Longrider

A comment on the Hatfield entry set my thoughts in motion. Rather than go on at length on the comments section (although I did already), I thought I would enlarge here.

There are plenty of myths flying about regarding the industry. One being that Railtrack (subsequently Network Rail) and other privately owned rail companies pay fat salaries to senior executives who put profits before people. This just isn’t true; the fat salaries bit is, just not the callous indifference to the safety of the travelling public. People who work in the industry do so because they believe in what it is trying to achieve - a safe, reliable and affordable system of mass transport. Rail workers are a passionate group of people who want the industry to succeed. And, it is a transport system most of us use ourselves. You might argue with some degree of justification that senior executives are overpaid. But, bear in mind that a failure to achieve will result in instant dismissal. That fat salary cushions the blow. It’s part of the overall bargain. Private or nationalized, the industry would still have to play that game.

The issue of whether people at this level should be held personally liable for catastrophic failure is another matter. Take, for example, Hatfield. To secure a prosecution for manslaughter, it would be necessary to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that senior executives in Railtrack and Balfour Beatty knew that the track was deteriorating and made a conscious decision - knowing full well the likely outcome of that decision - not to impose a speed restriction. That is not what happened at all. A patrolman discovered the problem and the decision not to impose the speed restriction was made at a fairly low level in Balfour Beatty’s organisation.

At about the same time, senior engineers in both companies were aware of gauge corner cracking and were trying to impose a programme of relaying to compensate. This was dogged with another problem - track access. Planning access to close the line for major relaying involves negotiating with the train operators and the companies who will carry out the work. This can involve delays for a variety of reasons; availability of people and equipment, train timetables and rules of the route agreements are just a couple of the problems faced. So there you have it, deteriorating track that was generally known about at a fairly high level, but not necessarily the degree of deterioration along with a plan to relay that didn’t happen and deteriorating track that was known about in detail at a low level combined with a bad decision.

It would be difficult - if not impossible - to draw a line of responsibility from that point where the decision was made to the boardroom. These people do not make that kind of decision, they make policy. So, do you prosecute the low level decision maker or the policy maker? Perhaps it would be best to first ask why that decision was made.

Following privatization, a penalty regime was set up whereby Railtrack made penalty payments to train operating companies when trains ran late as a result of infrastructure problems. Railtrack recouped some of this from their maintainers. The regime was so severe, that when faced with the decision about imposing speed restrictions now or waiting a few weeks, the person faced with that decision opted to wait rather than risk penalty payments and censure from his managers. If we are to criticize, we should be looking at the people who created that situation. However, before we put them in the dock, we have to ask; would they have been aware that this would be the outcome of their deliberations? And, if we can show that, can we prove it beyond reasonable doubt to a jury?

That is why the prosecutions for manslaughter failed. There was no direct link between the senior executives charged and the decision making on the ground. These charges should never have been brought.

Instead of imposing a blame culture and indulging in media driven witch hunts, we should be seeking to improve the safe systems on our rail industry by improving competence management systems throughout, improving relationships within the industry, making the penalty regime more fair and simplifying the safety systems so that they work rather than tie the industry up in red tape.

One of the arguments raging about Identity Cards is the matter of security. The government would like us to believe that its proposed identity register will be secure. Those who live in the real world realise that any database is only as secure as its operatives. Also, putting everything into one place provides a single point of failure - which anyone with an ounce of common sense recognises is a really, really bad idea. Unless you are the home secretary, then common sense is not a job requirement; merely a fanatical desire to implement the equally fanatical prime minister’s pet project irrespective of whether it is a good idea, whether it will do what is proposed and stuff peoples’ personal privacy concerns because they don’t count.

This little story illustrates just what weakness there is in such a proposal:

“Kendrix started working in a West Seattle licensing branch, processing driver’s license applications and renewals, in June 2001. She began issuing the fake IDs in early 2004, until an anonymous tip to law enforcement revealed her practices and she was arrested last May.”

As the judge pointed out (a statement of the blindingly obvious to those prepared to exercise the little grey cells)

“This is about the most dangerous kind of fake ID we can have out there,” Lasnik said. “It’s like having a skeleton key to get into anybody’s house or anybody’s car, and you can rob anybody you want to.”

It would be nice to think that the control freaks in Whitehall are taking notice of cases such as this, but I’m not holding my breath.
—–

So finally, after five years, Hatfield can be put to bed. Today the high court fined Network Rail £3.5m and Balfour Beatty £10m. These are record fines and given the gross negligence involved, well deserved. This case has been dogged with controversy because the corporate manslaughter charges and health and safety charges against individuals failed. The failure of these prosecutions was a good thing.

