Two jailed for blocking rail line

[Greenback]

If you want to be pedantic about it, then pretty much,

Sorry if I came across as pedantic, I was genuinely wanting to check my understanding was correct!

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.

I agree. It's not obvious or guaranteed that they went out that day and did what they did with the intentiont o take life. We can only decide that when we have more information about their histroy and intelligence, and even then it would only be a guess as to their motivation.

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.

Yes, that is one of the problems of our society, the fact that many people have a poor upbringing, and they then go on and sire their own children. They are then unable to isntill proper values into their own offspring, and so the problems cause multiply and worsen.

I'm not syaing that everyone with such a background ends up a criminal, far from it, but the chances are that someone brought up by a person or persons with nothing but contempt for others, will behave in a similar way.

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.

Quite. Although we don't have enough information to say for certain either way.

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

If anyone is deemed to be beyond help then they should be flogged and hung!

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.

My first instinct was to say they should have been charged with attempted murder. After reflection, though, I think that's going too far. How about charging all drink drivers with attempted murder? Suppose someone has three pints, is just over the limit, loses control of the car and hits a bus shelter. Can we then automatically assume that they intended to kill someone by driving a car whilst intoxicated? After all, they must know that a possible outcome of driving when drunk is that they may kill someone, just like a possible outcome of obstructing a railway line is that the train may derial and one or more people may die. And don't forget there could be thousands of other situations where that could be applied.

 

[EltonRoad]

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.

No, this statement is just wrong. You, or anyone else, cannot infer that it was attempted murder. You must be able to prove their intent before you can say that, and I cannot see how that is possible. If they were blind to the consequences, for whatever reason, it cannot have been attempted murder.

Also, just to add a bit, if every normal reasonable man thought that what they did did amount to attempted murder, then there should be no problem getting the charge to stick.

 

[the sniper]

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?"

Though I wouldn't say no risk at all, isn't that statement fairly believable? Most incidents like these don't end with any fatalities. I pretty sure statistically, considering how often trains strike obstacles, the risk of death or serious injury in incidents like this is pretty low.

I'm not excusing what they did, and I fully believe that they should serve the full four years, which they probably won't, but I don't think an attempted murder charge is warranted.

Btw, I'm disappoint to see that no-one has declared Briton as 'down the toilet' yet in this thread.

 

[Greenback]

This country has gone well and truly down the toilet

Oops, Sniper, I'm agreeing with you on this one!

 

[the sniper]

This country has gone well and truly down the toilet

Few, I feel better now.

 

[jon0844]

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!

How long until there's a Facebook group created to demand their release and loads of badly written 'they r innosent' from their illiterate friends?

 

[Ferret]

No, this statement is just wrong. You, or anyone else, cannot infer that it was attempted murder. You must be able to prove their intent before you can say that, and I cannot see how that is possible. If they were blind to the consequences, for whatever reason, it cannot have been attempted murder.

Also, just to add a bit, if every normal reasonable man thought that what they did did amount to attempted murder, then there should be no problem getting the charge to stick.

No, it is not wrong at all. All this gibber about being blind to the consequences is utter nonsense. It would take an extraordinary level of unintelligence to not realise that what they were doing is likely to cause death. They still went ahead and did it though. And like I said, if killing and causing serious injury wasn't their intention then what *was* their intention? But, we are where we are though - everyone accepts that making attempted murder actually stick is hard to do - it's just a shame that's the case. A successful high-profile prosecution for it with a stiff sentence may be enough to prevent others from thinking it's a good idea to try and derail a train.....

Just a minor point of order too - what you actually have to do is prove *beyond all reasonable doubt* that there was intent. As I've said to Snapper elsewhere, you'd have to take attempted murder off the statute book if you wanted the threshold to be actually proving intent. How the hell could you do that?!

 

[the sniper]

No, it is not wrong at all. All this nonsense about being blind to the consequences is utter nonsense. It would take an extraordinary level of unintelligence to not realise that what they were doing is likely to cause death.

But it surely, statistically, wasn't likely to cause death. How many of these incidents do end in a fatality, or even a derailment?

 

[Ferret]

But it surely, statistically, wasn't likely to cause death. How many of these incidents do end in a fatality, or even a derailment?

Well, have a look how many high speed derailments have caused deaths! I can think of a couple.....although these were accidental rather than deliberate. The fact of the matter is, it's down to luck. I hope I'm proved wrong, but one day I fear we'll find ourselves discussing a fatal incident in similar circumstances. Just out of curiousity, what charge would people like to see brought in that scenario?

 

[EltonRoad]

All this nonsense about being blind to the consequences is utter nonsense.

Oh really? You've interviewed them, have you? As a psychiatrist who interviews people, many of whom are not even mentally ill, almost daily, I couldn't agree less.

It would take an extraordinary level of unintelligence to not realise that what they were doing is likely to cause death.

Yeah, well, their actions were extraordinary. For all you know that does reflect low intelligence. Or high alcohol intake. Do you consider the consequences of your actions when you're drunk? If you didn't, would you think it fair to be convicted for something you hadn't considered would happen, but happened anyway?

They still went ahead and did it though. And like I said, if killing and causing serious injury wasn't their intention then what *was* their intention?

