>From BBC News Website. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4219352.stm


"The Old Bailey trial got under way in January this year
Network Rail has been found guilty of breaching health and safety
legislation over the Hatfield crash.
Four people were killed when a Kings Cross to Leeds train left the
tracks at high speed on 17 October 2000.

Prosecutors told the Old Bailey the case resulted from a "cavalier
approach" to standards.

Five executives - two from maintenance firm Balfour Beatty and three
from track owner Railtrack - were cleared after an eight-month long
trial.

Sentence will be passed in October".

Who are they going to sentence if they've already found them not
guilty?

Gee-Bee wrote:

> Who are they going to sentence if they've already found them not
> guilty?



At a guess, the *company* will be sentenced, but the individuals not.
I'm not all that familiar with legal jargon: it a fine a "sentence"?
Or does the term only apply to imprisonment?

PhilD

--
<><

"Gee-Bee"  wrote:


>>From BBC News Website. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4219352.stm
>
>"The Old Bailey trial got under way in January this year
>Network Rail has been found guilty of breaching health and safety
>legislation over the Hatfield crash.
>Four people were killed when a Kings Cross to Leeds train left the
>tracks at high speed on 17 October 2000.
>
>Prosecutors told the Old Bailey the case resulted from a "cavalier
>approach" to standards.
>
>Five executives - two from maintenance firm Balfour Beatty and three
>from track owner Railtrack - were cleared after an eight-month long
>trial.
>
>Sentence will be passed in October".
>
>Who are they going to sentence if they've already found them not
>guilty?



The sentence will presumably amount to a record fine against the
guilty party - Network Rail?

"PhilD"  wrote in message
news:1126011793.082690.193320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
> Gee-Bee wrote:
> > Who are they going to sentence if they've already found them not
> > guilty?
>
>
> At a guess, the *company* will be sentenced, but the individuals not.
> I'm not all that familiar with legal jargon: it a fine a "sentence"?
> Or does the term only apply to imprisonment?
>

A fine is a sentence - you can't lock up a company, especially one that
doesn't exist any more. Will Network Rail have to pay?

The fine could well be very substantial - Transco was recently fined GBP 15
Million over a gas explosion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4184962.stm

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:

> "PhilD"  wrote in message
> news:1126011793.082690.193320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Gee-Bee wrote:
> > > Who are they going to sentence if they've already found them not
> > > guilty?
> >
> >
> > At a guess, the *company* will be sentenced, but the individuals not.
> > I'm not all that familiar with legal jargon: it a fine a "sentence"?
> > Or does the term only apply to imprisonment?
> >
> A fine is a sentence - you can't lock up a company, especially one that
> doesn't exist any more. Will Network Rail have to pay?
>
> The fine could well be very substantial - Transco was recently fined GBP 15
> Million over a gas explosion.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4184962.stm
>
> Peter

I assume either the passengers or more probabley the taxpayers will be
guilty as it will be they that will have to pay the fine. Might as well
have not bothered with the whole bloody case.

Kevin

In message , at 14:22:03 on 
Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Tony Polson  remarked:

>The sentence will presumably amount to a record fine against the
>guilty party - Network Rail?


I'm  bit confused here, surely the crash predates the formation of 
Network Rail?

And if they fine Network Rail, they have no owners/shareholders, so the 
only way to raise the money is by increasing track charges, and 
therefore fares.

But Balfour Beatty, who previously pleaded guilty will presumably also 
be "sentenced", and is a normal commercial company (as far as I'm 
aware).
-- 
Roland Perry

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:2u5rh1dtb0uo62hebb9bd5hvhonsbkbeip@4ax.com...
<snip>

> The sentence will presumably amount to a record fine against the
> guilty party - Network Rail?


Which, since it's a state monopoly in all but name, would benefit and burden
whom, exactly?

I really find it hard to understand why senior individuals of such
infrastructure companies as Network Rail and Balfour Beatty don't seem to be
held accountable for their own actions (or failure to act) in such cases.
If a motorist kills a pedestrian through negligence, drunkenness or sheer
bloody-mindedness, a prison sentence can be expected.  What's so different
about Hatfield?  What's the incentive for the companies to avoid repetition
of this tragedy?

S

Well of course HMG maintains the fiction that Notwork Rail is not a
public body, but a private company - in which HMG owns all the shares
and nominates all the directors.

So as a trading company it can take its share of the medicine like any
other company.

It's income is of course from the (subsidised) TOC's, Direct Government
Subsidy and Property - and I don't think the rents will be going up to
cover this one

wrote in message
news:1126014339.275621.244720@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Peter Masson wrote:
> > "PhilD"  wrote in message
> > news:1126011793.082690.193320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Gee-Bee wrote:
> > > > Who are they going to sentence if they've already found them not
> > > > guilty?
> > >
> > >
> > > At a guess, the *company* will be sentenced, but the individuals not.
> > > I'm not all that familiar with legal jargon: it a fine a "sentence"?
> > > Or does the term only apply to imprisonment?
> > >
> > A fine is a sentence - you can't lock up a company, especially one that
> > doesn't exist any more. Will Network Rail have to pay?
> >
> > The fine could well be very substantial - Transco was recently fined GBP
15
> > Million over a gas explosion.
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4184962.stm
> >
> > Peter
> I assume either the passengers or more probabley the taxpayers will be
> guilty as it will be they that will have to pay the fine. Might as well
> have not bothered with the whole bloody case.
>

why dont the former shareholders pay?
cheers
james

"Steve Pardoe"  wrote:


>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
>news:2u5rh1dtb0uo62hebb9bd5hvhonsbkbeip@4ax.com...
><snip>
>> The sentence will presumably amount to a record fine against the
>> guilty party - Network Rail?
>
>Which, since it's a state monopoly in all but name, would benefit and burden
>whom, exactly?



Perhaps you should consider the more general issue of what purpose(s)
is (are) served by applying fines.

In article , Roland
Perry  writes

>In message , at 14:22:03 on 
>Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Tony Polson  remarked:
>>The sentence will presumably amount to a record fine against the
>>guilty party - Network Rail?
>
>I'm  bit confused here, surely the crash predates the formation of 
>Network Rail?
>
>And if they fine Network Rail, they have no owners/shareholders, so the 
>only way to raise the money is by increasing track charges, and 
>therefore fares.
>
>But Balfour Beatty, who previously pleaded guilty will presumably also 
>be "sentenced", and is a normal commercial company (as far as I'm 
>aware).


