rambo19:
Do not think the train company will ‘lose’ the cctv on purpose.
I drive buses with cctv, and plenty of times it is not working.
I doubt that they would have had the chance TBH.
Police would have been there PDQ and sealed it all off as a crime scene from anyone tampering with evidence . Plus the fact, like a bespoke fitted recording system on a truck, its not just a matter of pulling an SD card and throwing it in the nettles.
Doesn’t surprise me that it was inoperable though.
Roymondo:
Texting allegation appears to originate with The Sun and Daily Fail tabloids.Sent using smoke and mirrors
Ah, reliable sources of thoroughly researched information.
Winseer:
If that is a rumour rather than fact, then the press should be held in contempt.Where’s the bloody camera footage?
If it exists, then someone has leaked it - and it IS fact.
If it doesn’t exist, then the rumour will probably prejudice the trial sufficiently that without that vital piece of damning evidence - this killer of seven will end up getting off!
Why did you post / repeat the rumour as a fact than? Because it was reported in the daily wail?
Roymondo:
Winseer:
Why this attempt to blatently come up with the notion that it’s “driver error” rather than “driver deliberate act of negligence” I wonder?The victims are going to be shelled out with millions between them - regardless.
I don’t believe for a minute that the “in-camera wasn’t working”.
That was conspiracy theory for the day.
Have you read the report? Did you note the preface on the very first page?
It says
The purpose of a RAIB investigation is to improve safety by preventing future railway
and tramway accidents or by mitigating their consequences. It is not the purpose of
such an investigation to establish blame or liability. Accordingly, it is inappropriate
that RAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame, or determine liability, since
neither the investigation nor the reporting process has been undertaken for that
purpose.
As they also clearly state, other bodies (Police and Office of Rail and Road (ORR)) are conducting their own investigations, which will look at negligence, culpability and liability.[/quote]
All that will decide is if the Camera was Broken, Camera was Sabotaged, or Camera was merely Switched off beforehand, or Footage was obtained, but has been buried.
It doesn’t investigate “Who goes to jail for doing one of the above conspiracies to pervert the course of justice” alas.
I’m not even suggesting the driver has done anything with regards to the camera - I’m talking about possible obstruction of the investigation by his employer. The investigation needs to take a wider perspective I reckon. It’s not about blame at this stage, just “What gets investigated”.
Never in a million years will the employer block the investigation/tamper with cctv.
IF the driver is at fault, it is in the employers interest to show that.
the nodding donkey:
Winseer:
If that is a rumour rather than fact, then the press should be held in contempt.Where’s the bloody camera footage?
If it exists, then someone has leaked it - and it IS fact.
If it doesn’t exist, then the rumor will probably prejudice the trial sufficiently that without that vital piece of damning evidence - this killer of seven will end up getting off!Why did you post / repeat the rumor as a fact than? Because it was reported in the daily wail?
No, because what ever media outlet has released that information - has NOT been busted, suggesting that there’s no smoke without fire.
That’s the thing about our biased media.
We’re not talking about what’s on the footage - only that it apparently has disappeared. Which truth or rumor is more interesting? - That Suits will lose their job if the truth is told because of systemic failings OR the suggestion that the driver is going to be allowed to get away with it to protect the authorities from a policy error?
My argument is that there should be no ROOM for “Rumors” because the facts are released as early as possible.
Remember the A34 case of Tomasz Kroker recently?
Distressing or not, if the investigation doesn’t reveal the results of each established fact as they occur - there will always be accusations of “Cover Up” otherwise.
Releasing the hard facts doesn’t prejudice any trial - because they are hard facts.
Any lawyer who argues that “his human rights have been breached, because this video was already in the public domain prior to the trial” is going to get pelted with eggs for even making such an argument, which would suggest that the video is somehow “not evidence” in the investigation.
Arguments as to why this should NOT be in the public domain as “Hard Fact” - smack of political correctness of course. Surely the time is coming to an end now where “Political Correctness” over “What is fact and what is rumor” is argued over?
So the press crying “Cover Up” isn’t the “Daily Fail” or “The Bum” or "The “Polygraph” or “The Totally owned independent” then - the invitation is there to hurry up and establish the facts so no one anywhere can ever be accused of spreading false rumor again.
Facts that can be established easily within 24 hours should be released within another 24 hours - to facilitate the investigation then.
“The Defendant can expect a jail term” isn’t “prejudicing their right to a fair trial”.- Ever. 
rambo19:
Never in a million years will the employer block the investigation/tamper with cctv.
IF the driver is at fault, it is in the employers interest to show that.
…not if to ‘expose the driver’ is to ‘expose a employer policy error’… Eg. the driver was employed to tick “compliance” boxes, or “diversity” quotas, rather than then being the best qualified and experienced person for the job. It would even be known in advance that a driver is rather too obsessed with diddling their phone to be “risked” on giving them such a job as “driver of a public service vehicle” eh?