“The Safe Trains Action Group welcomed the severity of the fines imposed today.

Carol Bell, the organisation’s vice chair, said: “We have said that there have to be bigger, swingeing fines for companies, and it’s good to see that there have been in this case.”

However, Ms Bell - who was injured in the 1997 Southall train crash, which claimed seven lives - said she was disappointed that prosecutions for manslaughter and corporate manslaughter had failed in this case and in other previous cases.

“It’s terrible that people can be in charge of companies involved in these crashes and get away with it,” she said.

“If they knew they could go to jail, maybe they would take safety more seriously. I would support any change in the corporate manslaughter laws. There has been plenty of talk about changing them, but nothing seems to be happening.”"

Ms Bell is hopelessly wrong and demonstrates by her comments that she has little understanding of the industry’s machinations and human nature despite an obvious involvement through the action group.

While the safety management systems in Railtrack left much to be desired, it is not true that the privatised rail companies put profit before people as has been popularly claimed nor was it true that there was a culture that led to a cavalier attitude towards safety. Certainly senior executives are not “getting away with it” as she claims.

If anything, the opposite was true. People became so obsessed with safety that the industry was crippled by executives and managers being unwilling to make a decision because of it. Believe me, I’ve been there. Getting someone to make a decision based upon a reasoned assessment of risk becomes a nightmare when they are required to put a signature to the final documentation. This is because they can hear the clanging of the cell door in their heads and not without reason. People like Ms Bell are lining up to turn the key. The culture in recent years has been one of revenge, of hounding individuals for the failure of safety systems that led to death on the railways. Given that, a change to the status quo means putting one’s name to a decision that could, in retrospect, be proved erroneous leading to personal liability and people are reluctant to take that risk. Even in my own area of competence management I came across this inertia created by an unwillingness to be the one to be seen to make the crucial decision - even when people realised that such a decision was necessary and that the current situation was untenable. The result tends to be decision by committee which means all too often no decision at all. Ms Bell’s desire for revenge would just produce more inertia and not as she would wish, improved safety systems.

The rail industry needs talented, motivated people to make it work effectively. Holding the threat of imprisonment over them will merely cause those talented and motivated people to seek a career elsewhere to the detriment of the rail industry. Sometimes, if you read the newspapers and watch the television and listen to people like Carol Bell, you might be forgiven for thinking that rail industry executives are bloodsucking leeches who think that killing their customers is the best way to make a profit. It isn’t true, of course. It never was. But then, a little matter such as the truth never stopped a good myth…

Further to my comments yesterday about appeasing Muslim sensibilities, prison officers have been told they must not wear tie pins displaying the flag of St George because it may upset Muslim inmates who are still offended by the Crusades.

“Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.

“A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history,” he told CNN. “They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.

“Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It’s also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral.”

Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is “not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with.”"

Just how far must we go with abasing ourselves in dhimmitude before becoming subsumed by the yoke of Islamic oppression? The issue here is not that prison officers have been told not to wear tie pins displaying an emblem, but the reason given for it. Yes, the Crusades were an appalling period in our history - but they were carried out by a people who are long dead; around 800 years dead. If we are going to nurse long gone grudges, shouldn’t the Islamic world be apologising for their slave raids of 1625? This coin has two sides. Or perhaps we should just recognise that we are living in the 21st Century and rub along together. This means tolerating our differences and not letting it worry us. In practice, it means that in the mosque, church or home, people can indulge in whatever fanciful belief system they wish - and in public places, such as places of work, keeping one’s faith to oneself and not worrying too much if a co-worker wants to wear a St George’s cross on his tie pin or drink from a piglet mug. That is true tolerance; recognising that while ostensibly a Christian nation, we are really a secular one and I would hope that we remain so. For, unlike societies ruled by religious law, ours is one where you can express yourself and your individuality. We lose this at our peril.

And, frankly, why shouldn’t church towers fly the cross of St George? Is this not the English flag? This is England after all. Accusations that it has been hijacked by the far right just don’t hold water. It is our national flag and we should seize it back from the hijackers rather than meekly acquiesce.

If Mr Doyle wants to change our flag in a misguided attempt to appease Islam, he will have a fight on his hands. This flag is not racist, it is our national flag. I’m not offended by the crescent, Muslims have no business being offended by the cross - although I’m rather more inclined to the view that most Muslims aren’t. It is the Dhimmis such as Mr Doyle who are the problem.