Don't worry me 'learned friends have made a fortune, so what's the
problem?...
-- 
Tony Sayer

"Roland Perry"  wrote

>
> And if they fine Network Rail, they have no owners/shareholders, so the
> only way to raise the money is by increasing track charges, and
> therefore fares.
>
> But Balfour Beatty, who previously pleaded guilty will presumably also
> be "sentenced", and is a normal commercial company (as far as I'm
> aware).


GazK has just posted the report into the Bexley derailment on his Railway
Archive site - see thread 'Railways Archive Update: new accident reports.'
Following that accident there was a fine of GBP 150,000 plus costs of over
GBP 40,000 apportioned 60% between two Balfour Beatty companies and 40%
Network Rail.

Peter

Roland Perry wrote:

> I'm  bit confused here, surely the crash predates the formation of
> Network Rail?



Network Rail took on the liabilities of Railtrack, so Network Rail I
suppose could be fined for Railtrack's failings.

It wouldn't hold that NR directors would be liable, if they were not
"in power" at the time (not saying that's the case in this instance),
but the company, corporate, would.

PhilD

--
<><

gonzo wrote:

>  wrote in message
> news:1126014339.275621.244720@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Peter Masson wrote:
> > > "PhilD"  wrote in message
> > > news:1126011793.082690.193320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Gee-Bee wrote:
> > > > > Who are they going to sentence if they've already found them not
> > > > > guilty?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At a guess, the *company* will be sentenced, but the individuals not.
> > > > I'm not all that familiar with legal jargon: it a fine a "sentence"?
> > > > Or does the term only apply to imprisonment?
> > > >
> > > A fine is a sentence - you can't lock up a company, especially one that
> > > doesn't exist any more. Will Network Rail have to pay?
> > >
> > > The fine could well be very substantial - Transco was recently fined GBP
> 15
> > > Million over a gas explosion.
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4184962.stm
> > >
> > > Peter
> > I assume either the passengers or more probabley the taxpayers will be
> > guilty as it will be they that will have to pay the fine. Might as well
> > have not bothered with the whole bloody case.
> >
> why dont the former shareholders pay?
> cheers
> james

The former shareholders want the taxpayers to compensate them because
they gambled on the stock market and lost. Looks like the taxpayer is
the loser what ever happens.

Kevin

In message , at 
07:38:48 on Tue, 6 Sep 2005, kajr@mwfree.net remarked:

>The former shareholders want the taxpayers to compensate them because
>they gambled on the stock market and lost.


I don't think that gamble included the possibility of Byers putting the 
company into receivership in debatable circumstances.
-- 
Roland Perry

"gonzo"  wrote in message
news:jchTe.3481$oq4.1429@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

> why dont the former shareholders pay?


Because Railtrack is/was a limited company. The shareholders already paid -
they paid for the shares and have lost that money. They can't be required to
pay any more - that's what "limited" means.

Mike

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:228rh1pknschqt319mnou8tjrlkh7kpmq4@4ax.com...

> "Steve Pardoe"  wrote:
>
> >"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
> >news:2u5rh1dtb0uo62hebb9bd5hvhonsbkbeip@4ax.com...
> ><snip>
> >> The sentence will presumably amount to a record fine against the
> >> guilty party - Network Rail?
> >
> >Which, since it's a state monopoly in all but name, would benefit and
burden
> >whom, exactly?
>
>
> Perhaps you should consider the more general issue of what purpose(s)
> is (are) served by applying fines.


Sorry, I think we are at cross purposes.  I wasn't arguing with your
supposition.

As I see it, a fine applied to an individual (say, for a motoring offence)
is both a punishment (you've got less money to spend on other things) and a
deterrent (you'll probably try harder to avoid speeding in future - sorry I
can't come up with a suitable rail-related analogy).  There is also an
element of compensation to the rest of society (in the motorist's example,
vanishingly small) as a notional reduction in other people's taxes.

In the NR case, the "guilty party" has no money of its own, and the fine
would be paid to, well, its effective owner.  I'm not suggesting that NR
should get away Scot free, but I don't see what purpose its paying a fine
serves, especially if that resulted in NRs having less money to spend on
railway maintenance.  That would be a poor memorial for the Hatfield
victims.

Steve

Mike Humphrey wrote:

> "gonzo"  wrote in message
> news:jchTe.3481$oq4.1429@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> 
>>why dont the former shareholders pay?
> 
> 
> Because Railtrack is/was a limited company. The shareholders already paid -
> they paid for the shares and have lost that money. 


I thought they had received something like the original value of
the shares?

Charlie

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:40:38 +0100, "Mike Humphrey"
 wrote:


>"gonzo"  wrote in message
>news:jchTe.3481$oq4.1429@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>> why dont the former shareholders pay?
>
>Because Railtrack is/was a limited company. The shareholders already paid -
>they paid for the shares and have lost that money. They can't be required to
>pay any more - that's what "limited" means.
>

Or "limited liability" in full. The ordinary members/shareholders are
usually only liable for the money they have put into the company but
company officers (chairman, directors, etc.) remain subject to many
civil and criminal penalties if they or the company do something
wrong.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
news:YwkTe.9530$vC4.2269@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

> Mike Humphrey wrote:
> > "gonzo"  wrote in message
> > news:jchTe.3481$oq4.1429@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> >
> >>why dont the former shareholders pay?
> >
> >
> > Because Railtrack is/was a limited company. The shareholders already
paid -
> > they paid for the shares and have lost that money.
>
> I thought they had received something like the original value of
> the shares?


I'n not sure. Normally if a company collapses the shareholders are the last
to get anything (which usually means that they get nothing). If the
shareholders were paid, it's more like the Government compulsarilly
purchasing the shares - in which case the Government became the (only)
shareholder, and presumably "lost" the cost of those shares when the company
shut down.

Anyway, the principle is that shareholders of a limited liability company
are not liable for the company's debts, beyond what they invested in the
shares.

Mike

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message ,
> at 07:38:48 on Tue, 6 Sep 2005, kajr@mwfree.net remarked:
>> The former shareholders want the taxpayers to compensate them
>> because they gambled on the stock market and lost.
>
> I don't think that gamble included the possibility of Byers putting
> the company into receivership in debatable circumstances.


The gamble certainly included the possibility of the company going under
if it failed to ensure that its assets were maintained in a safe state
for its customers.  You might be unhappy about the manner in which Byers
put Railtrack into administration (not receivership, I think), but the
company was clearly failing in its primary duty of maintaining the rail
infrastructure, didn't even know what state its assets were in (hence
the panic after Hatfield), and wasn't able to control its contractors.
I know it's hard for many individuals who were investors, but that's one
of the risks of investing in the stock market, especially in a single
company.

