Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

At last, The Truth About Marlie Farm

4
2
On 2 Jan 2015 at 7:52pm Paulo wrote:
Todays local made very intresting reading with regards to the incident at Marlie farm back in 2006.
2 men were found guilty of manslaughter and served long prison sentences and yet today we read that the court has found in favour of the fire brigade unions claim that ESFRS were "guilty of negligence having failed it's employees". The union said that ESFRS had a lack of equipment, radios not working properly and that only 16% of crews recieved the order to evacuate.
I'm pleased for the familys of the two dead fireman they deserve to be compensated for their loss but the question now is what of the two men who found guilty of manslaughter. I would of thought that they would be in a good position to fight and have their names cleared and may be even recieve some form of compensation them selves.
A friend of mine was working for ITN at the time of the trial, he sat in evey session and was shocked at the verdict. I remember him saying to me " If the two accused men hadn't of called the fire brigade they wouldn't have been standing in the dock on a manslaughter charge". At the time I had a business and premises and I said to my business partner that if our unit caught on fire we should think very carefully about wether we let it burn to the ground and risk loosing our livelyhood or phone the fire brigade and risk loosing our livelyhood and our freedom. I know that seems exstream but I bet we weren't the only business partners with premises having that discussion.
I will be intrested to see if this is the end of this saga.
12
2
On 2 Jan 2015 at 8:07pm Mungo wrote:
It's been a very long time since I posted but the verdict of that trial never added up to me.
I to am very pleased for the families who after all these years will finally be compensated for their losses.
These two men didn't die because of illegally stored fireworks, they died because the firemen running the opperation didn't follow fire brigade policy and retreat, with all equipment, to a safe distance. A policy that is in place for the very reason that fireworks and explosives are unpredictable, as proven on the fateful day.
11
2
On 2 Jan 2015 at 8:11pm Confused wrote:
I thought the issue was that they were storing types of chemicals / explosives that they weren't licenced to have on the premises and which weren't stored correctly?
5
1
On 2 Jan 2015 at 8:18pm Mungo wrote:
No confused, that wasn't the case. they were found guilty of storing a catagory of firework they weren't licenced for in the container. This is something else that baffeled me at the time, even if they had been licenced to store that firework the firemen would have still be there and the container would have still blown up.
9
5
On 2 Jan 2015 at 8:18pm Tipex wrote:
As a lay person I've always thought that, unless there's clear evidence that lives are at stake then the fire brigade shouldn't take any risks at all and leave a fire to burn itself out. Sending those men into the site always seemed unnecessary given the circumstances.
6
1
On 2 Jan 2015 at 8:27pm Confused wrote:
So they were storing an explosive they weren't licenced to have. Was it stored correctly?
4
4
On 2 Jan 2015 at 10:02pm Oh Really wrote:
I think you will find that the prosecution stated that the accused repeatedly stated to the Brigade that the container that blew up contained nothing but timber as they didn't want them dowsing it
We shall never know the truth on this sadly
This decision doesn't look good and if I were one if the two convicted then I'd be very bitter
3
5
On 2 Jan 2015 at 10:17pm Confused wrote:
They told the firefighters the container had timber in it? Why didn't they want it dowsed?
1
3
On 3 Jan 2015 at 1:34am Tipex wrote:
As a lay person I've always thought that, unless there's clear evidence that lives are at stake then the fire brigade shouldn't take any risks at all and leave a fire to burn itself out. Sending those men into the site always seemed unnecessary given the circumstances.
5
1
On 3 Jan 2015 at 9:02am Confused wrote:
Was the explosive they were storing illegally much more powerful than what they were licences for?
1
3
On 3 Jan 2015 at 9:03am Ridgeback wrote:
The accusation of the the fire brigade being told that the container was full of wood was never proven in court. Even if that was the case the fire brigade should still have been 600m away as written in their protcol.
Great day for the families of the firemen, compensation well overdue.
5
2
On 3 Jan 2015 at 9:48am Confused wrote:
So was the illegally stored explosive much more powerful than what they were licenced to hold?
3
2
On 3 Jan 2015 at 5:03pm Ridgeback wrote:
If the unlicenced FIREWORKS were more powerful or not should have been irelevent when it came to the manslaughter charges. If the fire brigade had been the required distance away no one would have been killed, no one would have been hurt and God knows how many million pounds worth of ESFRS equipment wouldn'd have been destroyed.
4
1
On 3 Jan 2015 at 5:15pm Tax pay wrote:
fire brigade have cost the tax payer 1000s . because thinking they are above the law
6
 
On 3 Jan 2015 at 6:23pm Confused wrote:
Is it true that Martin Winter was prosecuted previously for storing explosives illegally?
3
3
On 3 Jan 2015 at 7:20pm Ridgeback wrote:
Confused, it's clear from your posts that when it comes to your opinion on this matter your anything but confused.
I don't know the answer to your question in the previous post but I do know that even if he did have a previous conviction for storing FIREWORKS illegally that would still be irrelevant with regards to the serious manslaughter charges they were convicted on.
5
2
On 3 Jan 2015 at 8:38pm Confused wrote:
Ridgeback, I'm trying to get some facts ascertained here. I think my opinion is rather less obvious than either yours or Paulo's! Stop accusing me of your own behaviour!
4
7
On 3 Jan 2015 at 9:38pm Belladonna wrote:
Um, I believe all these arguments were gone over in court.
17
1
On 4 Jan 2015 at 7:27am skeptical green wrote:
The fact that the fire service managed the response to the fire negligently does not absolve the defendants in the criminal trial from responsibility for creating the danger that caused the deaths. Manslaughter still applies where there is more than one cause of a death. If you do a criminal act which causes death(more than a minimal contribution) then you are guilty of what is called unlawful act manslaughter. Alternatively if you are in a situation where you owe a duty of care to the deceased and you act or omit to act when you should, with what a jury finds to be gross negligence ( negligence so serious that a reasonable juror regards it as criminal) then you are guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. I believe this was all gone into in the appeal.
3
1
On 4 Jan 2015 at 11:16am Confused wrote:
Thank you skeptical green. Your lucid explanation I'd what I thought but was unable to describe! Am feeling less confused! I have also been told that the Winters have a group of apologists who will do anything to shift the blame away from them, as seems to be the case on this thread! Thanks again.
2
1
On 4 Jan 2015 at 12:53pm Chuck wrote:
No, they were not prosecuted previously, Confused.
6
 
