merc0447:
How about the people who authorised it instead of the event organiser, like the the council for example. I dont know the in’s and out’s of public fireworks displays but i bet you need permission of the fire brigade, council all sorts.
You do indeed. Police as well…
I can’t see what good prosecuting ( persecuting…? ) this fella is going to do, apart from giving some closure to the deceased’s families, perhaps? He has to live with the consequences of his alleged actions, surely that is punishment enough?
Yet again, the only winners in this tragedy will be the ambulance chasers…
merc0447:
How about the people who authorised it instead of the event organiser, like the the council for example. I dont know the in’s and out’s of public fireworks displays but i bet you need permission of the fire brigade, council all sorts.
You do indeed. Police as well…
I can’t see what good prosecuting ( persecuting…? ) this fella is going to do, apart from giving some closure to the deceased’s families, perhaps? He has to live with the consequences of his alleged actions, surely that is punishment enough?
Yet again, the only winners in this tragedy will be the ambulance chasers…
But is he?
In addition to that, on the assumption that this man is guilty as charged, but isn’t sentenced in some form, what deterrent exists for future ocorrances of a similar incident.
Mike-C:
Maybe we’re missing a trick here and people where not killed by the actions of incompetent driving but where actually killed by smoke inhalation ?
I don’t know if its just me, but I don’t think there’s any benefit to anyone, by prosecuting the event organiser, I personally think it was a tragic sequence of events…
mucker85:
Why don’t they just be done with it and sue God for making the fog. Without a doubt FOG was the main contribution.
You absolutely sure of that are you? I was there, well 100-125m from the Samworth lorries and the car buried in the under-run bar, there was no dense fog in that area when I passed, some back around further South. In my experience fog tends to give a reflection (from head lights) or diffusing (from oncoming lights) I didn’t see that in the area around Taunton.
I can accept that you may get fog banks but from what I saw, from what a colleague who was in the middle of that mess described, fog was not that big a contributor.
Mike-C:
Maybe we’re missing a trick here and people where not killed by the actions of incompetent driving but where actually killed by smoke inhalation ?
No doubt some were…trapped in burning vehicles.
Talk to any Coroner, and they’ll inform you that the vast majority of people who die in fires indeed die of “smoke inhalation” leading to “carbon monoxide poisoning” - but it’s the victim’s own burning bodies that are causing the “smoke”!
Not a very comforting piece of info at inquests, and usually left on the paperwork to be read, rather than read out aloud at court where there will likely be families in the public gallery.
Just a thought - if the guy who has been charged is found guilty his firm will have public liability insurance.
So there we have it. The insurance companies for the folks going northbound have a cash cow to milk, fingers to point.
It is not in the public interest surely to hang this guy out to dry because he may have had a contribution to awful events of that night but he could well be a fall guy. I feel sorry for him.
The insurance payouts must be, what, into the millions with the deaths and the vehicles to be replaced - then recovery fees etc etc and then the road had to fix up too where the blacktop had melted.
Socketset:
Just a thought - if the guy who has been charged is found guilty his firm will have public liability insurance.
So there we have it. The insurance companies for the folks going northbound have a cash cow to milk, fingers to point.
It is not in the public interest surely to hang this guy out to dry because he may have had a contribution to awful events of that night but he could well be a fall guy. I feel sorry for him.
The insurance payouts must be, what, into the millions with the deaths and the vehicles to be replaced - then recovery fees etc etc and then the road had to fix up too where the blacktop had melted.
It’s just a thought, what do you guys think?
Lets hope he DOES have public liability insurance…
It is in the public interest because, if found guilty, it will/should/hopefully serve as a deterrent/make him/others think better before holding an event.
In this particular case, when it boils down to the basic facts, no drivers can be held responsible due to insufficent evidence (would like to know where the cameras were pointing mind you, there are at least 2 that cover that stretch) and he is the only person left with any culpability.
Can’t see a manslaughter charge sticking to be honest, the main constituent of manslaughter is that someone has behaved so recklessly that a reasonable person could see that their actions might well lead to death, and that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Certainly the fact that he was been released on bail would suggest that the magistrates were leaning the same way.
Harry Monk:
Can’t see a manslaughter charge sticking to be honest, the main constituent of manslaughter is that someone has behaved so recklessly that a reasonable person could see that their actions might well lead to death, and that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Certainly the fact that he was been released on bail would suggest that the magistrates were leaning the same way.
You say that but they seem to be making a corporate type charge stick here when a branch fell and only injured someone.
I’m not a big fan of this sort of blame game but you can’t escape that having a fireworks display under a motorway does suggest a lack of common sense.