Byers may have lied about his intentions, and didn't at the time seem to
have a clear idea of the way forward post-Railtrack, but personally I
think the actual decision to terminate Railtrack was both courageous and
right.

-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Steve Pardoe"  wrote:


>As I see it, a fine applied to an individual (say, for a motoring offence)
>is both a punishment (you've got less money to spend on other things) and a
>deterrent (you'll probably try harder to avoid speeding in future - sorry I
>can't come up with a suitable rail-related analogy).  There is also an
>element of compensation to the rest of society (in the motorist's example,
>vanishingly small) as a notional reduction in other people's taxes.



There is a lot more to it than that, in terms of setting an example
and acting as a deterrent to others.

Are you seriously suggesting that the ownership of a company should
determine the level of fines, or indeed whether it gets fined at all?

>I really find it hard to understand why senior individuals of such
>infrastructure companies as Network Rail and Balfour Beatty don't seem to be
>held accountable for their own actions (or failure to act) in such cases.
>If a motorist kills a pedestrian through negligence, drunkenness or sheer
>bloody-mindedness, a prison sentence can be expected.  What's so different
>about Hatfield?  What's the incentive for the companies to avoid repetition
>of this tragedy?



But how senior would they have to be?  Chief Executives are employees,
when it comes down to it, and in the case of a private company their
main duty is to make a profit for their shareholders, and be answerable
to directors.

If employees were individually responsible for the failings of their
company, no one would take on any job.  What about if you found that
your company was crap and walked out, and something bad happened
because you weren't doing the job any more?  Would you be more or less
guilty than if you stayed and failed to make it work?

The problem isn't the employees, however senior, it's the fact that it
was a private company responsible for setting safety standards.

> The gamble certainly included the possibility of the company going under
> if it failed to ensure that its assets were maintained in a safe state
> for its customers.  You might be unhappy about the manner in which Byers
> put Railtrack into administration (not receivership, I think), but the
> company was clearly failing in its primary duty of maintaining the rail
> infrastructure, didn't even know what state its assets were in (hence
> the panic after Hatfield), and wasn't able to control its contractors.



It may have failed to do those things, but I don't think they can be
said to be its primary duty.  It was a private business and its primary
duty was to make a profit.  This used to be a standard Business GNVQ
multiple choice question.

"The main purpose of a <insert type of business> business is to

A do <type of business>
B etc ...
C etc ...
D make a profit"

The correct answer was always "make a profit".

In message , at 
16:27:09 on Tue, 6 Sep 2005, MIG  remarked:

>The problem isn't the employees, however senior, it's the fact that it
>was a private company responsible for setting safety standards.


Did it *set* the standards? Or just attempt to run its business to 
standards set by others.

If they *set* the H&S standards, they didn't do it very well, as they 
ended up failing to meet them, and if acting entirely in their own 
interests should have set the standards lower.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:41:02 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>>The problem isn't the employees, however senior, it's the fact that it
>>was a private company responsible for setting safety standards.
>
>Did it *set* the standards? Or just attempt to run its business to 
>standards set by others.


Yes and no, but mainly yes. They set many standards and also
"checked" the safety cases of the umpteen companies operating on the
railways they controlled. Railtrack's safety case was "checked" by
the RI. This method was chosen largely because the RI was unable to
"check" all of them without large numbers of new staff, though there
were other more valid reasons. The RI only set some standards.


>If they *set* the H&S standards, they didn't do it very well, as they 
>ended up failing to meet them,


Zero casualties are an aspiration, but not one that is likely to be
met. Even on brand new railways the aspiration has remained just
that. This is something which the hotel people running Railtrack (on
the main board in London) at the time of the crash failed to
understand, they apparently demanded absolute assurances from their
engineers, which only fools or liars provide.


>and if acting entirely in their own 
>interests should have set the standards lower.


That would, in theory, have resulted in the RI eventually
withdrawing their licence and all trains on the network would then
have been halted. That is a position it is unlikely they would have
got to.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:15:43 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>>Railtrack's safety case was "checked" by the RI.
>
>So that's a "no" for setting its own standards then.


As I said, "The RI only set some standards." Others were and are set
by the various companies. Before the mess BR set many standards
itself.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message , at 08:36:15 on 
Wed, 7 Sep 2005, David Hansen  
remarked:

>>>Railtrack's safety case was "checked" by the RI.
>>
>>So that's a "no" for setting its own standards then.
>
>As I said, "The RI only set some standards." Others were and are set
>by the various companies.


Railtrack is only one company. What do you mean by "the various" 
companies? I'm only interested in knowing who set Railtrack's standards.


>Before the mess BR set many standards itself.


Ys, and I think the OP was perhaps wishing for a situation were the 
standards were set by a publicly owned body once again. Did Railtrack 
own the RI?
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at 08:05:37 on
> Wed, 7 Sep 2005, David Hansen 
> remarked:
> >On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:41:02 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
> > wrote this:-
> >
> >>>The problem isn't the employees, however senior, it's the fact that it
> >>>was a private company responsible for setting safety standards.
> >>
> >>Did it *set* the standards? Or just attempt to run its business to
> >>standards set by others.
> >
> >Yes and no, but mainly yes. They set many standards and also
> >"checked" the safety cases of the umpteen companies operating on the
> >railways they controlled.
>
> I didn't think, from the context, that the safety standards of the ToCs
> was the matter under discussion here.
>
> >Railtrack's safety case was "checked" by the RI.
>
> So that's a "no" for setting its own standards then.
>
> >>and if acting entirely in their own
> >>interests should have set the standards lower.
> >
> >That would, in theory, have resulted in the RI eventually
> >withdrawing their licence and all trains on the network would then
> >have been halted. That is a position it is unlikely they would have
> >got to.
>
> So not quite the carte blanche the OP was hinting at.




I don't think I was.  Even leaving aside the setting of standards,
private companies in regulated industries have to demonstrate that they
have procedures and some kind of self-assessment process that just
about meets the requirements of any codes of practice or regulations.
In some cases the regulators/inspection agencies may even check whether
or not they carry out their own procedures, but not very often.

Private companies' main aim is profit, which means thaty they have a
duty to their shareholders to set any standards, or comply with
externally set standards, to the minimum level (in terms of costs) that
they can get away with.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:qt2sh1tg34dm910lo6ojeic3kpd8rsuclq@4ax.com...

