Guard Jailed for death of girl on train platform

Seen this on news.

Train guard Christopher McGee jailed for 5 years over rail tragedy of drunk teenager Georgia Varley | Metro.co.uk

Now I don't know the ins and outs of the case and yes it is a horrible tragedy but to put the guard away for five years- fuck me ! What is this country coming to with blame culture - we always look for someone to carry the can.

She was underage , pissed and been taking drugs FFS.

If the guard did make a mistake, which the jusry think he did, he will have to live with it for rest of his life. If you jailed everyone who made a mistake in their jobs then there's be about 3 people left living free FFS - that's top end.

Doctors and nurses always cop it - I know people in the medical game wanting to leave it cos of the fact they worry so much about making a mistake and the consequences these days - so now we are starting on train guards.

Tragedy - but this is so wrong

You ignorant set of Cunts

Fuck you

yrah seen this on the news yesterday and thought the self same thing.... its a joke, sad that she died but to put all the blame on the guard is madness ?!!?!

That is appalling. She was responsible for her own actions. She shouldn't have been leaning on a train. How you can make the guard culpable for a drug addled drunk person is beyond my comprehension.

Utter bullshit.

There is more to this than that story shows.

Of course the girl has a responsibility and at first glance it's difficult to see how the guard can be blamed. The reason why (you may still disagree with the conviction) is that the guard was fully aware that the young girl was drunk and that she was leaning on the train. Knowing this he signalled for the train to move away. The movement of the train caused her to fall between the gap.
Yes she was drunk, but that doesn't remove his duty of care as the train guard. She was knocking on the glass to get back on as she had mistakenly gotten off. He assumed that although she was leaning on the train she would move away if it started to move off. He was wrong in that assumption and it cost her her life. I think that qualifies as gross negligence. And gross negligence that results in death is manslaughter.

Also, if people weren't held to account for mistakes or bad practices in work we would still be in the days of scores of men being chewed up in factory machinery with no accountability.

A drunk girl stumbles into the road in front of a bus. The driver sees her but continues to drive assuming she will move out the way. She does not move. The bus hits and kills her. He did not intend to kill or harm her.

I don't think the sentence would seem so harsh in those circumstances. The two scenarios are not too dissimilar.

regardless - jailing him achieves what exactly ?

who'd served her the alcohol ? provided the drugs ?

They as much to blame so send them down too if we going to nail the guilty parties we want to blame

A tragedy of circumstances unfortunately

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark TKO

regardless - jailing him achieves what exactly ?

who'd served her the alcohol ? provided the drugs ?

They as much to blame so send them down too if we going to nail the guilty parties we want to blame

A tragedy of circumstances unfortunately

---

Yeah I do agree. It's a tragic set of circumstances and I don't think his actions deserve 5 years. Nor is he the only person to blame. But the law doesn't always work like that (and for good reasons).
It's similar to how I feel when somebody gets sent down for manslaughter when they kill someone with one punch (for instance in terms of a fight in a pub with both throwing punches. Not an unprovoked attack). They could never expect or hope to kill someone by throwing one punch in the midst of a fight but if it leads to someones death then they are responsible for that death.

I don't think it matters that she was drunk.

He let the train move with someone leaning against it. A perfectly sober person could have been dragged under too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

There is more to this than that story shows.

Of course the girl has a responsibility and at first glance it's difficult to see how the guard can be blamed. The reason why (you may still disagree with the conviction) is that the guard was fully aware that the young girl was drunk and that she was leaning on the train. Knowing this he signalled for the train to move away. The movement of the train caused her to fall between the gap.
Yes she was drunk, but that doesn't remove his duty of care as the train guard. She was knocking on the glass to get back on as she had mistakenly gotten off. He assumed that although she was leaning on the train she would move away if it started to move off. He was wrong in that assumption and it cost her her life. I think that qualifies as gross negligence. And gross negligence that results in death is manslaughter.