On 4 Jan 2015 at 5:07pm Unbelievable wrote:
I sat through the whole of the court case. The accused were found guilty by a jury. Their decision was based on fact and not fiction as was demonstrated within the defence. The defendants have served their time but it's a shame it has taken 8 yrs to reach this final position.
2
2
On 4 Jan 2015 at 7:54pm Ridgeback wrote:
I can't begin to tell you how relieved I am that confused is no longer confused.
Skeptical Green I am now confused by your post. You are saying that the defendants were found guilty of manslaughter because they created the situation where the deaths occured. In other words what you are implying is that the only reason this container exploded was because the FIREWORKS in it weren't licenced.
As proven by this latest civil case, the situation which lead to the deaths was created by the fact that the firemen shouldn't have been any where near the factory let alone the container.
Going on what you have written, if you have a fire at home and a firemen is killed putting it out, then the home owner could be prosecuted as they created the situation in which the firemen died.
This whole thing was an accident, remember them, it should never have gone to court.
3
2
On 4 Jan 2015 at 8:42pm Confused wrote:
I don't think you would be prosecuted unless, for example, you were storing something inflammable illegally which would make the fire much more dangerous and unpredictable. Presumably that's why there are laws around the storage of anything potentially dangerous.
4
5
On 4 Jan 2015 at 8:59pm Ridgeback wrote:
Inflammable, unpredictable the very reason why the firemen should have been no where near.
6
2
On 4 Jan 2015 at 9:32pm Confused wrote:
The reason the Winters were prosecuted, storing dangerous inflammable chemicals illegally resulting in deaths and injuries.
7
2
On 5 Jan 2015 at 7:01am skeptical Green wrote:
Ridgeback. No that is not what I am saying. Try reading my post again. For unlawful act manslaughter the act that causes the death has to be a crime and actually causative of death. For gross negligence manslaughter the act or omission that causes the death has to be negligent to the extent that a jury is persuaded that it is gross negligence - so serious that the ordinary person would regard it as criminal. What you seem to be struggling with is the concept which applies to both the above- that the fault of the defendant need only be one of the contributory causes of death. I.e. The householder analogy does not apply in a normal housefire but in fact because the householder committs no crime and the normal silly mistakes that lead to housefire may be negligent but not criminally so. A better example would be where the householder sets a fire to claim the insurance - if a fireman dies attempting to put it out then that would be manslaughter.
1
2
On 5 Jan 2015 at 5:14pm Ridgeback wrote:
Skeptical, I understand where you are coming from and by the tone of your post you have a much better understanding of the law than myself. If what you are saying is true ( and I have no reason to diss believe you) then this is a very worrying law. As I've said before, the main contributor to these deaths was that the firemen failed to follow protocol and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The defendants contribution to this situation all ready existed when the fire bridgade arrived. If the cause of the fire had been an exploding, unlicenced container, killing two workers at the factory then I would have more of an under standing of what you are saying and where the law stands .
 
 
On 10 Jan 2015 at 9:53pm well I never wrote:
The reality of all the court cases is that alegedly some fire works apparently being loaded for shipment were in a steel container, the so called illegal fire works were simply no longer able to be sold in the UK they were NOT illegal to store or be in the winters possesion. The firemen died because of a simple fact, the firebrigade did not treat the fire as an explosives scenario and when firefighters who were fighing the fire realised water was low and the fire was increasing, the withdrawal was not full and prompt, the two dead were as is well documented photographing and videoing the fire they should not have been there and they did not get evacuated. The principle thing the winters are guilty of is a total and utter failure to show compassion and regret at the two needless deaths and for this and this alone they should hang there heads forever in shame. the firebrigade its self has learnt lessons but due to the actions of there insurers have put the families of the dead men through long protracted proceedings over insurance payouts, no family of any emergency service should have to endue that. No one comes out of this a winner, however, had the facts that have been proved in court during the recent cases been put infront of a jury at the criminal trial I for one believe that based on facts, the winters would not have been found guilty, much was made of a minor infringement some years ago of correct storage but in a suitable building outside the licensed area, much was made of the so called illegal fireworks, but the true facts as disclosed in the cases against the ESFR & the insurance cases have proved to be somewhat different to the facts that convicted the winters. it is not only footballers that can be stopped from working, the winters cannot work with fireworks again as they would not be likely to get a license to do so. they are effectively unable to follow their profession.


8 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Keere Street Cross 48:132
Keere Street Cross

Thanks, Stevied. You’re right, They are the best fields and pretty secure, (save for the gate at the top.) She’s on heat at... more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I like The Grange Gardens, and the way the teashop has the most odd mixture of china from the charity shops
Jojo