> "Steve Pardoe"  wrote:
>
> >As I see it, a fine applied to an individual (say, for a motoring
offence)
> >is both a punishment (you've got less money to spend on other things) and
a
> >deterrent (you'll probably try harder to avoid speeding in future - sorry
I
> >can't come up with a suitable rail-related analogy).  There is also an
> >element of compensation to the rest of society (in the motorist's
example,
> >vanishingly small) as a notional reduction in other people's taxes.
>
>
> There is a lot more to it than that, in terms of setting an example
> and acting as a deterrent to others.


You're right, of course.


> Are you seriously suggesting that the ownership of a company should
> determine the level of fines, or indeed whether it gets fined at all?


Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly.  If you remember, my OP was
arguing for personal, rather than corporate, responsibility.

I think the level and consequences of a fine should, and doubtless will, be
taken into account when sentencing; and among the factors in this will be
the ability to pay, and the damage that might result.  This applies to
companies as much as to individuals (a teenager caught shoplifting books
might expect a smaller fine than would a wealthy MP, to take one example).
Per my earlier post, a fine against a company such as NR may be less of an
example and deterrent to other companies (since there are no other companies
in a strictly comparable business situation, as far as I can see) than would
be the case were the punishment inflicted on the responsible officers of the
company (since there are plenty of company officers who might be influenced
by such an outcome).

Taking up 'MIG's point about seniority, there is plenty of precedent for the
law to assign guilt and responsibility according to seniority, such as in
health and safety cases, where for example an accident is precipitated by a
junior worker, but s/he was working within a safety culture determined by
more senior staff.  In such cases, it's not unusual for the blame to be
attached to the senior staff, since they ought to have anticipated the
actions of the junior.

As I understand it, the faulty rail which eventually caused the Hatfield
derailment had been reported by 'junior' staff 21 months beforehand, but
(presumably) more senior management had determined a policy that led them to
ignore or postpone the necessary repair.  In my OP I was struggling to
understand why the blame was attached to 'the company' rather than to the
individuals who decided not to repair the track (or if that was
impracticable, to take alternative steps, such as imposing a speed
restriction).

Steve P

"Steve Pardoe"  wrote:

>
>Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly.  If you remember, my OP was
>arguing for personal, rather than corporate, responsibility.



Charges were also brought against a number of individuals.  

The manslaughter charges against Network Rail, the track maintenance
company and the individuals were dropped on the order of the judge,
who declined to give a reason.  The jury brought not guilty verdicts
on health and safety charges against the individuals and against the
track maintenance company.  The only guilty verdict brought by the
jury was against Network Rail as successors to Railtrack PLC.

"MIG"  wrote in message
news:1126081763.339825.290760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Roland Perry wrote:
> > In message , at 08:05:37 on
> > Wed, 7 Sep 2005, David Hansen 
> > remarked:
> > >On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:41:02 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
> > > wrote this:-
> > >
> > >>>The problem isn't the employees, however senior, it's the fact that
it
> > >>>was a private company responsible for setting safety standards.
> > >>
> > >>Did it *set* the standards? Or just attempt to run its business to
> > >>standards set by others.
> > >
> > >Yes and no, but mainly yes. They set many standards and also
> > >"checked" the safety cases of the umpteen companies operating on the
> > >railways they controlled.
> >
> > I didn't think, from the context, that the safety standards of the ToCs
> > was the matter under discussion here.
> >
> > >Railtrack's safety case was "checked" by the RI.
> >
> > So that's a "no" for setting its own standards then.
> >
> > >>and if acting entirely in their own
> > >>interests should have set the standards lower.
> > >
> > >That would, in theory, have resulted in the RI eventually
> > >withdrawing their licence and all trains on the network would then
> > >have been halted. That is a position it is unlikely they would have
> > >got to.
> >
> > So not quite the carte blanche the OP was hinting at.
>
>
>
> I don't think I was.  Even leaving aside the setting of standards,
> private companies in regulated industries have to demonstrate that they
> have procedures and some kind of self-assessment process that just
> about meets the requirements of any codes of practice or regulations.
> In some cases the regulators/inspection agencies may even check whether
> or not they carry out their own procedures, but not very often.
>
> Private companies' main aim is profit, which means thaty they have a
> duty to their shareholders to set any standards, or comply with
> externally set standards, to the minimum level (in terms of costs) that
> they can get away with.


didnt alfred krupp argue that in a war crimes trial?
cheers
james

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:


> The manslaughter charges against Network Rail, the track maintenance
> company and the individuals were dropped on the order of the judge,
> who declined to give a reason. 


Wasn't there a hint that the reason could not be given at the time, as 
long as the other cases were ongoing?  Now that they're done, maybe 
the reason will be forthcoming??

"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0509071047090.9224@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...

> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:
>
> > The manslaughter charges against Network Rail, the track maintenance
> > company and the individuals were dropped on the order of the judge,
> > who declined to give a reason.
>
> Wasn't there a hint that the reason could not be given at the time, as
> long as the other cases were ongoing?  Now that they're done, maybe
> the reason will be forthcoming??


There was, but in view of the final verdicts I think the reason is pretty
obvious.  If there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict the individuals on
H&S charges, there was certainly no chance of convicting them for
manslaughter.

Roger

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Steve Pardoe wrote:


> I think the level and consequences of a fine should, and doubtless 
> will, be taken into account when sentencing; and among the factors 
> in this will be the ability to pay, and the damage that might 
> result.


I'm sure I've heard of other legal systems where a fine is set as
a number of days, and multiplied by the convicted person's assessed
disposable income.

Roger H. Bennett wrote:

> "Alan J. Flavell"  wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0509071047090.9224@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...
> > On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:
> >
> > > The manslaughter charges against Network Rail, the track maintenance
> > > company and the individuals were dropped on the order of the judge,
> > > who declined to give a reason.
> >
> > Wasn't there a hint that the reason could not be given at the time, as
> > long as the other cases were ongoing?  Now that they're done, maybe
> > the reason will be forthcoming??
>
> There was, but in view of the final verdicts I think the reason is pretty
> obvious.  If there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict the individuals on
> H&S charges, there was certainly no chance of convicting them for
> manslaughter.
>
> Roger

I found the comments pretty sickening from one of the accused about how
stressful it was to them and how they can now get on with their lives,
an option not open the families of those killed.
Kevin

Tony Polson wrote:

> "Steve Pardoe"  wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly.  If you remember, my
>> OP was arguing for personal, rather than corporate, responsibility.
>
>
> Charges were also brought against a number of individuals.
>
> The manslaughter charges against Network Rail, the track maintenance
> company and the individuals were dropped on the order of the judge,
> who declined to give a reason.  The jury brought not guilty verdicts
> on health and safety charges against the individuals and against the
> track maintenance company.  The only guilty verdict brought by the
> jury was against Network Rail as successors to Railtrack PLC.