Also, if people weren't held to account for mistakes or bad practices in work we would still be in the days of scores of men being chewed up in factory machinery with no accountability.

---

What kind of person leans on a moving train though? It's just a stupid thing to do. Her getting off at the wrong station is her fault alone. Her leaning on the train is her fault alone. I mean really, who ever leans on a train? Obviously a very stupid girl.

It doesn't seem right that a man is in for manslaughter because a drunk and drugged imbecile didn't have the sense to stand on her own two feet without using a train as support. Her death is shocking and awful, but putting this man away for several years is extremely harsh.

Let's say I get drunk tonight and jump in front of a car. I would deserve the death that I get and no way should the driver go to prison for it. The girl essentially commited suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

I don't think it matters that she was drunk.

He let the train move with someone leaning against it. A perfectly sober person could have been dragged under too

---

Nobody should ever be leaning on a train. A sober person leaning on a train would deserve an equal fate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

There is more to this than that story shows.

Of course the girl has a responsibility and at first glance it's difficult to see how the guard can be blamed. The reason why (you may still disagree with the conviction) is that the guard was fully aware that the young girl was drunk and that she was leaning on the train. Knowing this he signalled for the train to move away. The movement of the train caused her to fall between the gap.
Yes she was drunk, but that doesn't remove his duty of care as the train guard. She was knocking on the glass to get back on as she had mistakenly gotten off. He assumed that although she was leaning on the train she would move away if it started to move off. He was wrong in that assumption and it cost her her life. I think that qualifies as gross negligence. And gross negligence that results in death is manslaughter.

Also, if people weren't held to account for mistakes or bad practices in work we would still be in the days of scores of men being chewed up in factory machinery with no accountability.

---

What kind of person leans on a moving train though? It's just a stupid thing to do. Her getting off at the wrong station is her fault alone. Her leaning on the train is her fault alone. I mean really, who ever leans on a train? Obviously a very stupid girl.

It doesn't seem right that a man is in for manslaughter because a drunk and drugged imbecile didn't have the sense to stand on her own two feet without using a train as support. Her death is shocking and awful, but putting this man away for several years is extremely harsh.

Let's say I get drunk tonight and jump in front of a car. I would deserve the death that I get and no way should the driver go to prison for it. The girl essentially commited suicide.

---

Take your car example but change it slightly to say that the driver saw you and could have stopped if they had wanted to but assumed you would get out of the way and so carried on driving, smashed into you and killed you. Sure, you would shoulder a large proportion of blame, but there is no way that the car driver would be blameless. It is essentially the same.

Also Miles, how old were you when you first got legless? Under 18 I would guess, as with most of us. Don't judge her for being drunk. It is relevent to the circumstances I understand but it isn't a relevent factor in judging her character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

I don't think it matters that she was drunk.

He let the train move with someone leaning against it. A perfectly sober person could have been dragged under too

---

Nobody should ever be leaning on a train. A sober person leaning on a train would deserve an equal fate.

---

Yeah and no one in control of a train should ever let it move with someone leaning on it.

His risk cost someone their life.

Of course he should be severly punished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

I don't think it matters that she was drunk.

He let the train move with someone leaning against it. A perfectly sober person could have been dragged under too

---

Nobody should ever be leaning on a train. A sober person leaning on a train would deserve an equal fate.

---

Yeah and no one in control of a train should ever let it move with someone leaning on it.

His risk cost someone their life.

Of course he should be severly punished.

---

I agree.

It's his job to make sure nobody is close to the train before it leaves, he didn't do his job. All he had to do was wait or ask her to move and she'd still be alive. 5 years seems harsh but dying at 16 is worse...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

There is more to this than that story shows.

