On Dec 28, 4:36*pm, Bevan Price wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage & endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.

As another poster said, the real beef is with the guidlines and the
dickhead who makes them.

George

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:45:09 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:36:42 on
Wed, 28 Dec 2011, Bevan Price remarked:
I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage

Perhaps. Or why not simply Criminal Damage?

& endangering safety of rail passengers", rather than theft, with
severe minimum penalties specified by law, such that some namby-pamby
do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of sentence. Dodgy scrap
dealers should also face similarly severe charges & penalties.

That's somewhat in conflict with the idea that signalling systems are
fail-safe.

Removing lumps of power cable tends to put signals out, and a row of black
signals isn't especially fail-safe.

Then there's the rather creative method of theft intended to avoid detection
which was employed recently (for obvious reasons I will not go into
details). Suffice to say the use of that method on the wrong cables could
result in a decidely non fail-safe situation.
--
WZR

"WZR" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:45:09 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:36:42 on
Wed, 28 Dec 2011, Bevan Price remarked:
I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage

Perhaps. Or why not simply Criminal Damage?

& endangering safety of rail passengers", rather than theft, with
severe minimum penalties specified by law, such that some namby-pamby
do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of sentence. Dodgy scrap
dealers should also face similarly severe charges & penalties.

That's somewhat in conflict with the idea that signalling systems are
fail-safe.

Removing lumps of power cable tends to put signals out, and a row of black
signals isn't especially fail-safe.

Then there's the rather creative method of theft intended to avoid
detection
which was employed recently (for obvious reasons I will not go into
details). Suffice to say the use of that method on the wrong cables could
result in a decidely non fail-safe situation.
--
WZR

Yes that scares me what they are doing now.

On Dec 28, 5:01*pm, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36*pm, Bevan Price wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage & endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. *Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. *When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.

As another poster said, the real beef is with the guidlines and the
dickhead who makes them.

George

That would be the maximum with several aggrevating factors, e.g. being
the ringleader, violence or threats of violence. Discounts are applied
for mitigating factors such as age, early guilty plea, genuine
remorse, helpfulness to the police etc.

Part of the sentence is usually paroled for good behaviour.

I'm generally in favour of this approach

Patrick

Then there's the rather creative method of theft intended to avoid
detection
which was employed recently (for obvious reasons I will not go into
details). Suffice to say the use of that method on the wrong cables could
result in a decidely non fail-safe situation.

Doesn't the absence of a signal indication where expected indicate "Stop" or
the most restricting indication possible?

That alone is fail safe.


--
Merry Christmas
Roger Traviss


Photos of the late HO scale GER: -

http://www.greateasternrailway.com

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...Great_Eastern/

Roger Traviss wrote:

Then there's the rather creative method of theft intended to avoid
detection
which was employed recently (for obvious reasons I will not go into
details). Suffice to say the use of that method on the wrong cables
could result in a decidely non fail-safe situation.

Doesn't the absence of a signal indication where expected indicate "Stop"
or the most restricting indication possible?

That alone is fail safe.



In the dark, in the fog on a bend with lots of lines???

--
Tim Watts

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
Roger Traviss wrote:

Then there's the rather creative method of theft intended to avoid
detection
which was employed recently (for obvious reasons I will not go into
details). Suffice to say the use of that method on the wrong cables
could result in a decidely non fail-safe situation.

Doesn't the absence of a signal indication where expected indicate "Stop"
or the most restricting indication possible?

That alone is fail safe.



In the dark, in the fog on a bend with lots of lines???

This is what can happen when a signal is unlit
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...ssocks1978.pdf

The train which followed the collided train also passed the unlit signal,
but stopped short of the collision.

Peter

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.


George


I think that plain "theft" is not severe enough. Something like wilful
sabotage deserves a lot more than 7 years to punish offenders and deter
others. More like 20 years minimum would be my suggestion.

(And before anyone suggests you get less for murder, I think murderers
should get 100 years without remission. )

Bevan

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.


George


I think that plain "theft" is not severe enough. Something like wilful
sabotage deserves a lot more than 7 years to punish offenders and deter
others. More like 20 years minimum would be my suggestion.

"Section 33 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - note the intent to
injure or endanger the safety of persons on railways must be present.
The offence carries, on conviction, [a maximum penalty of?**] life
imprisonment;"
[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ort_offences/]

(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which only a life sentence is
available.)

The same maximum penalty applies in Scotland for the Common Law
offence of culpable and reckless conduct.

(And before anyone suggests you get less for murder, I think murderers
should get 100 years without remission. )

They all get "life" but not necessarily/usually in the form of
lifelong incarceration. The circumstances vary greatly between cases
and locking people up for ever is seldom appropriate.

In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& endangering safety of rail
passengers", rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties
specified by law, such that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not
reduce to a token level of sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also
face similarly severe charges & penalties.

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.

I think that plain "theft" is not severe enough. Something like wilful
sabotage deserves a lot more than 7 years to punish offenders and deter
others. More like 20 years minimum would be my suggestion.

"Section 33 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - note the intent to
injure or endanger the safety of persons on railways must be present.
The offence carries, on conviction, [a maximum penalty of?**] life
imprisonment;"

[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...port_offences/
]

(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which only a life sentence is
available.)

The same maximum penalty applies in Scotland for the Common Law
offence of culpable and reckless conduct.

(And before anyone suggests you get less for murder, I think murderers
should get 100 years without remission. )

They all get "life" but not necessarily/usually in the form of
lifelong incarceration. The circumstances vary greatly between cases
and locking people up for ever is seldom appropriate.

An important difference with life sentences is that a prisoner can be
recalled at any time and is never free from that threat.

The charge of endangering passengers on the railway is greatly under-used
IMHO. People like the lorry-driver who hit the barriers on Foxton level
crossing (on the A10) should undoubtedly be charged. He was well past the "I
didn't see the flashing lights" stage.

--
Colin Rosenstiel