Mark Steyn has picked up on some of the politically correct lunacy that is occurring in the Midlands.

“Alas, the United Kingdom’s descent into dhimmitude is beyond parody. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Tory-controlled) has now announced that, following a complaint by a Muslim employee, all work pictures and knick-knacks of novelty pigs and “pig-related items” will be banned. Among the verboten items is one employee’s box of tissues, because it features a representation of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. And, as we know, Muslims regard pigs as “unclean”, even an anthropomorphised cartoon pig wearing a scarf and a bright, colourful singlet.”

I’m inclined to utter those words made so immortal by Victor Meldrew… But, really, I do believe it.

It gets worse:

“Cllr Mahbubur Rahman is in favour of the blanket pig crackdown. “It is a good thing, it is a tolerance and acceptance of their beliefs and understanding,”"

Is it bollocks! This is not tolerance; it is forcing the belief systems of one group onto another - that is not even remotely tolerant; it is bullying, pure and simple.

Okay, so Muslims find pigs unclean. Well, that’s their problem - no one is making them eat pork. However, the presence of pigs - in this case a caricature - is not designed to cause offence and if it does, that is the fault of the offended party and no one else. I for one refuse absolutely to be dictated to by people who follow an archaic, brutal, primitive, misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant belief system that requires subjugation to an imaginary omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being. Therefore, if I want to display a picture of a pig in my home or on my website, I damn well will. Indeed, I might even fancy a spot of pork for Sunday lunch.

Further to my comments about Neu Labour’s use and abuse of the anti terrorism legislation to stifle dissent, the Scotsman carries a rather disturbing statistic today. During the five days of the Labour Party conference, 600 people were detained by the police under the powers of the anti terrorism legislation. Yes, you read it right 600 people, that’s 120 per day. My word, that’s a lot of suspected terrorists…

A spokesman for the Home Office was in defiant mood when defending this outrageous behaviour:

“Stop and search under Section 44 is an important tool in the on-going fight against terrorism.

“The powers help to deter terrorist activity by creating a hostile environment for terrorists.”

He added that the justification for authorising the use of the powers was “intelligence-led and based on an assessment of the threat against the UK.”

Clearly he and I have differing views on the meaning of intelligence.

I keep hearing a good deal about respect lately. If it isn’t our esteemed leader pontificating about his respect agenda, well, blow me, there it is on the BBC this morning. Apparently some colonel Blimp types decided that the “ties off look” used on the lunchtime politics programme showed a lack of respect. The more casual approach was felt by the programmers to be more appropriate for the content and style of the material being covered. Unfortunately, they acquiesced to this bullying and the ties are back on.

From dictionary.com:

re spect
tr.v. re spect ed, re spect ing, re spects

1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.

n.

1. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. See Synonyms at regard.
2. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.
3. Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.
4. Respects Polite expressions of consideration or deference: pay one’s respects.
5. A particular aspect, feature, or detail: In many respects this is an important decision.
6. Usage Problem. Relation; reference. See Usage Note at regard.

Now while a shabby appearance may infer a lack of self-respect, not wearing a tie has no relevance to respect whatsoever. How, exactly, does not wearing a tie show a lack of deference? And, perhaps more importantly; why should someone show deference anyway? Does the person being deferred to deserve it? Are they worthy of a show of deference? Have they earned respect? I generally take the line that someone who defers to people they regard as their betters in an uncritical manner is lacking in self-respect - and self-respect must be where it all starts. Indeed, they are not our betters; there is no such thing; we are all born equal. Those who command respect subsequently do so because they have done something worthwhile. Being wealthy, in a position of power or aristocratic does not qualify. Interestingly, those who fall into these groups usually are worthy of contempt rather than respect although this doesn’t stop the press pack tripping over themselves to indulge in a bit of mass brown-nosing…

And, there’s the rub. Unlike Tony Blair who seems to think respect is something to do with abject obedience to New Labour’s agenda (and, doubtless, those in power), respect is something we grant to those who have shown themselves by their behaviour as being deserving of it. Just being interviewed on television does not mean that someone is deserving of any particular respect by either the interviewer or the viewing public. Politeness, yes; but respect? Well, if they have earned it; indeed. Otherwise, why should they be treated any differently from you or I?

Is it me, or do those who keep deciding that we should show more respect are those who not only fail to understand what it means, but are also those least deserving of it themselves?