Of course the girl has a responsibility and at first glance it's difficult to see how the guard can be blamed. The reason why (you may still disagree with the conviction) is that the guard was fully aware that the young girl was drunk and that she was leaning on the train. Knowing this he signalled for the train to move away. The movement of the train caused her to fall between the gap.
Yes she was drunk, but that doesn't remove his duty of care as the train guard. She was knocking on the glass to get back on as she had mistakenly gotten off. He assumed that although she was leaning on the train she would move away if it started to move off. He was wrong in that assumption and it cost her her life. I think that qualifies as gross negligence. And gross negligence that results in death is manslaughter.

Also, if people weren't held to account for mistakes or bad practices in work we would still be in the days of scores of men being chewed up in factory machinery with no accountability.

---

What kind of person leans on a moving train though? It's just a stupid thing to do. Her getting off at the wrong station is her fault alone. Her leaning on the train is her fault alone. I mean really, who ever leans on a train? Obviously a very stupid girl.

It doesn't seem right that a man is in for manslaughter because a drunk and drugged imbecile didn't have the sense to stand on her own two feet without using a train as support. Her death is shocking and awful, but putting this man away for several years is extremely harsh.

Let's say I get drunk tonight and jump in front of a car. I would deserve the death that I get and no way should the driver go to prison for it. The girl essentially commited suicide.

---

Take you car example but change it slightly to say that the driver saw you and could have stopped if they had wanted to but assumed you would get out of the way and so carried on driving, smashed into you and killed you. Sure, you would shoulder a large proportion of blame, but there is no way that the car driver would be blameless. It is essentially the same.

Also Miles, how old were you when you first got legless? Under 18 I would guess, as with most of us. Don't judge her for being drunk. It is relevent to the circumstances I understand but it isn't a relevent factor in judging her character.

---

Let's say some drunk is leaning on my car and I just drive off and they fall to the ground or even hit their head and die. I really wouldn't have much sympathy and would be annoyed if I was sent to prison. You shouldn't be leaning on vehicles and especially a train. You don't lean and you don't cross the line. You have to control your own behaviour.

I first got drunk when I was 16, but I seldom recall ever leaning on any transportation. There is nothing wrong with being drunk, but there is with leaning on trains. Nobody leans on a train and falls onto the tracks. It is daft and thus she was a bit stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

I don't think it matters that she was drunk.

He let the train move with someone leaning against it. A perfectly sober person could have been dragged under too

---

Nobody should ever be leaning on a train. A sober person leaning on a train would deserve an equal fate.

---

Yeah and no one in control of a train should ever let it move with someone leaning on it.

His risk cost someone their life.

Of course he should be severly punished.

---

I agree.

It's his job to make sure nobody is close to the train before it leaves, he didn't do his job. All he had to do was wait or ask her to move and she'd still be alive. 5 years seems harsh but dying at 16 is worse...

---

Everyone is leaving out the fact that she was drunk and leaning on a train. She should have known better.

Put your hands up if you have ever leaned on a train and moreso one that is to depart at any moment? Of course, none of you.

She is a Darwin award candidate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

There is more to this than that story shows.

Of course the girl has a responsibility and at first glance it's difficult to see how the guard can be blamed. The reason why (you may still disagree with the conviction) is that the guard was fully aware that the young girl was drunk and that she was leaning on the train. Knowing this he signalled for the train to move away. The movement of the train caused her to fall between the gap.
Yes she was drunk, but that doesn't remove his duty of care as the train guard. She was knocking on the glass to get back on as she had mistakenly gotten off. He assumed that although she was leaning on the train she would move away if it started to move off. He was wrong in that assumption and it cost her her life. I think that qualifies as gross negligence. And gross negligence that results in death is manslaughter.

Also, if people weren't held to account for mistakes or bad practices in work we would still be in the days of scores of men being chewed up in factory machinery with no accountability.

---

What kind of person leans on a moving train though? It's just a stupid thing to do. Her getting off at the wrong station is her fault alone. Her leaning on the train is her fault alone. I mean really, who ever leans on a train? Obviously a very stupid girl.

