Stay off railway, vandals warned

http://www.thisisbolton.co.uk/lancashire/bolton/news/BENTOPNEWS0.html

Tonights Bolton Evening News gives warning to local Vandals.

KW

frankie@t-bird.freeserve.co.uk wrote:

> Rather a one night nightmare or two than a lifetime of medical care if
> not worse - let alone the effect on the driver of the train who - as
> the American CCTV shot showed is a front line witness powerless to stop
> the inevitable if stupidity or recklessness occurs


Couldn't agree more. Too many idiots think railway lines are
playgrounds etc, and too many fools ignore level crossing lights etc. I
think we really should be showing things like this here too. Shock
tactics, but it might drum it into some peoples brains that trains
/are/ dangerous.

Anyone with a budget from Network Rail or ATOC reading this? :)

See this link to see how the British Courts view the stupid behavour of a 
tiny minority of motorists

http://www.eastbournetoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=567&ArticleID=1048169

A good result?



"Phil Holbourn"  wrote in message 
news:1123062637.025532.188780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> frankie@t-bird.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>> Rather a one night nightmare or two than a lifetime of medical care if
>> not worse - let alone the effect on the driver of the train who - as
>> the American CCTV shot showed is a front line witness powerless to stop
>> the inevitable if stupidity or recklessness occurs
>
> Couldn't agree more. Too many idiots think railway lines are
> playgrounds etc, and too many fools ignore level crossing lights etc. I
> think we really should be showing things like this here too. Shock
> tactics, but it might drum it into some peoples brains that trains
> /are/ dangerous.
>
> Anyone with a budget from Network Rail or ATOC reading this? :)
> 

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:11:11 +0000 (UTC), Peter Gibbons wrote:

> A good result?


Hard to say. The report seems to include a number of odd facts. It would
be interesting to read a full transcript and to know if the driver of
the other car was in court as a witness. 

The previous history of this particular offender might already involve
some familiarity with HMP hospitality. It may depend on where he is
sent, but *if* he has genuinely kicked his habit and *if* he is put away
into a prison into which drugs come easily, it might do him (and thus
the rest of us) no good at all in the long run. 
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683852.html
(159 008 at London Waterloo, 29 May 1999)

Peter Gibbons  writes

>See this link to see how the British Courts view the stupid behavour of a
>tiny minority of motorists
>
>http://www.eastbournetoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=567&Article
>ID=1048169
>
>A good result?
>

I note the paper made a prominent note about the persons previous brush 
with the legal system as currently laid down.
  What that had to do with the case under discussion is hard to say 
-excepting that the licence number trace would lead the plods to note 
the gent having previous form.
   One could compare the sentences handed down between this event and 
that of the first fatality (recent history) on the RHDR where the car 
driver got away with a lesser sentence in light of the overall
effects of their bizarre driving technique or is it a case of trial by 
jury
and the slippery tongues of their defending council.

  If he has kicked the habit (IF) banging him up might in the longer term
be more harm than good as ones impression is that drugs are readily
available to those inside.
  Needing to redo the test is a good thing and loss is a good thing BUT
how many are on the roads with no licence, insurance etc.

"Phil Holbourn"  wrote in message
news:1123062637.025532.188780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> frankie@t-bird.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> > Rather a one night nightmare or two than a lifetime of medical care if
> > not worse - let alone the effect on the driver of the train who - as
> > the American CCTV shot showed is a front line witness powerless to stop
> > the inevitable if stupidity or recklessness occurs
>
> Couldn't agree more. Too many idiots think railway lines are
> playgrounds etc, and too many fools ignore level crossing lights etc. I
> think we really should be showing things like this here too. Shock
> tactics, but it might drum it into some peoples brains that trains
> /are/ dangerous.
>
> Anyone with a budget from Network Rail or ATOC reading this? :)
>

I wonder how much of that he got for jumping bail.

<rant>
Chavs should be sentenced by chav judges. That way the use of
designed-to-appeal-to-the-middle-class excuses like drugs and depression and
all sorts of other rubbish the accused wouldn't for one minute think of if
not encouraged to do so by the defence would be penalised instead of
rewarded.