The jury did NOT bring a not-guilty verdict on the H&S charge against
the track maintenance company.  Balfour Beatty changed their plea on the
H&S charge to guilty after the judge threw out the manslaughter charges.
The jury formally declared a guilty verdict in July on the H&S charge
against Balfour Beatty.  (See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4692813.stm )
-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:51:46 +0100 someone who may be "Alan J.
Flavell"  wrote this:-


>I'm sure I've heard of other legal systems where a fine is set as
>a number of days, and multiplied by the convicted person's assessed
>disposable income.


Was something similar not tried in England and Wales? The mass media
mounted a campaign against it ISTR.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 09:13:02 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>>As I said, "The RI only set some standards." Others were and are set
>>by the various companies.
>
>Railtrack is only one company. What do you mean by "the various" 
>companies?


The various companies involved in the railways. How could Railtrack
set a standard to do with say the engine of a locomotive, a field in
which Railtrack had little or no knowledge?


>I'm only interested in knowing who set Railtrack's standards.


Railtrack set many standards themselves. However, these were kept
under review by the RI, which also set other standards. In any
complicated industry that is the way things are.


>Ys, and I think the OP was perhaps wishing for a situation were the 
>standards were set by a publicly owned body once again.


All the standards? I'm sure the various companies would love being
able to blame the public sector for everything that went wrong.


>Did Railtrack own the RI?


Funding for the RI came partly directly from Gordon Brown's bunch
and partly from charging for safety work. There is currently a
consultation on an alternative approach involving a levy.

The RI was and is owned by all of us, though under the direct
control of the so-called Health & Safety mob. They managed to make
such a bad job of it that the RI is currently being moved to what
will hopefully be a more sensible place.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message 
          David Hansen  wrote:


> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:51:46 +0100 someone who may be "Alan J.
> Flavell"  wrote this:-
> 
> >I'm sure I've heard of other legal systems where a fine is set as
> >a number of days, and multiplied by the convicted person's assessed
> >disposable income.
> 
> Was something similar not tried in England and Wales? The mass media
> mounted a campaign against it ISTR.
> 
> 


Yes, about 20 years ago, abandoned after about 3 months as it proved to be
totally unworkable, as it expected criminals to be honest about their income.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On 7 Sep 2005 03:16:51 -0700 someone who may be kajr@mwfree.net
wrote this:-


>> There was, but in view of the final verdicts I think the reason is pretty
>> obvious.  If there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict the individuals on
>> H&S charges, there was certainly no chance of convicting them for
>> manslaughter.
>>
>I found the comments pretty sickening from one of the accused about how
>stressful it was to them


If there really wasn't sufficient evidence then the accusations can
be said to be false and the prosecution malicious. Imagine if you
had been falsely accused of something and maliciously prosecuted.
Would you sail through it without a care in the world, or would you
find it stressful?



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Roger H. Bennett"  wrote:


>"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0509071047090.9224@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:
>>
>> > The manslaughter charges against Network Rail, the track maintenance
>> > company and the individuals were dropped on the order of the judge,
>> > who declined to give a reason.
>>
>> Wasn't there a hint that the reason could not be given at the time, as
>> long as the other cases were ongoing?  Now that they're done, maybe
>> the reason will be forthcoming??
>
>There was, but in view of the final verdicts I think the reason is pretty
>obvious.  If there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict the individuals on
>H&S charges, there was certainly no chance of convicting them for
>manslaughter.



How could a judge legally use an anticipated final verdict on one set
of charges to dismiss others?  That sounds like it might be a contempt
of court, potentially a serious offence for a judge.

I agree with Alan Flavell.  Like Alan, I hope a full explanation will
be forthcoming, but I am not holding my breath.

"Richard J."  wrote:


>The jury did NOT bring a not-guilty verdict on the H&S charge against
>the track maintenance company.  Balfour Beatty changed their plea on the
>H&S charge to guilty after the judge threw out the manslaughter charges.
>The jury formally declared a guilty verdict in July on the H&S charge
>against Balfour Beatty.  (See
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4692813.stm )



Thanks for the correction, Richard.

So there are two sentences to be handed down.  I trust the fines will
be far from trivial.

"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote:


>On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Steve Pardoe wrote:
>
>> I think the level and consequences of a fine should, and doubtless 
>> will, be taken into account when sentencing; and among the factors 
>> in this will be the ability to pay, and the damage that might 
>> result.
>
>I'm sure I've heard of other legal systems where a fine is set as
>a number of days, and multiplied by the convicted person's assessed
>disposable income.



Something similar was tried in England and Wales a few years ago, but
it fell apart when rich people complained bitterly about being asked
to pay more for the same offence.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:5kruh1d8u59t8h0annd9va2v7q22iue6um@4ax.com...

> How could a judge legally use an anticipated final verdict on one set
> of charges to dismiss others?  That sounds like it might be a contempt
> of court, potentially a serious offence for a judge.


Obviously I expressed myself badly.  Although the judge may or may not have
had an idea of the likely verdict on the H&S charges, he allowed the case to
proceed so he must have concluded that there was at least an arguable case
for the jury to consider.  On the manslaughter charges (which require a much
higher standard of proof) he clearly concluded that the prosecution had not
presented sufficient evidence to justify such charges, so directed the jury
to acquit so as not to waste even more time and money.

The fact that ultimately the jury failed to convict any individuals even on
H&S charges seems to me to justify the judge's earlier decision.

IANAL, but I believe it is standard court procedure that once the
prosecution have presented their case, the defence may submit to the judge
that there is no case to answer. If the judge agrees that insufficient
evidence has been presented, he may rule accordingly and direct the jury to
acquit, without the defence even needing to present their case.

Roger

In message , at 23:52:57 on 
Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tony Polson  remarked:

>How could a judge legally use an anticipated final verdict on one set
>of charges to dismiss others?


That wasn't the suggestion. Lack of evidence may have been the reason 
for the judge dismissing the first set of charges; and a similar lack, a 
reason for the jury's acquittal on the second set. Although it's less 
likely to be poor evidence in the first case (that's what the jury looks 
at), but a complete lack of evidence. Allegation, hearsay etc, but no 
evidence.