It doesn't seem right that a man is in for manslaughter because a drunk and drugged imbecile didn't have the sense to stand on her own two feet without using a train as support. Her death is shocking and awful, but putting this man away for several years is extremely harsh.

Let's say I get drunk tonight and jump in front of a car. I would deserve the death that I get and no way should the driver go to prison for it. The girl essentially commited suicide.

---

Take you car example but change it slightly to say that the driver saw you and could have stopped if they had wanted to but assumed you would get out of the way and so carried on driving, smashed into you and killed you. Sure, you would shoulder a large proportion of blame, but there is no way that the car driver would be blameless. It is essentially the same.

Also Miles, how old were you when you first got legless? Under 18 I would guess, as with most of us. Don't judge her for being drunk. It is relevent to the circumstances I understand but it isn't a relevent factor in judging her character.

---

Let's say some drunk is leaning on my car and I just drive off and they fall to the ground or even hit their head and die. I really wouldn't have much sympathy and would be annoyed if I was sent to prison. You shouldn't be leaning on vehicles and especially a train. You don't lean and you don't cross the line. You have to control your own behaviour.

I first got drunk when I was 16, but I seldom recall ever leaning on any transportation. There is nothing wrong with being drunk, but there is with leaning on trains. Nobody leans on a train and falls onto the tracks. It is daft and thus she was a bit stupid.

---

The bolded seems a good point, but the only difference is your car would not be public transport and therefore your 'job' would not involve a duty of care. He was being paid to ensure that the train was safe to depart. He clearly failed to do this. Her being drunk does not mean that he had the right to suspend his duty of care.

I just struggle to see beyond the fact that there is a drugged and boozed up person leaning on a train. It is just such a stupid thing to be doing. I think we also have a thing called self responsibility and if I open my window and tumble 10 floors and land on my head, it is basically my fault and in her own way she did basically kill herself. I can see that the man is on duty, but since when does anyone lean on a bloody train? Just bizarre.

It is a freak accident and on that basis I feel the penalty is far too harsh. The mans life is ruined. The girl lost her own life.

How taxing is the job of the guard? Essentially his job involves making sure it is safe for the train to leave the station? It was not safe. He failed in his duty.

If his life is ruined it's his own fault.

The girl would still be alive and he wouldn't be in prison had he done the correct thing and not allowed the train to move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

If his life is ruined it's his own fault.

The girl would still be alive and he wouldn't be in prison had he done the correct thing and not allowed the train to move.

---

She would be alive if she wasn't pissed up leaning on a train.

If he failed to do his job then sack him, but putting him in prison for years isn't going to achieve anything.

Mark is right with his 'tragedy of circumstances' view. It is tragic and awful, but is just one of them things.

so who here has NEVER made a mistake in their job ?

People get community service for burglary first offence, even muggings etc... Or if they do do jail its about 30 days cos they are a victim of society or some bollocks like that

Who are the bigger criminals ? If a guard gets 5 years for gross negligence what should they really get in comparison ?

Exactly, if one of my students stabs another one with a pair of scissors and there is a death am I culpable because I was supposed to be controlling them? It sets a horrible precedent to be jailing someone for years because some silly girl was leaning on a TRAIN. She was leaning on a TRAIN. I mean, hello girlfriend! Whatchya think ya doing? The man didn't push her or make her lean on it. She chose to do it and she is dead because of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

If his life is ruined it's his own fault.

The girl would still be alive and he wouldn't be in prison had he done the correct thing and not allowed the train to move.

---

She would be alive if she wasn't pissed up leaning on a train.

If he failed to do his job then sack him, but putting him in prison for years isn't going to achieve anything.

Mark is right with his 'tragedy of circumstances' view. It is tragic and awful, but is just one of them things.

---

She would be alive if she wasn't unfortunate enough to come across a train gaurd that acted in such a reckless manner and showed such little concern for peoples safety.

Maybe the five years will make other train gaurds think twice in future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

If his life is ruined it's his own fault.

