted murder is as it says, did they know or did they have the intensions of derailing a train? If so you need conclusive evidence to prove this. I know it is wrong and they should be banged up for life but unfortunatley it dosn't work this way.

It's the law that's at fault here of course - there is no doubt in my mind that these scum knew when they put those blocks on the line that they could kill somebody and yet they still went through with it. That is an attempt to take somebody's life, simple as. Snapper is bang on to say that securing a conviction for attempted murder would be hard though. My point is that it shouldn't be.

Of course, it's open to question as to whether attempted murder would lead to a stiffer sentence. There's a perception that it would, but what they were charged with carries the same maximum penalty. They should be looking at serving 10 years to my mind - alas it seems that the sentencing guidelines won't allow this. Once again - the law is at fault.

 

[Snapper]

I always find it strange that someone can say that 'the law is at fault' when:

They have no idea of what the law is.

They have no idea what happened in the trial.

I also don't understand this unhealthy obsession with insisting on an attempted murder charge every time there's an incident on the railway.

 

[Greenback]

It's the law that's at fault here of course - there is no doubt in my mind that these scum knew when they put those blocks on the line that they could kill somebody and yet they still went through with it. That is an attempt to take somebody's life, simple as. Snapper is bang on to say that securing a conviction for attempted murder would be hard though. My point is that it shouldn't be.

Of course, it's open to question as to whether attempted murder would lead to a stiffer sentence. There's a perception that it would, but what they were charged with carries the same maximum penalty. They should be looking at serving 10 years to my mind - alas it seems that the sentencing guidelines won't allow this. Once again - the law is at fault.

Aren't the sentencing guidelines what the government issues to courts and judges for political reasons, rather than the law of the land?

 

[Snapper]

The sentencing guidelines are a different issue to choosing what to charge someone with in the first place. What's the point in charging someone with something you haven't got a cat in hells chance of getting a conviction on just to give the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade their jollies?

 

[Greenback]

AIUI, the sentencing guidelines are there to try and prevent wild inconsistencies between judges. They are, of course, only guidelines, but they can be used politically to try and lower the prison population, for example.

The relevance is that the guidelines will influence the actual sentence that the guilty person receives, no matter what they are charged with. If two crimes have the same maximum term of imprisonment in law, the guidelines may say that one offence should carry a sentence of between 3 and 5 years, and the other between 5 and 7. (I'm just using those figures hypothetically!).

 

[Ferret]

Aren't the sentencing guidelines what the government issues to courts and judges for political reasons, rather than the law of the land?

If you want to be pedantic about it, then pretty much, although politics is supposed to be kept out of it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I always find it strange that someone can say that 'the law is at fault' when:

They have no idea of what the law is.

You may wish to reconsider that statement.

They have no idea what happened in the trial.

Well, to sum up, they were found guilty and sentenced to four years and four and a half years. Widely reported I believe!

I also don't understand this unhealthy obsession with insisting on an attempted murder charge every time there's an incident on the railway.

Because that's what it is - an attempt to kill somebody! Breathtakingly simple. Not that you'll actually grasp that point....:roll:

 

[Teaboy1]

Scum-bags, should not be allowed to walk free after 18 months IMHO.

This is the problem when nugget breeds with nugget, you (well we actually) end up with super nuggets who then are a total strain on our welfare state. Lock em up and then deport em' to Nigeria, see how they survive there!!
We are not safe with nugget like this at large......more prisons IMHO!

 

[EltonRoad]

Because that's what it is - an attempt to kill somebody! Breathtakingly simple. Not that you'll actually grasp that point....:roll:

Have you interviewed the perpetrators Ferret? I suspect not. You cannot infer attempted murder from their actions. You have no idea what their intentions were, their level of intelligence, what they thought the consequences would be, whether they knew someone who would be on that train, etc.

And do you really know what the law says, other than what you've read in The Independent? If you do, great, which Act/statute are you referring to? When you say "the law is at fault", this is your personal opinion, I understand your anger, but that is about all it amounts to, isn't it? Are you saying the law is at fault because it doesn't define anyone who places blocks on a railway as trying to kill people? How could it possibly say that?

 

[Metroland]

Well it all goes back to my point about mental illness.

Does a sane person place obstructions on the railway line in an attempt to derail a train? And I would say this is an attempt, rather than just place small rocks on the line as an experiment as many kids do.

If they did know what they were doing, then it is, in my opinion attempted murder. The aim was to kill or injure. Although it would be down to the exact details of the trial to determine this.

If they are unable to process the full consequences of their actions, rather like watching a sick video game and not distinguishing it from reality, then that questions their mental integrity. Many prisoners, possibly these two, should be in secure mental institutions IMHO rather than university's of crime, such as the prison system.

It's all very well saying about knowing the difference between right and wrong, you might, I might, but many people that fall into the criminal system do not, either through mental problems or very bad upbringing.

 

[Ferret]

Have you interviewed the perpetrators Ferret? I suspect not. You cannot infer attempted murder from their actions. You have no idea what their intentions were, their level of intelligence, what they thought the consequences would be, whether they knew someone who would be on that train, etc.