>That sounds like it might be a contempt
>of court, potentially a serious offence for a judge.


A curious concept.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at 23:52:57 on
> Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tony Polson  remarked:
> >How could a judge legally use an anticipated final verdict on one set
> >of charges to dismiss others?
>
> That wasn't the suggestion. Lack of evidence may have been the reason
> for the judge dismissing the first set of charges; and a similar lack, a
> reason for the jury's acquittal on the second set. Although it's less
> likely to be poor evidence in the first case (that's what the jury looks
> at), but a complete lack of evidence. Allegation, hearsay etc, but no
> evidence.
>
> >That sounds like it might be a contempt
> >of court, potentially a serious offence for a judge.
>
> A curious concept.
> --
> Roland Perry

When this case first started I was absolutely staggered at the
revalations, facts that I had been totally unaware of, like the
identification of the problem, the delivery of the new rail to the site
and then never fitting the new rail.
As the case started it seemed such a bang to right open and shut case.
To finish up with it being nobody's fault is a complete farce and waste
of taxpayers money.

Kevin

On 8 Sep 2005 00:43:30 -0700 someone who may be kajr@mwfree.net
wrote this:-


>When this case first started I was absolutely staggered at the
>revalations, facts that I had been totally unaware of, like the
>identification of the problem, the delivery of the new rail to the site
>and then never fitting the new rail.


In itself such a sequence of events is not dangerous. However, if
the rail becomes unsafe to traverse at line speed, that is not
detected and a speed restriction is not imposed then that is
dangerous.


>As the case started it seemed such a bang to right open and shut case.


The government side were certainly giving that impression.


>To finish up with it being nobody's fault is a complete farce and waste
>of taxpayers money.


That is not what the courts have looked at. What they have looked at
is whether people were criminally responsible or not.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message , at 10:17:44 on 
Thu, 8 Sep 2005, David Hansen  
remarked:

>>When this case first started I was absolutely staggered at the
>>revalations, facts that I had been totally unaware of, like the
>>identification of the problem, the delivery of the new rail to the site
>>and then never fitting the new rail.
>
>In itself such a sequence of events is not dangerous.


Pardon? "Identification of the problem" was surely 'This rail needs 
replacing because it's unsafe'.


>However, if the rail becomes unsafe to traverse at line speed, that is 
>not detected and a speed restriction is not imposed then that is 
>dangerous.


-- 
Roland Perry

David Hansen wrote:

> On 7 Sep 2005 03:16:51 -0700 someone who may be kajr@mwfree.net
> wrote this:-
>
> >> There was, but in view of the final verdicts I think the reason is pretty
> >> obvious.  If there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict the individuals on
> >> H&S charges, there was certainly no chance of convicting them for
> >> manslaughter.
> >>
> >I found the comments pretty sickening from one of the accused about how
> >stressful it was to them
>
> If there really wasn't sufficient evidence then the accusations can
> be said to be false and the prosecution malicious. Imagine if you
> had been falsely accused of something and maliciously prosecuted.
> Would you sail through it without a care in the world, or would you
> find it stressful?
>
>
>
> --
>  David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
>  I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
>  prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Are you seriously suggesting that these people were maliciously
prosecuted. All I've heard through this case is how done by the people
at Network Rail and Balfour Beatty were. Reminds me of the Southall
incident when the driver bleated how hard doen by he had been.

Kevin

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at 10:17:44 on
> Thu, 8 Sep 2005, David Hansen 
> remarked:
> >>When this case first started I was absolutely staggered at the
> >>revalations, facts that I had been totally unaware of, like the
> >>identification of the problem, the delivery of the new rail to the site
> >>and then never fitting the new rail.
> >
> >In itself such a sequence of events is not dangerous.
>
> Pardon? "Identification of the problem" was surely 'This rail needs
> replacing because it's unsafe'.
>
> >However, if the rail becomes unsafe to traverse at line speed, that is
> >not detected and a speed restriction is not imposed then that is
> >dangerous.
>
> --
> Roland Perry

That is the question that I would love to have an answer to. Somebody
clearly identified that the rail needed replacing, a rail was ordered
and delivered to site then somebody clearly decided not to fit the new
rail that had been delivered. Having identified that a rail needed
replacing and hadn't nobody thought to issue a speed restriction.
Now you can blame all this on faults in the system but for Gods sake
surely somebody takes responsibility for these things, they aren't just
left to happen, or are they.

Kevin

wrote in message
news:1126172785.805856.100610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> That is the question that I would love to have an answer to. Somebody
> clearly identified that the rail needed replacing, a rail was ordered
> and delivered to site then somebody clearly decided not to fit the new
> rail that had been delivered. Having identified that a rail needed
> replacing and hadn't nobody thought to issue a speed restriction.
> Now you can blame all this on faults in the system but for Gods sake
> surely somebody takes responsibility for these things, they aren't just
> left to happen, or are they.


In a well-run railway rails would be replaced before they have got so bad
that a speed restriction is needed, so the mere fact that new rails had been
delivered to site would not have meant there was any danger.

Of course, since the enquiry report has been delayed by the criminal
charges, we don't know exactly what happened or who knew what and when,
unless anyone has followed all the evidence in the court case.

My guess is that the situation was something like the following.  An
ordinary track worker for the maintenance company did the ultrasonic tests
and either he or his immediate supervisor examined the results and reported
that the rail needed replacing.  The replacement rail was ordered, delivered
to site and the work was scheduled.  Thus far the system worked.

After that it is quite possible that the only person who knew the exact
state of the rail was either quite junior in the maintenance organisation or
may by then have been working in a different area.  The management obviously
knew that replacement was scheduled but may not have consciously known the
precise reason.  Railtrack also knew that replacement had been scheduled and
then rescheduled, but also may not have known exactly why.

Given that under Railtrack's pre-existing standards that rail was in a
condition that required an immediate 20 mph speed restriction, I do not
believe that anyone in full possession of the facts would have allowed
trains to continue running at full speed. So almost certainly (and the trial
verdict seems to support this) the problem was that the split
responsibilities meant no single individual was aware of the rail's
condition and also in a position to decide what should be done about it.

Both companies have been found guilty of failing to run a safe system, but
that does not mean that any specific individual was guilty of negligence.

Roger

"Roger H. Bennett"  wrote:


>Obviously I expressed myself badly.  Although the judge may or may not have
>had an idea of the likely verdict on the H&S charges, he allowed the case to
>proceed so he must have concluded that there was at least an arguable case
>for the jury to consider.  On the manslaughter charges (which require a much
>higher standard of proof) he clearly concluded that the prosecution had not
>presented sufficient evidence to justify such charges, so directed the jury
>to acquit so as not to waste even more time and money.


