New corporate manslaughter stuff

[Tooting Gull]

What do people think about this, particularly in relation to Hatfield? Part of me thinks that if one clear individual is clearly proved to have been grossly negligent and is directly responsible for a fatal accident (like maybe say they said we won't do this safety precaution because it will cost a lot, and mean more profit for us) then fair enough.

But I'm a little uncomfortable with this charging six people stuff. I mean, it is still called an accident as well as a disaster. Some of these people are engineers, they obviously didn't go to work wanting to kill people that day. There were a huge range of factors, is it fair to single individuals out?

 

[Simster]

So are you saying you don't agree with "corporate manslaughter"?

Personally it seems to me to be a bit of a cop out charge. In the case of private companies with monopolies (train services in particular) the eventual outcome is bound to be a large fine...which we'll end up paying for anyway by ticket price hikes and yet more government handouts.

What I do find absolutely disgraceful is that nobody has actually apologised to the families of the victims, presumably because it amounts to an admittance of guilt, but it stinks anyway.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Don't really understand the question Sim, I've outlined exactly what I think. I'm uncomfortable with the way the legislation is being used. It could destroy the lives and careers of hard-working people who were, at worst, had only a tenuous connection to the events. Where it's clearer, then fair enough.

Apologising would seem to be the only human emotion possible, but unfortunately in the litigation era you are told not to. I know people who have had car crashes where blame was uncertain but the other person was hurt, and they have been forbidden to get in touch with them even though they wanted to, by their insurers. That's very f***ed up.

 

[tedebear]

I'm not comfortable with "corporate manslaughter" correct me if I'm wrong but these guys have been made to be accountable for all the teams of people who work below them on track maintenance.... They could have hundreds of people whose work they would have to check on a daily basis?? I know this makes the company more accountable but they will send someone to jail because some chap working for him didn't bang a rivet into place on some train line from here to never never land...

Shouldn't it be the person who directly worked on that piece of track that gets the corporate manslaughter charge? Not his manager? Maybe I'm not reading all the press correctly though..

Problem being I can't think of another way to make the rail companies pay?

 

[Tooting Gull]

That's completely correct, tedebear. The legal criteria for singling someone out is, I believe, 'a controlling mind'. The bloke who didn't put a rivet in is in the clear on that basis. Apparently.

 

[tedebear]

Doesn't make sense to me really - the chap who failed to correctly service the points (which failed) should be the one accountable in my way of thinking....wouldn't you think?? Of course the company who he works for also...

If I was working for say McDonalds and I accidently poured 3 litres of bleach into the hamburger patties which kills 6 people, then I would consider myelf liable?? not my manager...

I'm still unsure of this ruling...

 

[Lord Bracknell]

As someone who spent 25 years working in a public sector engineering organisation (roads and bridges, not railways), I would say that these charges against individuals are almost certainly completely unfounded.

The problem seems to be that the law won't allow a charge of corporate killing to succeed if individuals can't be singled out for their individual contributions to what happened.

Which is nonsense. In the pressure to deliver projects "to specification, on time and within budget", big organisations are far too ready to dismantle the systems that ensure that proper safety checks are in place. It's called "getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy", and it's usually popular with the paymasters and the public. Individual managers and engineers who work within these organisations are simply victims of the culture that has made them work this way.

I remember watching live TV pictures of the rescue efforts that were going on in the hours after the Clapham rail crash. The General Manager of British Rail's Southern Region was being interviewed. He said something like "It's too early to say exactly what happened. But I know already that British Rail are responsible for this".

Why can't Balfour Beattie and Railtrack just come clean and admit that Hatfield was their fault?

 

[Simster]

Doesn't make sense to me really - the chap who failed to correctly service the points (which failed) should be the one accountable in my way of thinking....wouldn't you think?? Of course the company who he works for also...

I don't agree because what you're effectively saying there is that the guy who bangs in the rivets isn't allowed to make a mistake - and in all liklihood he's not being enough to take on that sort of responsibility. Now if his manager decided afterwards not to perform a routine check on the points because he fancied an early finish on the Friday, well that's wrong.

If I was working for say McDonalds and I accidently poured 3 litres of bleach into the hamburger patties which kills 6 people, then I would consider myelf liable?? not my manager...

I'm still unsure of this ruling... [/B]

Of course the crucial difference here is that you don't pour bleach into hamburgers as part of your job remit!

 

[Tooting Gull]

I imagine the reason why your McDonalds employee wouldn't get sued in that example is that the lawyers for the families would advise suing the company, rather than the individual (who's on minimum wage) because they'd get more, pure and simple. Even though it's hard to see how it's the company's fault in that situation for such a crass individual error.

 

[tedebear]

I don't agree because what you're effectively saying there is that the guy who bangs in the rivets isn't allowed to make a mistake - and in all liklihood he's not being enough to take on that sort of responsibility. Now if his manager decided afterwards not to perform a routine check on the points because he fancied an early finish on the Friday, well that's wrong.

I'm still not convinved Simster - so just because someone is too far down the corporate tree, they are exempt?? So all those track workers out there don't have to put their full effort and concentration into the job because if they stuff up they aren't liable?? but they can row their manager down the river....These managers have far to many teams to check each piece of work they do??

Still not 100% convinced of this...

 

[Simster]

No, but to get a track worker for manslaughter I think you'd need to prove he was negligent in doing his job and this wasn't just an honest mistake. Perhaps if it was proved that a rivet fell out because it was hammered in using the wrong type of hammer (say, because it was easier to use despite going against standard procedure?) then maybe you'd get that person then. But honest mistakes do happen, and I think you have to guard against that.

 

[zefarelly]

my little opinion . . . .for what its worth.

fat twat/cat bosses (delete IF applicable) makes a tidy profit by screwing his suppliers into the ground,

the suppliers (service engineers) cut corners to meet there budgets, and target

all at the expense of the safety of the general public.

people die, their families want and deserve to know why.

both are accountable, totally, you cannot make profit at the expense of people lives, the management may well sit there and say I didnt do it, but indirectly they did, if theyd not pocketed the money in the first place its highly likely this wouldnt have happened because a properly funded specified and fully inclusive maintenace contract would have been awarded.

Do people not agree that by resigning these guys have made an admission of guilt

rant over

the sooner the railways are properly regulated and financed the better, and given Britains appaling record of privatisation, if it requires renationalisation then so be it.

 

[zefarelly]

Simster, mistakes do happen in engineering, all the time, if the works where properly funded and scheduled, and the work is so critical then someone should have checked it as well.

 

[Simster]

Totally agree as I imply in the first paragraph of my post dated 10.36

 

[zefarelly]

good point, I skipped past that bit and went off on one!

so have we all agreed who to lynch, who to castrate and who can witness it

 

[tedebear]

good point, I skipped past that bit and went off on one!

so have we all agreed who to lynch, who to castrate and who can witness it

no I still disagree!!

So fair enough Simster the track worker isn't paid enough for the responsibilty he is given?? Now you're into a debate about the social worth vs pay of jobs!

Thats why I don't think this works...there are far to many if's and's or but's to be sorted to establish blame...

unless its a clear case of negligence and then IMHO whoever f***ed up can pay the price....no question...

 

[zefarelly]

I havent read enough facts about it but assuming it is negligence then it falls equally from the guy who didnt hammer properly right up to the guy who subcontracted to monkeys, and the guy who authorised him to make a few bob in dividends,