It's really not that simple and you're jumping to conclusions based on limited information that's been released so far. In any case, it's quite apparent that the prevailing thought in PS Saville's mind was to save the life of the person in danger. All other factors will be the subject of the ongoing investigation, including whether a stop on the line was requested.
This is why people are losing respect for the police...
- Thread starter RossGReds
- Start date
- Status
Caporegime
It literally is that simple. It's a call I've made myself as I manage a stretch of rail.
Soldato
In policing, risk is constantly having to be managed (go read up on the national decision model and the THRIVE model if you want to work out how this should be done).
On many occasions the need to take action to save life and limb will put the lives of officers at risk. On this occasion, the officer has likely chosen to proceed onto tracks, knowing that a full stop had not yet been put on the line, in order to try and save the life of another. I know of instances on my own area of work where officers have made the same decision in order to save a stranger. On this occasion it ended in tragedy, in others, lives have been saved. Pointing out the obvious error in going trackside whilst the track is still 'live' does not take away from the bravery or selflessness of the officers act.
On many occasions the need to take action to save life and limb will put the lives of officers at risk. On this occasion, the officer has likely chosen to proceed onto tracks, knowing that a full stop had not yet been put on the line, in order to try and save the life of another. I know of instances on my own area of work where officers have made the same decision in order to save a stranger. On this occasion it ended in tragedy, in others, lives have been saved. Pointing out the obvious error in going trackside whilst the track is still 'live' does not take away from the bravery or selflessness of the officers act.
Caporegime
So far. Looks like they received an electric shock.
Then you'll know that NWR are sometimes quite reluctant to implement a stop even when told that people may be lineside.
Caporegime
Never had a single moment of hesitation from them.
Edit: they are incredibly safety conscious in my experience and tbh good partners.
Last edited:
That is tragic and it's all a bit unclear from the reporting, partly perhaps as newspapers seem to coddle us. Stuff about a man being "distressed" and calling over "concern for his welfare".
But *if* there was literally a call about an apparently suicidal person actually on the tracks then it does seem like someone has screwed up, not the officer who paid with his life (he took a risk under pressure and did something heroic) but rather either the call handler not making the request in a timely manner or the rail company not responding appropriately to shut down the line.
No doubt we'll find out in due course.
But *if* there was literally a call about an apparently suicidal person actually on the tracks then it does seem like someone has screwed up, not the officer who paid with his life (he took a risk under pressure and did something heroic) but rather either the call handler not making the request in a timely manner or the rail company not responding appropriately to shut down the line.
No doubt we'll find out in due course.
Soldato
Putting a stop on a railway line is not something that is instant, it takes vital time to make the call, then for information to be filtered through for the right section of track, then for trains brought to a stop or slowed (where they proceed at a reduced speed under caution). A matter of seconds can make a huge difference between a near miss or a tragedy.
The talk of a distressed person or 'concern for welfare' is really just a polite way of suggesting the person was likely undergoing some form of MH crisis, most likely on the tracks deliberately with the intention of ending their own life. The officers decision to go onto the tracks would have been done with the intention of preventing them from doing so.
The talk of a distressed person or 'concern for welfare' is really just a polite way of suggesting the person was likely undergoing some form of MH crisis, most likely on the tracks deliberately with the intention of ending their own life. The officers decision to go onto the tracks would have been done with the intention of preventing them from doing so.
I don't think anyone is saying it's instant nor is that what was expected or criticised here, see:
Perhaps @Dis86 can answer re: how long it would take from a call being made to the rail company and the track being shut down but I presume the expectation is that by the time police have been informed and someone has been able to drive to that location then that would be sufficient time no?
Ergo the comment re: reporting not being completely clear, of course, it's likely referring to suicide but what isn't clear is whether the 999 call specified someone on the tracks or as another poster pointed out someone somehow deemed to be in distress in that rough area, if it did refer to some suicidal person on the tracks in the call then the questions posed re: the person handling the call or the rail company surely apply no?
Caporegime
Correct. NWR operate a 24hour emergency line. I'd say after I'd made the call last time we saw the nearest signal mast change maybe a minute later?
Caporegime
Yip.
Don
Good piece here from a journalist that suspects that Wilby abused his position as editor to not just surpress stories on paedophiles but also create a hostile environment for victims to speak out.More a CPS issue, but putting it here as not sure it deserves its own thread, but does this seem unduly lenient?
Ex-editor Peter Wilby sentenced for child sex abuse images
Peter Wilby, 78, admits having a sexual interest in children and viewing abuse images for decades.www.bbc.co.uk
Obviously who you know...
My editor trashed my inquiry into child sexual abuse. Now I know why | Dean Nelson
Peter Wilby, who spent years denigrating victims in the media, has been convicted of possessing the most appalling images
www.theguardian.com
Good piece here from a journalist that suspects that Wilby abused his position as editor to not just surpress stories on paedophiles but also create a hostile environment for victims to speak out.
My editor trashed my inquiry into child sexual abuse. Now I know why | Dean Nelson
Peter Wilby, who spent years denigrating victims in the media, has been convicted of possessing the most appalling images
That is a very good piece. Thanks for sharing it.
I’m astounded people need to believe in wacky conspiracy theories when real ones like this are so blatant. A massive shame at his sentencing considering the damage he did to victims. And the papers who employed him seem to have gotten off completely freely too.
If I owned the New Statesman I’d shut it down. I couldn’t live with the notion the paper had been allowed to be run by a pedophile to abuse pedophile victims and protect pedophiles.
Last edited:
Another one.
Met Police: Officer charged with six counts of rape
PC Cliff Mitchell was arrested after a member of the public saw a woman in distress, the Met said.
www.bbc.co.uk
Associate
Still not fully figured out what’s going on this video. Looks like a woman gives a cop a little kick on the ass, he throws a punch at her and then mateyboy assaults the police officer before another office somehow knocks out another woman.
Last edited:
Soldato
Cop jailed for 26 years for raping and sexually abusing girl aged 12
Stephen Hardy, a detective constable with Greater Manchester Police, used his teenage victim as a 'puppet or sex object', Judge Robert Trevor-Jones said during his sentencing on Wednesday.
If this is true
"It's not obvious from this video but there's other footage of the woman who gets knocked out VERY clearly trying to take the cops gun."
Then was probably a good thing that he knocks the woman out
Associate
I don't understand how any amount of alcohol could ever make someone consider going for a cops gun. If true she is VERY lucky to not get shot.
- Status