And do you really know what the law says, other than what you've read in The Independent? If you do, great, which Act/statute are you referring to? When you say "the law is at fault", this is your personal opinion, I understand your anger, but that is about all it amounts to, isn't it? Are you saying the law is at fault because it doesn't define anyone who places blocks on a railway as trying to kill people? How could it possibly say that?

It's The Offences Against the Person Act I believe!

Now, of course I haven't interviewed the perpetrators, but what I will ask is this. What were they trying to achieve? "Oh, I thought that it might just damage the train a bit and everyone would be ok, there wasn't the remotest risk to life at all?" Come off it! I still maintain that a deliberate action taken by an individual which bears a real risk of costing another their life is attempted murder, and it's a weakness in the law that this is hard to prove.

Now, I think everyone accepts that attempted murder is bloody difficult to prove which is probably why the CPS didn't go down that road. If they were successful then they would create a precedent - if they failed then the drivers of the trains and the passengers on board would be denied justice and that is too much of a risk. There is a perception that attempted murder would result in a more realistic sentence - maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Nevertheless, what they were charged with could have still resulted in a longer sentence and to my mind should have! Like I say, this is an issue with the sentencing guidelines. No doubt Snapper will be along shortly to pigeonhole me as a member of the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade, but when he does, he'll be overlooking an important fact or two. Snap - go and google the principles of sentencing and tell me what they are. As a clue, you should find the words 'punishment' and 'deterrent'

 

[EltonRoad]

Personally, although all I know about this case is what it says in The Independent, I don't think it was attempted murder. Wanting to see a train smash through rocks etc., maybe. And yes, it could have resulted in injury or death. But at the moment I don't believe they did it because they wanted to kill someone.

 

[Snapper]

Now, I think everyone accepts that attempted murder is bloody difficult to prove which is probably why the CPS didn't go down that road. If they were successful then they would create a precedent - if they failed then the drivers of the trains and the passengers on board would be denied justice and that is too much of a risk. There is a perception that attempted murder would result in a more realistic sentence - maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Nevertheless, what they were charged with could have still resulted in a longer sentence and to my mind should have! Like I say, this is an issue with the sentencing guidelines. No doubt Snapper will be along shortly to pigeonhole me as a member of the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade, but when he does, he'll be overlooking an important fact or two. Snap - go and google the principles of sentencing and tell me what they are. As a clue, you should find the words 'punishment' and 'deterrent'

The principles of sentencing are sod all use if the wrong charge is brought in the first place and people are found not guilty as a consequence or have their convictions overturned. Sadly, this is a reality the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade don't seem to be able to deal with.

 

[crewmeal]

This is what this Country needs to deal with the likes of scum that threaten human life, which is what this is about. I also remember back in the 60's receiving a similar punishment for misdemeanors at boarding school. It taught me the difference from right and wrong

http://www.google.jo/imgres?imgurl=http://barunroy.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/public-flogging-in-pakistan.jpg&imgrefurl=http://barunroy.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/public-flogging-in-pakistan/&h=393&w=500&sz=131&tbnid=SOImvwwjhiDlXM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpublic%2Bfloggings%2Bpictures&usg=__lIYHEV9yNEYz-wpOWkoybfat9sw=&sa=X&ei=U1ddTJW0BZPW4gbUm8m7Ag&ved=0CAYQ9QEwAA


However the PC brigade will probably shout me down for such a barbaric punishment.

 

[Metroland]

Oh yep, we can debate it all day and still won't have an answer. We don't know the exact details of the trial, or have access to the transcripts from the police, or know the background of these two. And of course, they had been drinking.

So it's all conjecture on our part.

I think the natural reaction is to want to 'hang them and flog them', because most people are disgusted by their actions, but it doesn't really solve anything in most circumstances.

Certainly in the US, which has one of the largest prison populations and capital punishment, it does little to solve social issues.

We need to look at it from another point of view and find out how the individuals mind works. Do they get pleasure from causing pain to others, have they a history of bullying? For example. The evidence is looking increasing likely that the criminal mind is somewhat different, and gets pleasure out of causing anguish to others, when for normal people it throws up feelings of pity and depending on the circumstances, even wanting to help the victim during or after the crime.

Are some people beyond help? Or can they be reformed, which should be the aim of any civilised society.

 

[Ferret]

The principles of sentencing are sod all use if the wrong charge is brought in the first place and people are found not guilty as a consequence or have their convictions overturned. Sadly, this is a reality the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade don't seem to be able to deal with.

Of course. But you're of the opinion that it's impossible to gain a conviction for attempted murder. I'd say it's no better than 50/50 at best, so like you, I'd support the CPS in prosecuting the defendant with something they know they can get a conviction from - this will almost certainly be based upon previous cases - judicial precedent and all that The fact still remains though, that to the normal reasonable man, what these two wuckfits did was attempted murder, it's just that making that charge stick is an entirely different prospect.