You don’t see many inexperienced, ethnic, immigrant people driving our trains whilst I’m at it either - do you?
“42 year old male driver” throws fuel on the rumor fire - when clarity is what’s needed here.
“Part” facts then, are worse than “no facts at all”. 
Mods: It might be time to lock this thread now. 
winseer:
Any lawyer who argues that “his human rights have been breached, because this video was already in the public domain prior to the trial” is going to get pelted with eggs for even making such an argument
Everyone has a right to a fair trial and ypu only have to look at how every armchair expert on here can turn a thread into a 12 pager to see that the second cctv footage is released then the chance of a fair trial is zilch. People are too quick to scream guilty when they know zero facts and have seen one 20 second video. Everyone’s an expert.
Your average conspiracy theorist screaming cover up does not and should never trump the right of the individual to a fair trial.
Look at the thread with the Matthews driver who died in Italy. One post on social media and people were ready to burn any Matthews truck they saw and it turns out the story was far from truthful
What I’ve been getting at here is that “only the driver can be found guilty” of anything. Any of the employing firm’s bad practices will not likely be laid bare, should they prove (or not even be looked at) to be contributory towards this incident. If such incidents CAN only have the driver themselves as 100% responsible or 0% responsible - then that old cliche “Lessons will be learned” obviously won’t be, as the wrong causes have been pushed to the top of the “reasons behind” pile.
The difficulty for the firm is that if they don’t in some way back up their driver (assuming they don’t have a union to do it for them) - the driver, seeing no way out other than a lengthy jail term - might just blow the whistle on all contributory bad practices out of self-defence rather than any spite.
Let’s put myself in this driver’s seat for the sake of argument: I’m given the option of “falling asleep, no medical reason found” which means the firm gets off scot free, and I go to jail OR "fell asleep because I was fasting" OR “Fell asleep because the firm’s medical didn’t pick up sleep apneoa” OR “Fell asleep because the firm worked me 15 hours the previous day, and were keeping on again today” … You get the picture?
It would be “bad practice” indeed if a systemic failing in the work practices themselves were left un-investigated to such an extent that the whole accident almost carbon copy - is inevitably going to happen again, as our social makeover progresses… In this example, I of course suggest that “London” is in an advance state of “Social Makeover” which has increased in attrition rate now we have Khaaan as Mayor.
“Politically correct argument” this ain’t of course. 
Questions that should be being asked:
Why was this guy so tired at the controls of a PSV with so many on it, in harms way?
What were the firm-sanctioned working practices on that day, that week, etc. that might in some way have contributed to this incident?
Why has it only happened now after all this time? - Has something gone badly wrong in working practices fairly recently that could have represented the tipping point in adverse probability?
What does the firm propose to eliminate the possibility of this happening again? - No point in waiting for “liability” to be proven before anyone gets up, as the next incident of this nature could literally be around the next corner, if it proves to be a bad practice that needs urgently turning over.
I’m sure if there were any facts that would have put this driver in the clear - they would have been released already. There’s no point pressing an innocent man, for instance if he had been shot, or had a laser shone in his eyes for instance.
Winseer:
Let’s put myself in this driver’s seat for the sake of argument: I’m given the option of “falling asleep, no medical reason found” which means the firm gets off scot free, and I go to jail OR "fell asleep because I was fasting" OR “Fell asleep because the firm’s medical didn’t pick up sleep apneoa” OR “Fell asleep because the firm worked me 15 hours the previous day, and were keeping on again today” … You get the picture?
Very unlikely that fasting was the reason – it’s November, fasting time this year was June/July. And if he was, fasting in November isn’t that taxing. More likely, barring any medical reason, he nodded off because he’d been up late into the night chatting online with someone.
Not to start an argument but indigojoes comment above (and nothing againsy you personally mate)is exactly what I’m talking about. If cctv were released showing the driver asleep at the wheel then you have all the armchair experts on Facebook etc all dissecting what happened and then what chance does the guy have of a fair trial with the jury pool already decided due to what they saw on a 20 second cctv video and an idea someone put in their head in the Facebook comments? The sun have released a video of a totally different driver filmed seven months ago and that has already made people’s minds up about this guy.
There was a murder up here of an Irish nurse and police released a picture of a guy they wanted to speak to as he was last seen with her and there were comments on social media saying things like “oh he done it alright, look at him”.
There were riots in LA in the 90s for Rodney king and he was painted as an innicent angel yet about 10% of people knew the whole story, they just decided based on someone’s 25 second grainy footage.
In my humble opinion there is no justification for releasing evidence in a case (esp when it’s still at investigation level) just to keep conspiracy nuts happy. The only way that happens is when someone wants to deflect blame from something else
^^^ Yup!