He "clearly concluded", did he?  How do you know this?  Or are you
merely guilty of presumption?  ;-)

Had this been the case, the judge would have made a specific
announcement in court confirming the reasons why those charges would
not be allowed to proceed.  As it is, no-one outside the court,
including me, you and Alan Flavell, knows why the judge did this, and
his silence on the matter suggests a different reason entirely. 


>The fact that ultimately the jury failed to convict any individuals even on
>H&S charges seems to me to justify the judge's earlier decision.
>
>IANAL, but I believe it is standard court procedure that once the
>prosecution have presented their case, the defence may submit to the judge
>that there is no case to answer. If the judge agrees that insufficient
>evidence has been presented, he may rule accordingly and direct the jury to
>acquit, without the defence even needing to present their case.


Absolutely.  But that did not happen here, because we would have heard
about it, and we didn't. 

That's the reason for Alan's interest, and mine.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:l940i1len3n79b7pini67bquo124dqdfec@4ax.com...

> He "clearly concluded", did he?  How do you know this?  Or are you
> merely guilty of presumption?  ;-)


Obviously I have to presume.  But the fact that the jury did not convict
individuals on H&S charges means, as I understand the law, that there was no
possibility of a conviction for manslaughter.


> Absolutely.  But that did not happen here, because we would have heard
> about it, and we didn't.


If the reasons were what I presume (again!) they were, the judge could not
explain them at that stage because to have done so would have made it
impossible to proceed with H&S charges against individuals either.

Roger

On 8 Sep 2005 02:41:28 -0700 someone who may be kajr@mwfree.net
wrote this:-


>> If there really wasn't sufficient evidence then the accusations can
>> be said to be false and the prosecution malicious.

>Are you seriously suggesting that these people were maliciously
>prosecuted.


As the Hutton decided that the jury should not even bother with some
particular charges then it looks very likely. Malicious prosecutions
are fairly common, especially when party politicians are keen to be
seen to be doing something.


>All I've heard through this case is how done by the people
>at Network Rail and Balfour Beatty were.


Really. I doubt that very much, though I cannot be bothered to pull
up examples to show your use of the word all is incorrect.


>Reminds me of the Southall
>incident when the driver bleated how hard doen by he had been.


Did he? I don't recall him being put before the mass media, though I
could have missed something. The union did speak on his behalf (as
they should), but that is a different matter.

As I said before the trial, in response to the same sort of claim,
the driver bore some responsibility. However, he did not bear all
the responsibility by a long way and it is important not just to
have a go at the person with their hands on the controls. Rather one
needed to work out the balance of blame. What came out in the report
backed that up, there were many failings by the company that led up
to the crash and it would be entirely wrong to just blame the
driver. I would now go as far as to say that the blame rested
largely with the train operating company and infrastructure
monopoly, with relatively little blame due to the driver.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:

>>
> >Reminds me of the Southall
> >incident when the driver bleated how hard doen by he had been.
>
> Did he? I don't recall him being put before the mass media, though I
> could have missed something. The union did speak on his behalf (as
> they should), but that is a different matter.
>
>  David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
>  I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
>  prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


There was a tv programme about it where he whinged on about how hard
done by he had been but you carry on ignoring the facts.

kevin

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:23:33 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>>>When this case first started I was absolutely staggered at the
>>>revalations, facts that I had been totally unaware of, like the
>>>identification of the problem, the delivery of the new rail to the site
>>>and then never fitting the new rail.
>>
>>In itself such a sequence of events is not dangerous.
>
>Pardon?


In itself such a sequence of events is not dangerous.


>"Identification of the problem" was surely 'This rail needs 
>replacing because it's unsafe'.


Unlikely, though as the report has yet to be issued we do not know.

I assume that if the rail had been in a dangerous condition when a
replacement was ordered then a speed limit would have been applied
immediately. I assume this aspect was covered in the trial, though
as the legal bods are shy about being open I don't know. ISTM that
had a speed limit not been imposed in those conditions then a guilty
verdict on manslaughter charges would be appropriate.





-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On 8 Sep 2005 05:14:30 -0700 someone who may be kajr@mwfree.net
wrote this:-


>There was a tv programme about it where he whinged on about how hard
>done by he had been


Not something I saw.


>but you carry on ignoring the facts.


Which part of, "though I could have missed something", do you have
difficulty understanding?



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Roger H. Bennett"  wrote:


>Obviously I have to presume.  But the fact that the jury did not convict
>individuals on H&S charges means, as I understand the law, that there was no
>possibility of a conviction for manslaughter.



You appear to be blessed with 20/20 hindsight.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:c5e0i1t58isnlbnvphpaf9te4q5dklanlu@4ax.com...

> "Roger H. Bennett"  wrote:
>
> >Obviously I have to presume.  But the fact that the jury did not convict
> >individuals on H&S charges means, as I understand the law, that there was
no
> >possibility of a conviction for manslaughter.
>
>
> You appear to be blessed with 20/20 hindsight.


Actually, I think I said at the time that I saw no reason to believe that
the judge was doing anything other than his proper duty under the law.  That
is still my view, and the jury's verdict justifies it.  Why is it necessary
to allege or hint at some ulterior motive?

Roger

"Roger H. Bennett"  wrote:


>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
>news:c5e0i1t58isnlbnvphpaf9te4q5dklanlu@4ax.com...
>> "Roger H. Bennett"  wrote:
>>
>> >Obviously I have to presume.  But the fact that the jury did not convict
>> >individuals on H&S charges means, as I understand the law, that there was
>no
>> >possibility of a conviction for manslaughter.
>>
>>
>> You appear to be blessed with 20/20 hindsight.
>
>Actually, I think I said at the time that I saw no reason to believe that
>the judge was doing anything other than his proper duty under the law.  That
>is still my view, and the jury's verdict justifies it.  Why is it necessary
>to allege or hint at some ulterior motive?



Because ordinarily, if the judge had done what you suggested he had,
he would have made the appropriate statement to the court at that
time.  He didn't, so his action seemed out of the ordinary.

I am not alleging anything underhand, I am just curious, like Alan, as
to why no reason was given at the time.  The reason I am curious is
that several of those acquitted were members of my profession, and I
take a keen interest in any such cases for professional reasons.