You are a Judge, in the pub after a hard day on the bench. You accidentally
knock over some yob's drink but hope to get away with it by telling him
you're a coke addict - after all, one good turn deserves another:

"Look here - I'm terribly sorry, but I seem to have done a dash too much of
the old Charlie! No hard feelings, I hope! I would buy you another, but I'm
afraid I never carry cash"
<rant ends>

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:49:31 +0200, Geoffrey Mortimer wrote:


> middle-class excuses like drugs

I well recall my first day on the prison Chaplaincy team. It's a
requirement that all new inmates get a visit from a chaplain in their
first 24 hours. This particular day, there were 27 names on the list for
me as one of the Protestant chaplains to visit (there was a separate
list for RC's and another for other faiths). Of those 27, 24 were in for
drugs-related offences, and most of them were to be found on the detox
wing. This proportion shocked me and drove me to do some research. Home
Office stats over the past few years confirm it was pretty typical.
Drugs are implicated in all kinds of criminal activity and in many cases
exacerbate the anti-social tendencies. I have never heard of any judge
or magistrate being lenient because drugs were mentioned, and am
surprised that you suggest otherwise.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632810.html
(31 319 and 31 294 at Oxford, 2 Jun 1985)

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message
news:1ufd1ues8nbo8$.8paygbt801o5.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:49:31 +0200, Geoffrey Mortimer wrote:
>
> > middle-class excuses like drugs
> I well recall my first day on the prison Chaplaincy team. It's a
> requirement that all new inmates get a visit from a chaplain in their
> first 24 hours. This particular day, there were 27 names on the list for
> me as one of the Protestant chaplains to visit (there was a separate
> list for RC's and another for other faiths). Of those 27, 24 were in for
> drugs-related offences, and most of them were to be found on the detox
> wing. This proportion shocked me and drove me to do some research. Home
> Office stats over the past few years confirm it was pretty typical.
> Drugs are implicated in all kinds of criminal activity and in many cases
> exacerbate the anti-social tendencies. I have never heard of any judge
> or magistrate being lenient because drugs were mentioned, and am
> surprised that you suggest otherwise.
> -- 
> http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632810.html
> (31 319 and 31 294 at Oxford, 2 Jun 1985)


In the case in point, previous cocaine addiction was clearly offered as some
kind of mitigating circumstance. I doubt the defence would have mentioned it
at all unless they thought it might help reduce their client's sentence.

From the report:

<quote>
Terry Ballard, defending, told the court Burnhope had not intentionally
skipped bail but had been late to attend his magistrates' court hearing due
to a misunderstanding.

He added that once tracked down, the driver could have paid an 1,000 fine
but instead decided to attend the police station and admit dangerous
driving.

He said: "He accepts this is a serious case, he has his bag packed. Because
of his co-operation British Transport Police were able to take action.

"Usually drivers who act in this way are not traced. I would ask you to
consider this as a moment of madness, it was a gross error of judgement.

"His life has been adversely affected by the use of cocaine, but he had not
taken any kind of drugs at the time of the incident. His addiction to
cocaine is now at an end."

<quote ends>

What you say may be true, but, if so, why do defence lawyers, whose job is
to represent the interests of their clients to the best of their ability,
and whose familiarity with the criminal justice system must be at least as
good as yours, think otherwise?

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 12:48:54 +0200, Geoffrey Mortimer wrote:

> In the case in point, previous cocaine addiction was clearly offered
> as some kind of mitigating circumstance.

I can't see why you think that. You must be reading the report
differently from me.


> What you say may be true, but, if so, why do defence lawyers, whose
> job is to represent the interests of their clients to the best of
> their ability, and whose familiarity with the criminal justice system
> must be at least as good as yours, think otherwise?

It was *having kicked the cocaine habit* that was mentioned - presumably
for the reason that I and others picked up: a custodial sentence might
re-expose the offender to temptation. Prison isn't generally a nice
place, and I can understand any excuse/reason being offered to avoid it.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12598509.html
(33 037 at Clapham Junction, 19 Jul 1981)