On 14 Dec 2009 at 5:55pm Guido Fawkes wrote:
Personally gutted for martin with this decision. Hopefully things turn out better for Nathan next week.
On 14 Dec 2009 at 6:25pm Prick Stein wrote:
There was never gonna be any other 'outcome' unfortunately. It's a set up by the Fire Brigade who bungled it from the moment they turned up that fateful afternoon. If the officers had been trained properly and had listened to orders to 'fallback' this would have never happened. Justice? I don't think so, scapegoat more like
On 14 Dec 2009 at 6:30pm set up???(no) wrote:
You have the right name Prick.
He was found guilty by a court of law which had all the evidence available to them!!
Now he faces the consequences!!!
On 14 Dec 2009 at 6:33pm Bunter wrote:
Reports say the jury considered that Prick Stein and still reached the guilty verdict. They probably know a bit more about the evidence than we do, having sat through the complete trial.
On 14 Dec 2009 at 6:34pm Banger wrote:
Martin is a hard working business man & a true bonfire boy at hart
Its such a shame he has been found guilty
My feelings go out to his family
I have known of him for years and he would not have wanted to cause any harm to anybody
On 14 Dec 2009 at 6:35pm Blois bouncer wrote:
It was the only desicion that the jury could've reached.
On 14 Dec 2009 at 6:37pm Stig of the dump wrote:
Banger, do your feelings go out to the fireman's families ? He may not of wanted to cause any harm but maybe he should've thought of this before storing the fireworks illegally
On 14 Dec 2009 at 6:40pm Banger wrote:
Yes of course
On 14 Dec 2009 at 7:29pm popeye wrote:
Listen set up, Before you have a go at Prick Stein I have reason to believe the jury never had all the evidence. Some of it went conveniently missing. And as for the firemans family I think everyone feels sorry for them especially near christmas.
On 14 Dec 2009 at 10:09pm Long Distance Whelker wrote:
Shocking news indeed.
The same criteria, if applied to a house fire, would result in the householder being prosecuted if injury were sustained by attending crew. Ridiculous.
On 14 Dec 2009 at 10:37pm Outraged wrote:
The fireman were aware of what was in the container, Mr Winters son had informed them even if Mr Winter hadn't. The head fireman on the scene has addmitted that the men should have been withdrawn and that protocol had not been followed and still Mr Winter is found guilty of manslaughter .
With regards to fireworks being stored illeagally, throw the book at him but manslaughter.
The consequences of this verdict are massive. If you own a business and your premises catch fire and everyone is acounted for, as of today you would have to think twice weather or not you phone the fire brigade in case one of them is killed and you end up in prison.
These two fire fighters died doing the job they loved and they both would have known the risks that came with the job .
My deepest sympathys go to all the familys involved in this accident. This should never have gone into the court room .
On 14 Dec 2009 at 10:46pm Cliffebimbo wrote:
Lambretta, were you in the court room? I think you will find that several firemen said that they were advised to get back by Nathan, in their statements (which were read out in court). This is a tragedy for all involved.
On 14 Dec 2009 at 11:00pm outraged wrote:
At the end of the day the fire fighters didn't follow their own health and safety practices, if they had the result would have been no deaths and no injuries . Making Mr Winter innocent . End of story.
On 14 Dec 2009 at 11:12pm LG wrote:
On 15 Dec 2009 at 12:26am The Webmaster wrote:
Lambretta wrote "Just a shame he will not be in Prison for Christmas."
That for me is totally unnaceptable
On 15 Dec 2009 at 8:19am Seagull wrote:
I have to agree with lambretta. If the fireworks stored were not illegal none of this would have happened. You can try and blame ESFR but it was not them that were quilty of storing explosives in a completely incorrect manner.
The profits seem to have over ruled the laws of the land.
The buck stops with the Winter's and justice has been done.
Even you bonfire boys who always try to look after their own cannot defend the indefensible.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:21am ere be monsters wrote:
Evidence on day one said:
"As the blaze intensified, the command of the fire operation was passed upwards and a decision was made to set up remote water monitors to keep the fire from spreading to the container."
The fire brigade knew the dangers of the container!