Why is it that those who post to this group largely appear to spit nails at
the concept of profit. What happens to a company if it does not make a
profit?  - It soon finds that it cannot raise new capital or borrow and
eventually it goes bust. In the normal course of events this would have
happened to Railtrack because, although it was theoretically making a profit
and paying dividends, it was at the same being burdened with evermore debt
which it would not be able to support whether or not it was able to tap the
Regulator for a transfusion of funds.

 To end this homily, those who so hate the concept of profit should remember
that it is one of the lubricators of our life style and without  it we would
soon find it very different from what it is.

MJW

"M.J.Whitson"  wrote in message
news:dfq9im$sv7$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

> Why is it that those who post to this group largely appear to spit nails
at
> the concept of profit. What happens to a company if it does not make a
> profit?  - It soon finds that it cannot raise new capital or borrow and
> eventually it goes bust. In the normal course of events this would have
> happened to Railtrack because, although it was theoretically making a
profit
> and paying dividends, it was at the same being burdened with evermore debt
> which it would not be able to support whether or not it was able to tap
the
> Regulator for a transfusion of funds.
>

because in this case the profit comes from the taxpayer - you and me. why
shuold someone make profit out of something that is a valuable service, a
monopoly, and heavily subsidised. in this case railtrack didnt make profit,
it ended up losing a huge amount of money, crippling a vital part of the
transport infrastructure and killing dozens of its customers. they then just
sued the govt for even more so they could try and keep operating!
cheers
james

M.J.Whitson wrote:

> Why is it that those who post to this group largely appear to spit nails at
> the concept of profit. What happens to a company if it does not make a
> profit?  - It soon finds that it cannot raise new capital or borrow and
> eventually it goes bust. In the normal course of events this would have
> happened to Railtrack because, although it was theoretically making a profit
> and paying dividends, it was at the same being burdened with evermore debt
> which it would not be able to support whether or not it was able to tap the
> Regulator for a transfusion of funds.
>
>  To end this homily, those who so hate the concept of profit should remember
> that it is one of the lubricators of our life style and without  it we would
> soon find it very different from what it is.




I probably could argue against the principle of profit in general, but
I don't think I was doing so.  I was pointing out that the main aim of
a private (or privatised) business is profit.

Anyone might infer from that that there was an inherent conflict of
interests between the aim of a privatised company and either providing
a service or meeting safety standards.

Alternatively, one might argue that it depends on good and bad
management, in that many companies don't seem to realise that providing
a good, safe service might ultimately be good for profits.

But in practice, I think that the conflict of interests interpretation
is most likely to apply.

> The former shareholders want the taxpayers to compensate them because
> they gambled on the stock market and lost. Looks like the taxpayer is
> the loser what ever happens.
>
> Kevin
>

I see the usual socialist rubbish that we have come to expect from those who
so often post to this group. Perhaps you are not aware that the institutions
invested in Railtrack in the expectation of dividends to satisfy their
obligations to pension funds which they control. Were they gambling? If, in
your opinion, they were then perhaps you would like to explain from what
source they should obtain there income to satisfy your patently daft
beliefs.

MJW

"gonzo"  wrote in message
news:xIiUe.5258$zw1.5156@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

>
> "M.J.Whitson"  wrote in message
> news:dfq9im$sv7$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Why is it that those who post to this group largely appear to spit nails
> at
> > the concept of profit. What happens to a company if it does not make a
> > profit?  - It soon finds that it cannot raise new capital or borrow and
> > eventually it goes bust. In the normal course of events this would have
> > happened to Railtrack because, although it was theoretically making a
> profit
> > and paying dividends, it was at the same being burdened with evermore
debt
> > which it would not be able to support whether or not it was able to tap
> the
> > Regulator for a transfusion of funds.
> >
> because in this case the profit comes from the taxpayer - you and me. why
> shuold someone make profit out of something that is a valuable service, a
> monopoly, and heavily subsidised. in this case railtrack didnt make
profit,
> it ended up losing a huge amount of money, crippling a vital part of the
> transport infrastructure and killing dozens of its customers. they then
just
> sued the govt for even more so they could try and keep operating!
> cheers
> james
>
> Yes and sooner or later it would have gone broke simply because it  would

not be able to support the amount of debt it had acquired. What you have
overlooked is the fact that Ministers wanted to be rid of criticism about
the shortcomings of the railways and so the railways weresold off into the
private sector  in what is now seen as one of the most incompetent models
that could have been devised - mainly by the Treasury.Monopolies only exist
where the consumer has no choice. Why, for example, are so many rail
vehicles moved about by road - because road transport is cheaper similarly
for freight generally.

MJW

"M.J.Whitson"  wrote in message
news:dfsrgj$dou$1$830fa7a5@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> "gonzo"  wrote in message
> news:xIiUe.5258$zw1.5156@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "M.J.Whitson"  wrote in message
> > news:dfq9im$sv7$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > Why is it that those who post to this group largely appear to spit
nails
> > at
> > > the concept of profit. What happens to a company if it does not make a
> > > profit?  - It soon finds that it cannot raise new capital or borrow
and
> > > eventually it goes bust. In the normal course of events this would
have
> > > happened to Railtrack because, although it was theoretically making a
> > profit
> > > and paying dividends, it was at the same being burdened with evermore
> debt
> > > which it would not be able to support whether or not it was able to
tap
> > the
> > > Regulator for a transfusion of funds.
> > >
> > because in this case the profit comes from the taxpayer - you and me.
why
> > shuold someone make profit out of something that is a valuable service,
a
> > monopoly, and heavily subsidised. in this case railtrack didnt make
> profit,
> > it ended up losing a huge amount of money, crippling a vital part of the
> > transport infrastructure and killing dozens of its customers. they then
> just
> > sued the govt for even more so they could try and keep operating!
> > cheers
> > james
> >
> Yes and sooner or later it would have gone broke simply because it  would
> not be able to support the amount of debt it had acquired. What you have
> overlooked is the fact that Ministers wanted to be rid of criticism about
> the shortcomings of the railways and so the railways weresold off into the
> private sector  in what is now seen as one of the most incompetent models
> that could have been devised - mainly by the Treasury.Monopolies only
exist
> where the consumer has no choice. Why, for example, are so many rail
> vehicles moved about by road - because road transport is cheaper similarly
> for freight generally.
>

which is why yuo dont run it as a private company and make profit - because
the service is impossible to provide as a commercial venture. would rail
track have had as much debt if it hadnt paid out dividends every year? no,
of course not. monopolies exist everywhere, people dont realise how complex
they are.
cheers
james