Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Firemen

5
4
On 31 Jul 2013 at 9:16am confused wrote:
If one man (or body) is negligent for sending people into a dangerous situation against their working practices and health & safety law, can another man (men) be guilty of the manslaughter of the incorrectly positioned people?
7
2
On 31 Jul 2013 at 9:28am Slarty wrote:
Apparently, yes.
God bless British Courts.
12
7
On 31 Jul 2013 at 9:34am toughtitty wrote:
Because they held illegal explosives and lied to the authorities. Had they been man enough to admit what was there, the injuries would have been less severe. They were guilty of murder and only you pathetic bonfire idiots and the family would think otherwise.
7
2
On 31 Jul 2013 at 9:57am Slarty wrote:
@toughtitty - I, personally, was not commenting on who was right and wrong, just what seems to be a funny position.
2 men found guilty of manslaughter and someone else (the employer) is accountable for neglect and has to pay compensation.
I agree that there were issues (and now confirmed by the courts) with the actions of both sides. One court found one side to blame and another finds the other side to blame. That, I assume at least, is what confusd was on about and that is what my reply was about. Nothing about who was right and who was wrong. Please reads the words that are written and not the invisable ones you are making up.
2
6
On 31 Jul 2013 at 10:04am confused wrote:
toughtitty -
The two dead men were in a position that clearly went against Fire Brigade working practices and health & safety laws, these being the same laws as you are using to blame the owners of the site.
If the breaking of H&S laws by the owners results in manslaughter charges, why does the breaking of H&S laws by the brigade not have the same result?
As for your last sentence, the men were found guilty of manslaughter not murder, get your fact right, who is the idiot?
4
6
On 31 Jul 2013 at 10:08am toughtitty wrote:
@ Slarty. If you all understood our legal system, you would realise that the initial court case was a criminal one and the second a case bought by the families of the two murdered firemen against the fire service. Simple really. A bit like the average bonfire cretin.
5
2
On 31 Jul 2013 at 10:17am Slarty wrote:
@toughtitty. Thank you, my job means that I understand the court system fairly well thank you, at a guess better than you. That is why I said "One court found one side to blame and another finds the other side to blame" (see, understanding that 2 different Courts made 2 different decisions).
Whilst I understand the intricacies and workings of both criminal and civil Courts, surely in an ideal world the same decision would have been made by both - ie it is ESFRS fault and the Winder's are innocent or it is the Winter's fault and ESFRS don't have to pay.
.
Think that's fairly straight forward and if an "average bonfire cretin" can undersatnd that, I'm sure you can.
.
No need to appologies to me on this occaision.
7
4
On 31 Jul 2013 at 10:17am toughtitty wrote:
@ Confused. You really are aren't you. The murdered firemen were doing what they were told and trained to do. Hence the force being found guilty yesterday. It is an entirely different matter when criminals keep explosives and give no warning to the brave individuals trying to keep said criminals safe. You really are a boring idiot!!!!!
5
4
On 31 Jul 2013 at 10:20am Confused wrote:
Very well put Slarty
2
5
On 31 Jul 2013 at 10:26am Toughtitty wrote:
@ Slarty. You forget that I know who you are, so don't pretend to be what you are not. Yes two different courts but you haven't understood that there were also two different accused. One accused for each court case.
I think that's fairly straight forward, no need to apologise to me again.
3
7
On 31 Jul 2013 at 10:34am Toughtitty wrote:
@ Slarty. You really should go back to school and brush up on your spelling etc. Shame on you divvy twat!!!
7
4
On 31 Jul 2013 at 10:45am Penguin wrote:
@Toughtitty. The membership of the Bonfire Societies include doctors, nurses, military officers, police officers, firemen (yes firemen), lawyers, in fact professional people of all kinds. Just what, therefore, do you mean by "average bonfire cretin"?
7
3
On 31 Jul 2013 at 10:52am Slarty wrote:
@Toughtitty. I don't know who you are (do I?), but if you do know me you must know my job so I state again that I probably know more about the judicial system than you.
I understand that there was one accused and one defendant (you don't have accused in civil courts, but I expect you knew that). That is why the Winters were found guilty on one occasion and ESFRS were found responsible on another.
Are you saying that if the Winters were the defendant in the civil litigation and ESFRS were the accused in the criminal case, then the Winters would be skint and ESFRS would have been done for manslaughter?
I do feel that I have to apologies on this occasion. I'm sorry you really do not understand what is being said. I am also truly sorry if my spelling means that all of my arguments must be flawed
.
I stand by the fact that in two different Courts making two different findings is not what would be expected.
.
If you do know me and you still don't understand, then ring, email or drop in to my work or house later and I'll explain with pictures if that would help. I'll speak slowly too.