That is my point. We don't know what their intentions were. Or what their mental state was at the time. And until we do you cannot infer attempted murder.

But, we are where we are though - everyone accepts that making attempted murder actually stick is hard to do - it's just a shame that's the case. A successful high-profile prosecution for it with a stiff sentence may be enough to prevent others from thinking it's a good idea to try and derail a train.....

Sure, I agree a deterrent is necessary. But not by convicting them of murder when that wasn't what they set out to do.

 

[Ferret]

Well, that's ok then Elton Road, being drunk is a defence against everything is it?! Good grief And as for their mental state, is this about looking for excuses for bad behaviour? I just split up with thge wife so I thought it was right to take it out on 50 innocent people?

Like I say, what else *was* their intention?! Give me a few realistic possibilities and I might just take you seriously......

 

[EltonRoad]

Oh Ferret for god's sake, they're not using drunkenness as a defence are they? (that I know of). I certainly wouldn't defend them on the basis that they were drunk.

I'm simply saying that to convict someone of murder, you'd have to show that murder is what they set out to do, and so far you haven't done that. Simply saying "why else would they have done it" isn't good enough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And as for their mental state, is this about looking for excuses for bad behaviour? I just split up with thge wife so I thought it was right to take it out on 50 innocent people?

It might be why you did it but that doesn't make it right. My job might be to show that is why you did it, not to say whether it was right or not.

 

[renfespotter]

I see no difference than those crimes against aviation, the aim is the same.
Stick um in with the shoe bomber I say

 

[Ferret]

Oh Ferret for god's sake, they're not using drunkenness as a defence are they? (that I know of). I certainly wouldn't defend them on the basis that they were drunk.

I'm simply saying that to convict someone of murder, you'd have to show that murder is what they set out to do, and so far you haven't done that. Simply saying "why else would they have done it" isn't good enough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It might be why you did it but that doesn't make it right. My job might be to show that is why you did it, not to say whether it was right or not.

Well, I'm glad you don't see alcohol as something that would make it impossible to have intent! And, my question of 'well, what did they intend' is merely a starting point, that's all.

 

[222666]

No-one's said anything about the point I raised earlier about objects being left there (heavy enough to lift, but large enough to do damage). If these 'persons' have the intent to pile such articles in front of trains then isn't it bad that they were able to & that the objects were provided by contractors? I mean, with fire regulations you have the three contributing factors take one away you don't have fire. Aren't there too many loose objects on railways today? Can't things be buried, cemented in, or if needed later, removed?

If incidents like this rise then surely loose parts of the railway need to be secured (not talking about theft)?

 

[Ferret]

222666, It's a fair point. I understand this stuff was left there for use in engineering works. If it was brought to site on the day, would that lengthen the engineering blockade, something that the railway is supposed to be moving away from?

 

[CarterUSM]

No-one's said anything about the point I raised earlier about objects being left there (heavy enough to lift, but large enough to do damage). If these 'persons' have the intent to pile such articles in front of trains then isn't it bad that they were able to & that the objects were provided by contractors? I mean, with fire regulations you have the three contributing factors take one away you don't have fire. Aren't there too many loose objects on railways today? Can't things be buried, cemented in, or if needed later, removed?

If incidents like this rise then surely loose parts of the railway need to be secured (not talking about theft)?

I believe there was a recommendation of this sort after vandals de-railed a train on the ECML in the late 60's/early 70's, somewher in the north east I think. Can't remember the details though.

 

[Metroland]

At Prestonpans, overnight sleeper. And there was a derailment on the GWML in the late 80s caused by vandals sticking a rail across the track.

 

[9K43]

At Prestonpans, overnight sleeper. And there was a derailment on the GWML in the late 80s caused by vandals sticking a rail across the track.

I have a pic of the after math of the Prestonpans disaster.
This took place some time in the late 1970's on the up road, where some oik derailed the train cos of his love life.
I have worked hundreds of ballast trains, and we always said that the engineers were thier own worst enemies for leaving junk on or about the railway.
Sometimes stuff was left for years on the tracksides.
This was under BR and Private contractors..

 

[CarterUSM]

At Prestonpans, overnight sleeper. And there was a derailment on the GWML in the late 80s caused by vandals sticking a rail across the track.

That's the one, should've said Scotland and not north east. Do you know the charge and jail term?

 

[the sniper]

If incidents like this rise then surely loose parts of the railway need to be secured (not talking about theft)?

I'm sure I read recently (maybe in the BTP magazine or RAIL) that incidents like this are on the fall, and have been for a number of years. I may be wrong though, so I'd appreciate if anyone can confirm this.

 

[222666]

Let's hope so!

I know a lot of it comes down to money & convenience. But look at French high speed lines (& also HS1) - they are very tidy routes. For good reason!

 

[danfitz123]

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.

BOOOO cross country

 

[9K43]

As promised the aftermath of the Prestonpans derailment.
The enclosed link was taken in the moring some hours after the traincame off the road.
This crime happened just before I came on the railways, I just happened to be in Edinbro traveling south.
You will see what a mess the track is, but the one good thing was the coaches were fitted with buckeye couplings as they all remained up right.
Two were imprisoned for this act.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/cd21a296870801