Evidence on day two:
MSER regulations state that "if a fire is established and involves explosives or threatens to spread to them, evacuate to a distance of 600m,"
Steve Wells one of the first firemen on the scene gave evidence.
On arrival he asked Nathan and Martin Winter to give him information about the possible hazards at the site. Speaking of his conversation with Nathan, he said: "He expressed concern for a small metal container near the second gate. He actually said to me 'if the fire gets anywhere near this container I would advise you to run like f***."
Lambretta once again shows what a t**t he is with his emotive outbursts.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:25am ere be monsters wrote:
"Former leading fireman Mick Meik, who was station manager at Lewes station at the time, told the court a decision was made to abandon the blazing site after appliances ran out of water. Mr Meik said he blew his evacuation whistle and told Mr Wembridge, a former firefighter who was recording video footage of the blaze, to pull back. Minutes later a metal container packed with fireworks exploded."
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:29am ere be monsters wrote:
Fire brigade evidence reported.
"The senior fireman in charge of carrying out a risk assessment at a firework factory blaze had not received any training to deal with explosives for years."
Good person to have in charge?
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:33am Smoking Gun wrote:
You seem to be making the assumption that the (supposedly) incorrectly stored pyrotechnics were the cause of the blaze, not the actual event of being consumed by an existing blaze.
MSER was not followed. That is the tragedy.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:36am Smoking Gun wrote:
The assumption was Seagull's, not 'ere be monsters, for clarity.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:39am Interesting read wrote:
Many of us on a Daily basis do things which break the law!
I think his has been mentioned before, but driving with a slightly bald tyre ? should you knock down a pedestrian you could face a different charge than with a
taking a load of rubish to the tip may make your car over the weight limit even
by a few kg may just be all that it takes.
My point is although you never intend to kill someone the risk is always there.
and the winters knew that by storing illegall amounts of fireworks.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:43am ere be monsters wrote:
SG presumably you are asking me the question. The whole point that I am trying to make is that however guilty they are of breaching H&S rules they were not responsible for the actual deaths of those poor firemen.
Not only were MSER not followed in accordance with fires involving explosives, there should have been a 200m exclusion zone round the gas bottles stored in the property adjacent to the firework factory. The fire brigade's ignorance is not a defence.
If Martin Winter is guilty, I do not agree he is, then the officers in charge, their superiors, those responsible for training in such situations and unfortunately the two dead officers are all culpable.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:45am cortina wrote:
Lambretta, imaging you were driving your car at 31mph in a 30 limit, a pedestrian steps out in front of you. You kill the pederstrian. are you guilty of manslaughter? You were breaking the law.
The firemen at the scene by their own admission did not adhere to their H&S policies (which are legal requirements). So whilst the Winters are guilty of breach of H&S law, so are the fire brigade. When do we expect to see the law breakers from the fire brigade in the dock facing similar manslaughter charges? I doubt we ever will. So yes the Winters are being made scape goats, to cover up for the incompetence of the fire officer in charge on the day. There is no justice in this case.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:48am ere be monsters wrote:
The Winters had no control over the decisions made by the fire brigade in the brigades carrying out of their legal obligations towards the safety of their firefighters. The FACT the brigade chose to ignore their own regulations was NOT the fault of the Winters.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:49am ere be monsters wrote:
You are so right Cortina
On 15 Dec 2009 at 9:57am juju wrote:
without directyly being involved in the debate about guilt. I would like to add that the firebrigade, police, coast guard and ambulance service often act outside of guidelines to save lives when this happens they are hailed heroes, personally I am grateful that they think outside the box and go beyond the call of duty to help us.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 10:00am cortina wrote:
that's as may be juju, but there were no lives to save in this situation. The only advantage of these two men being where they were was getting some good video footage. Not really worth risking lives for.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 10:27am MAN1 wrote:
To be honest with you I think whether the man is technically guilty or not the man has been punished more than enough, his business has burnt to the ground, his family home has burnt to the ground and he has a family to support. Putting him in prison isnt going to achieve anything its not like he is a danger to society or needs to be rehabilitated. I would like to see how any of you would have responded in that situation if you saw your family home and business burning to the ground which you had worked all of your life for. Complete Joke
On 15 Dec 2009 at 10:36am David Smith wrote:
On the evening of the fire I heard on Sky News an interview with a member of the
winter family Which went something like this .......