.
.
.
Also to add to the list by Penguin; Barristers, accountants, para legals, and litigation specialists
9
4
On 31 Jul 2013 at 10:58am Fireman Sam wrote:
Oh really. Lay it to rest FFS. Fireman were doing their job and lost their lives because some cretins did not warn them of the explosives they were ILLEGALLY storing. End of.
6
6
On 31 Jul 2013 at 11:07am member wrote:
@ toughtitty - they did hold explosives substances higher graded than their licece allowed them to, but upon arrival of the fire fighthers, they were warned not to enter for that fact. To say they were murdered and that the family in question were murderers is a complete bollox and a joke. Shame on all of who think that way.
6
6
On 31 Jul 2013 at 11:25am Toughtitty wrote:
@ member. Actually the winters were guilty of lying to the fire service by NOT telling them that illegal explosives were stored in a shipping container that was not adequate for them. The winters are still alive and thanks to our soft legal system they are free and walking around enjoying our summer. Something these murdered firemen will never be able to do. Shame on anyone who thinks otherwise.
@ Slarty. Yes you do know me too. I will come round later and show you the error of your ways. Ezekial 25:17
6
4
On 31 Jul 2013 at 11:54am Sparky wrote:
Definition of murder, "The unlawful killing of a human being with deliberate intent to kill".
If you can't use the correct word Toughtitty then don't bother posting.
7
5
On 31 Jul 2013 at 1:14pm Cliffebimbo wrote:
Why oh why do we have to bring this up again. They've done their time, end of.
5
3
On 31 Jul 2013 at 3:41pm member wrote:
Damn right Cliffebimbo - let sleeping dogs lie. They served their time, im sure they are regretful of what happened and that is something they have to hang over them for the rest of their days. Good luck to them.
9
5
On 31 Jul 2013 at 4:04pm Toughtitty wrote:
@ Cliffebimbo & member. The winters are not regretful at all. They continue to speak ill of these dead brave firemen to this day.
4
2
On 31 Jul 2013 at 5:16pm Public enquiry needed wrote:
@ Toughtitty @ Fireman Sam
The truth is finally starting to come out.
The truth is that the fire brigade were warned about the container (search for the Argus article on this judgement as i can't link it to here) they were warned at 1:49pm by Nathan Winter, the explosion occurred at 2:42pm NEARLY 1 HOUR LATER!!!!!
Why didn't they evacuated ? Was it the Winters fault - NO, ESF&R chose to ignore warnings which lead to tragic events that should have so easily have been avoided and no-one should have had to go through the whole sorry saga, especially the 2 firefighters families.
5
2
On 31 Jul 2013 at 5:20pm Chuck wrote:
The firemen who went in were camera men. They weren't there to fight fires so why were they in there, when they were warned not to go in?
5
3
On 31 Jul 2013 at 6:23pm Knoxon Cutts wrote:
All this name calling must mean there's more to this than meets the eye,is there some long standing grudge being played out here?They were warned not to go in by the proprietor but chose to ignore it.Just think,it was a place where explosives were stored,there was a fire,what else could have happened?My heart goes out to those poor firemen and their families,they were bravely doing their job just as you or I would hope to do.Some mistake was made but you can't call people murderers for selling fireworks.You don't go and stand beside the tableau when it's going off.It wasn't right to have more fireworks than they were licenced for but one bomb will do you as much harm as two if you're next to it.There's quite enough heartache come from this accident without inflaming it any more,all we can do is offer our prayers or condolences to all concerned.
3
5
On 31 Jul 2013 at 8:44pm Sid wrote:
The fireman could of said no !! And not gone in !! For f--k sake it a firework warehouse !! If you asked to jump of Beachy head would you ! You are allowed to say no !!! Sadly two firman died , and will sadly be missed by family and friends
1
1
On 31 Jul 2013 at 11:36pm Rebel wrote:
Don't you think toughtitty sounds like our old friend James Foster?
2
1
On 2 Aug 2013 at 6:23am mickyboy wrote:
it's not the reason why the two fireman with cameras went in that matters, the principle problem is that when water ran low and those fighting the fire were pulled out, with a rapidly deteriorating situation the camera men were not pulled out, everyone else was withdrawn to a (believed)safe distance. if ESFR has understood the gravity of the situation, they probally would not have been on site in the first place, but not to withdraw them, that was the error. the blame lays firmly at the the door of ESFR. ESFR were fully informed of what they were dealing with, as subsequent enquiry established they were unaware of the proceedures to adopt and failed to address the situation as one involving explosives. much also has been made of the term illegal fireworks. the material in question was illegal to sell in the UK, not illegal to own, possess or store. my understanding is that they previously HAD been legal to sell in the UK but had been proscribed.


11 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


 

The John Harvey Tavern 126:143
The John Harvey Tavern

Were the Borough Zulus blacking up last night? more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington