Anyone else up watching things unfold?

wrote

I think you will find that most of the Dutch security effort is deployed
along their border with Germany.

 

I think you're confusing "punishment" and "consequences"

 

We just had a good example here. A construction crew was digging for a
new water pipeline. They were in the same right of way as a gas
pipeline. They were told where it was, they were told to physically
locate it before digging. They failed to do anything right and now there
are 3 dead and 4 more they probably will die from the burns.

 

mups

That argument would absolve 90% of the Third Reich Waffen SS soldiers
or whoever guarded the concentration camps.

 

PeterT says...

There was an element of the troops guarding the camps who went beyond
the call of duty. Not all of them were sadists, and not all of them
treated their prisoners badly. I wouldn't put the figure at 90%.

 

PeterT says...

What percentage of Waffen SS soldiers or camp guards were actually brutal
sadists or just people trying to survive in what must have been an
impossible situation.

 

As in the "consequences" of running an armed check point with a car is
getting shot at and it is therefore not a punishment.

But you punish the soldier who is doing his job and it's not the
consequence of him being in the army?

 

The Nuremburg Defence [1] of "I was only following orders" didn't work
for any (IIRC) of those who used it as the tribunal ruled that the German
army rules (contained in the soldiers paybook) gave a soldier licence to
disobey an unlawful order.

For that matter one of the other defences "If I hadn't done it someone
far worse would have done.." didn't work either.


[1] As you should know....

 

sweller says...

I recall that many ex-captives testified at the trials and helped
exonerate some of those accused. Not *all* the camps guards were put on
trial, in fact very few of them were. Surely that's because not all of
them were guilty of unlawful acts.

I take it this is a reference to my grandfather's cousin?

 

You're quite right but I never said they were all guilty. Just the "I
was following orders" defence was ruled as not valid.

Yes.

 

Launchbury
() says...

I didn't get where I am today by not going around saying that if
teenagers play on the railway and get run over or electrocuted it's
their own fault.


--
<8P Wizard
Suzuki GS550 "I like that. Nicely shite" - TOG
Golf GTi 16v
ANORAK#17b BOMB#19 BOTAFOT#138 BREast#5 COFF#24
COSOC#8 DFV#11 STG#1

 

Wizard says...

And your point is...

 

failure New Cross Gate

 

As I said to Ferger above, "...can you think of a SENSIBLE reason...?"

And sensible isn't the same as plausible.

Just to clarify... can you think of any reason for running an armed
checkpoint that doesn't involve the checkpoint-runner being a terrorist
or a fuckwit?

<Sigh>

No-one's taking about execution as a court-imposed, considered-at-
leisure penalty.

We're talking about things that happen in a few seconds under great
stress.

--
<8P Wizard
Suzuki GS550 "I like that. Nicely shite" - TOG
Golf GTi 16v
ANORAK#17b BOMB#19 BOTAFOT#138 BREast#5 COFF#24
COSOC#8 DFV#11 STG#1

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4004313.stm

Mined ewe, having seen the byline, you *might* want to take it with a
pinch of salt.
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/KH500A8/TS250C
|_\_____/_| ..73063../..16931.../..3180./.19406
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 YTC#4 PM#5
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 two#11 WG*
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4
'^'

 

If teenagers play on the railway and get run over or electrocuted it's
their own fault.

(Des- this is *not* the same as advocating the death penalty for playing
on the railway, OK?)


--
<8P Wizard
Suzuki GS550 "I like that. Nicely shite" - TOG
Golf GTi 16v
ANORAK#17b BOMB#19 BOTAFOT#138 BREast#5 COFF#24
COSOC#8 DFV#11 STG#1

 

Erm... teenager on the line at....







(wait for it)






Mornington Crescent!


--
<8P Wizard
Suzuki GS550 "I like that. Nicely shite" - TOG
Golf GTi 16v
ANORAK#17b BOMB#19 BOTAFOT#138 BREast#5 COFF#24
COSOC#8 DFV#11 STG#1

 

Ah... ackshirley, I was going to ask you a question.

There was something in the Grauniad today about the driver in the Ufton
Nervet crash applying his brakes when the car 'loomed out of the
darkness at him'.

Does that mean rural level crossings are unlit?

'cos ISTM that if the level crossing had been lit up, he could have seen
the car sooner, braked sooner, and the accident would have been less
severe. OK, still serious, but less serious.

--
<8P Wizard
Suzuki GS550 "I like that. Nicely shite" - TOG
Golf GTi 16v
ANORAK#17b BOMB#19 BOTAFOT#138 BREast#5 COFF#24
COSOC#8 DFV#11 STG#1

 

On the whole, yes.

I doubt it would have made a great deal of difference given sighting and
braking distances.

There are technological solutions [1] but the timings on automatic
crossings are very tight. I know of a number over routes I work (highish
speed ~70-90 mph) where I can see the cars still legitimately crossing
with the barriers up as I approach with, I'm guessing, about 45 seconds
to go.



[1] Something, IIRC, using doppler type detection with TPWS trip grids on
the approach to a xing.

 

Meant to add this isn't train borne radar but crossing mounted detection.

Oh, if you read yesterday's Torygraph with the letter attributing the
derailment to juddering brake effect; absolute wank.