The girl would still be alive and he wouldn't be in prison had he done the correct thing and not allowed the train to move.

---

She would be alive if she wasn't pissed up leaning on a train.

If he failed to do his job then sack him, but putting him in prison for years isn't going to achieve anything.

Mark is right with his 'tragedy of circumstances' view. It is tragic and awful, but is just one of them things.

---

She would be alive if she wasn't unfortunate enough to come across a train gaurd that acted in such a reckless manner and showed such little concern for peoples safety.

Maybe the five years will make other train gaurds think twice in future.

---

It just seems a bit much. He should have been more careful, she certainly should have. But 5 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

If his life is ruined it's his own fault.

The girl would still be alive and he wouldn't be in prison had he done the correct thing and not allowed the train to move.

---

She would be alive if she wasn't pissed up leaning on a train.

If he failed to do his job then sack him, but putting him in prison for years isn't going to achieve anything.

Mark is right with his 'tragedy of circumstances' view. It is tragic and awful, but is just one of them things.

---

She would be alive if she wasn't unfortunate enough to come across a train gaurd that acted in such a reckless manner and showed such little concern for peoples safety.

Maybe the five years will make other train gaurds think twice in future.

---

It just seems a bit much. He should have been more careful, she certainly should have. But 5 years?

---

The thing is Miles, he didn't make the mistake of not noticing her. He saw that she was leaning on the train yet still instructed the train to pull away. That is not a typical work mistake that is gross negligence which unfortunately for him and the girl resulted in death. I don't contend that the girl was blameless, clearly not, but the guard certainly isn't either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

If his life is ruined it's his own fault.

The girl would still be alive and he wouldn't be in prison had he done the correct thing and not allowed the train to move.

---

She would be alive if she wasn't pissed up leaning on a train.

If he failed to do his job then sack him, but putting him in prison for years isn't going to achieve anything.

Mark is right with his 'tragedy of circumstances' view. It is tragic and awful, but is just one of them things.

---

She would be alive if she wasn't unfortunate enough to come across a train gaurd that acted in such a reckless manner and showed such little concern for peoples safety.

Maybe the five years will make other train gaurds think twice in future.

---

It just seems a bit much. He should have been more careful, she certainly should have. But 5 years?

---

The thing is Miles, he didn't make the mistake of not noticing her. He saw that she was leaning on the train yet still instructed the train to pull away. That is not a typical work mistake that is gross negligence which unfortunately for him and the girl resulted in death. I don't contend that the girl was blameless, clearly not, but the guard certainly isn't either.

---

I agree with you, Ryan. Mistakes were made.

So its settled then. That renegade train guard won't be instructing trains to leave any time soon. Thank god for that. We can all feel safe. (I do have sympathy for his situation).

My only qualm is 5 years in prison. It is too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

My only qualm is 5 years in prison. It is too much.

---

He won't serve 5. She will never take another breath. You cant make the argument that sentencing is too lenient for some and then say 5 years for manslaughter is too harsh. A jury would have been privvy to way more information and evidence than we are and they found him guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

My only qualm is 5 years in prison. It is too much.

---

He won't serve 5. She will never take another breath. You cant make the argument that sentencing is too lenient for some and then say 5 years for manslaughter is too harsh. A jury would have been privvy to way more information and evidence than we are and they found him guilty.

---

Correct.

Not that it matters at all but the guard was a 'former' cannabis grower. The only reason I mention it is to muddy the waters of the 'hardworking guard' and the 'drunk drugged up teen'.

so why don't muggers and willing thieves get ten years then ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark TKO

so why don't muggers and willing thieves get ten years then ?

---

Because his actions led to the death of someone that cannot be equated with theft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark TKO

so why don't muggers and willing thieves get ten years then ?

---

Because his actions led to the death of someone that cannot be equated with theft.

---

deliberate criminals should be shot on second offence

or lose a limb

or their left bollock

Mark is right. A left bollock would suffice in a majority of cases.