So on this basis, if a fatal accident happens on any of our roads due to standing water causing a car to aquaplane into whatever. At what government level will the court case for manslaughter be aimed.
We have thousands of deaths on our roads every year and surely a good amount of them are due to councils or the Highway authorities not looking after our roads properly. Maybe some of them should be prosecuted.
Own Account Driver:
I’m not a big fan of this sort of blame game but you can’t escape that having a fireworks display under a motorway does suggest a lack of common sense.
Perhaps someone from the world of Health & Safety, paid a bloated salary from the public ■■■■■, ought to have identified the risk and suggested that the firework display should not go ahead? It seems that it had taken place for several years prior to 2011 and nobody had ever suggested that it shouldn’t.
I don’t light a fire at the bottom of my garden if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction (towards neighbouring houses), so why wasn’t this simple precaution taken into consideration when lighting a fire next to a motorway at all? It’s not like it wasn’t there in the weeks leading upto the event… If anyone was worried about “the wind might be wrong on the night, but they were financially committed” then that goes a long way towards proving a corporate manslaughter charge doesn’t it?
Either someone did something lethal out of stupidity, or deliberately took risks because of costs.
As far as I know, insurance doesn’t cover people for killing others for the latter reason. How can it?
Even from a financial viewpoint, Lord McAlpine will probably get more compensation for being wrongly pointed at as a ■■■■■■■■■■ than all of the families of the M5 dead will get put together!
Some are more equal than others eh?
In my mind, there’s space in the dock for whatever pillock gave the rugby club permission to even BUILD a bonfire close to a motorway like that!
…Or did they decide on some guy called “Counsell” because it’s two bods for the price of one here? There should be someone else from the actual CounCIL in the dock as well I’m thinking!
its not right that this bloke should get done for the pile up
ok he had a bonfire or firework display near the motorway
he done that for excited young kids not to make people die on the motorway
i was on the M5 that night 2 hours before the accident
and it was bloody foggy
i believe if it wasnt so foggy the smoke from fireworks or bonfire would not have affected visability on the motorway
in my opinion the main reason why he will not be convicted is
THE FOG SENSOR WARNING LIGHTS WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE DRIVERS SLOW DOWN WERE NOT SWITCHED ON
SO HOW CAN THEY BLAME HIM
Winseer:
I don’t light a fire at the bottom of my garden if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction (towards neighbouring houses), so why wasn’t this simple precaution taken into consideration when lighting a fire next to a motorway at all? It’s not like it wasn’t there in the weeks leading upto the event… If anyone was worried about “the wind might be wrong on the night, but they were financially committed” then that goes a long way towards proving a corporate manslaughter charge doesn’t it?
Either someone did something lethal out of stupidity, or deliberately took risks because of costs.
As far as I know, insurance doesn’t cover people for killing others for the latter reason. How can it?
Even from a financial viewpoint, Lord McAlpine will probably get more compensation for being wrongly pointed at as a ■■■■■■■■■■ than all of the families of the M5 dead will get put together!
Some are more equal than others eh?
In my mind, there’s space in the dock for whatever pillock gave the rugby club permission to even BUILD a bonfire close to a motorway like that!
…Or did they decide on some guy called “Counsell” because it’s two bods for the price of one here? There should be someone else from the actual CounCIL in the dock as well I’m thinking!
No one lit a bonfire next to any neighbouring houses or a motorway
There was no bonfire at the Rugby club or anywhere near…
villa:
THE FOG SENSOR WARNING LIGHTS WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE DRIVERS SLOW DOWN WERE NOT SWITCHED ON
SO HOW CAN THEY BLAME HIM
No need to shout.
What are “the fog sensor warning lights”? Do you mean the matrix signs that say “FOG” when it’s foggy (and sometimes when it’s not)? Do drivers really need to be told when it’s foggy?
I was under the impression that we’re supposed to look where we’re going? If you see the word “FOG” displayed above you on a clear night, do you slow down? If it’s foggy and you can’t see your hand in front of your face but there is no sign above saying “FOG”, do you assume it isn’t foggy and carry on as normal?
Am I missing something here. Am I the incredibly stupid one or is it, as I suspect, the shouty man that is incredibly stupid?
FYI, the motorway fog warning lights on this section are manually operated at present. Additionally, “On the night of the crash the [Highways] agency said it did not receive any such reports [of fog] so the signs were not switched on.”:- bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-16135785.
All this continued speculation so long after the incident shows the need for a proper understanding of what happened in order to try to avoid a repetition, if possible. Unfortunately, it seems normal to find blame somewhere these days (or perhaps I should have used the word accountability?) so if we ever get to the whole truth, it may be through the trial.