"We've lost everything our home our business even our pets the Fire Brigade did Nothing to save our house etc"
I cant remember which male member of the family it was but it disgusted me.
Double standards as they say they told the firebrigade to get back but blame them for doing nothing.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 10:40am Humbug wrote:
The argument about the slightly bald tyre might be true, but what if you knew that car was coming, knew it had a bald tyre, knew it was extremely dangerous, had been told by the owner to stay well out of the way, had existing guidelines to stay at a safe distance from such an incident, but still thought it was a good idea to send someone to stand in front of it with a video camera ?
Nobody is saying that Martin Winter was not guilty of a breach of firework regulations, but it seems that the fire brigade breach of regulations has been conveniently whitewashed at his expense, (a bit like the treatment that he got from the police on bonfire night, which is freely available for all to see on you tube). This was an horrific accident and of course my heart goes out to the families of the poor firemen that died or were injured, but what if they had been sent in there and there were no 'illegal' fireworks. Would the explosion of a factory full of 'legal' fireworks not have been equally as dangerous !. The guidelines put in place precisely to avoid just such an incident would still have been ignored, still placing the fire crew at unnecessary and unreasonable risk. Who would have been the scapegoat in those circumstances ? It was also interesting to hear the news report on tv last night in which it stated that these two men lost their lives 'protecting the public'. That was simply not the case as has already been established, but of course such language further sways public opinion away from the real cause of this tragedy - that someone in authority ignored laid down guidelines. Had the guidelines been adhered to, the explosion would have still happened of course, but there would have been nobody in harms way. Martin Winter would still have been prosecuted, and no doubt found guilty, on a firework storage charge, but not with manslaughter. I do not call this justice, I call it a farce, leaving a man now to live the rest of his life carrying the blame and stigma of someone elses bad judgement. And before anyone says anything, no, I do not know Martin Winter or Nathan Winter.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 10:54am ere be monsters wrote:
Are your opinions still the same Lamretta?
On 15 Dec 2009 at 11:00am Bunter wrote:
Always interesting to see posters deciding that some crimes are crimes and some crimes not really crimes, depending on who commits them.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 11:13am Mouse wrote:
There was too much intervention to say without any doubt that the actions of Martin Winter caused the death of two firefighters. The storing of fireworks and the fire which started may have caused a dangerous situation but Martin Winter did not put anybody in the Dangerous situation, the firefighters did that themselves. Martin Winter = Scapegoat
On 15 Dec 2009 at 11:20am ere be monsters wrote:
Just read the article in the Mirror. This is the sort of biased reporting that has been used by BBC South and the local rag that has led to the poor verdict.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 11:23am PeteO wrote:
Hope the person delivering the sentance can see sense and dish out a minimum sentance for Martin. A Manslaughter conviction is totally disproportional to the original offence
On 15 Dec 2009 at 11:29am Down and Out wrote:
So if I understand this correctly:
Say for example you now come home from the pub, a bit p1ssed maybe, and you stick the chip pan on; probably a negligent and irresponsible thing to do.
Say a fireman who doesn't follow the correct procedures, and is probably negligent, is killed. You've killed him, apparently.
My only other observation on this is, whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, Martin Winter really hasn't handled himself in public at all well. I don't know him but he's come across on TV as more than a little cocksure, and I'm sure that did him a fair bit of harm in the courtroom.
On 15 Dec 2009 at 11:54am D&G wrote:
Martin planned the whole thing, he had a personal grudge against both of the firefighters who died. He thought to himself, if burn down my house then the firefighters will get killed in the explosion. Very sneaky if u ask me
On 15 Dec 2009 at 12:12pm Cliffebimbo wrote:
David Smith, in response to your comment about the remarks made by one of the Winter family on the day of the accident, I would just like to say that the person involved was not an immediate family member. I was absolutely disgusted as well at what he said, but unfortunately I don't think that Martin was worrying at that particular time about members of his extended family phoning News channels to make inappropriate and misguided comments.