Man survives collision with train in Southampton

Daily Echo: Man survives collision with train Man survives collision with train

A MAN is understood to be conscious in hospital today after miraculously surviving a collision with a train.

The 29-year-old, from Hythe, was hit by a train travelling from Southampton Central to Totton at around 7.45pm yesterday.

All services between Southampton Central and Brockenhurst were halted while police and paramedics attended the scene, near Millbrook station, last night.

Passengers were initially told that the trespasser on the tracks had died.

However British Transport Police confirmed this morning that he had survived the incident and been rushed to Southampton General Hospital for emergency treatment.

The Daily Echo understands that he was sat up conscious and eating this morning, despite suffering serious injuries.

A spokesman for British Transport Police said: “BTP officers were called to the rail line in Millbrook, Southampton, on Friday, 23 November after a man was struck by a passing train.

“The injured man was taken to Southampton General Hospital by South Central Ambulance Service medics. “He currently remains in hospital with what are thought to be serious head and arm injuries. His family have been notified.

“The incident was reported to BTP at 7.31pm and is currently being treated as non-suspicious, although officers will make inquiries to establish why the man was walking alongside the tracks at the time.”

Anyone with information should contact British Transport Police on 0800 40 50 40, quoting reference 537 of November 23.

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:51pm Sat 24 Nov 12

SpLiDgE says...

Glad your irresponsible inaccurate correspondence has been fixed. But you should do something nice for the family for falsely reporting the worse news anyone could read about a loved one.
Glad your irresponsible inaccurate correspondence has been fixed. But you should do something nice for the family for falsely reporting the worse news anyone could read about a loved one. SpLiDgE

1:06pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Here, There says...

I am sure those that matter were not awaiting updates on their loved ones condition from The Echo so a bit dramatic on your part considering the individual is not named.
I am sure those that matter were not awaiting updates on their loved ones condition from The Echo so a bit dramatic on your part considering the individual is not named. Here, There

1:18pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Linesman says...

Here, There wrote:
I am sure those that matter were not awaiting updates on their loved ones condition from The Echo so a bit dramatic on your part considering the individual is not named.
Agreed. Reasonable to assume that, on hearing the news, they would have headed for the hospital to be with him and not bothered to read The Echo.

There always seems to be a 'holier than thou' person ready to criticise. My experience is that they are usually 'under the thumb' individuals, who are restricted to 'yes dear' and 'no dear' at home.
[quote][p][bold]Here, There[/bold] wrote: I am sure those that matter were not awaiting updates on their loved ones condition from The Echo so a bit dramatic on your part considering the individual is not named.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Reasonable to assume that, on hearing the news, they would have headed for the hospital to be with him and not bothered to read The Echo. There always seems to be a 'holier than thou' person ready to criticise. My experience is that they are usually 'under the thumb' individuals, who are restricted to 'yes dear' and 'no dear' at home. Linesman

1:19pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Vonnie says...

SpLiDgE wrote:
Glad your irresponsible inaccurate correspondence has been fixed. But you should do something nice for the family for falsely reporting the worse news anyone could read about a loved one.
Why? I don't remember any names being mentioned, so how would relatives have known until they were officially told by the police? The Echo was reporting what the passengers had been told. Admittedly, they should check any information that they are given, as they should their sentence composition.
The grammer in the sentence starting "The Daily Echo understands that he was sat up ..." is appalling.
[quote][p][bold]SpLiDgE[/bold] wrote: Glad your irresponsible inaccurate correspondence has been fixed. But you should do something nice for the family for falsely reporting the worse news anyone could read about a loved one.[/p][/quote]Why? I don't remember any names being mentioned, so how would relatives have known until they were officially told by the police? The Echo was reporting what the passengers had been told. Admittedly, they should check any information that they are given, as they should their sentence composition. The grammer in the sentence starting "The Daily Echo understands that he was sat up ..." is appalling. Vonnie

1:22pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

I did think the original story was a little off because drivers don't announce that what they hit has died, just that they hit something, I was on a train heading to Birmingham once that hit a cow and all they announced was that they were the driver and that we had hit a cow, obviously the reporter was talking to a passenger that assumed the guy was dead because he was hit by a train, though under normal circumstances that would normally be the correct assumption as you wouldn't expect someone to survive being hit by a lump of steel that weighs a few thousand Tonnes that is rolling at whatever the speed limit on that part of the line is with wheels that are almost like giant pizza cutters and all sorts of stuff on the end to be impaled by but I hope the guy recovers well as he is one lucky man but then he will also have a few questions to answer.
I did think the original story was a little off because drivers don't announce that what they hit has died, just that they hit something, I was on a train heading to Birmingham once that hit a cow and all they announced was that they were the driver and that we had hit a cow, obviously the reporter was talking to a passenger that assumed the guy was dead because he was hit by a train, though under normal circumstances that would normally be the correct assumption as you wouldn't expect someone to survive being hit by a lump of steel that weighs a few thousand Tonnes that is rolling at whatever the speed limit on that part of the line is with wheels that are almost like giant pizza cutters and all sorts of stuff on the end to be impaled by but I hope the guy recovers well as he is one lucky man but then he will also have a few questions to answer. Ginger_cyclist

1:26pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Forest Resident says...

Given the trauma no doubt caused to the train driver and indeed the cost of the delays to the hundreds (if not thousands) of people on board the trains, I sincerely hope this selfish individual is charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' or some other suitable criminal offence. I appreciate some people find life too much to take but there's no excuse for inflicting your chosen way out on innocent bystanders.
Given the trauma no doubt caused to the train driver and indeed the cost of the delays to the hundreds (if not thousands) of people on board the trains, I sincerely hope this selfish individual is charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' or some other suitable criminal offence. I appreciate some people find life too much to take but there's no excuse for inflicting your chosen way out on innocent bystanders. Forest Resident

1:40pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Linesman says...

Forest Resident wrote:
Given the trauma no doubt caused to the train driver and indeed the cost of the delays to the hundreds (if not thousands) of people on board the trains, I sincerely hope this selfish individual is charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' or some other suitable criminal offence. I appreciate some people find life too much to take but there's no excuse for inflicting your chosen way out on innocent bystanders.
I think that you are jumping to conclusions.

What information have you got that indicates that there was a 'selfish individual' involved?

Are you suggesting that this was a suicide attempt?

Had you considered that the person from Hythe could possibly have been a railway employee?

Let us wait until we know the full story before we jump to conclusions and make judgements without the evidence.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: Given the trauma no doubt caused to the train driver and indeed the cost of the delays to the hundreds (if not thousands) of people on board the trains, I sincerely hope this selfish individual is charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' or some other suitable criminal offence. I appreciate some people find life too much to take but there's no excuse for inflicting your chosen way out on innocent bystanders.[/p][/quote]I think that you are jumping to conclusions. What information have you got that indicates that there was a 'selfish individual' involved? Are you suggesting that this was a suicide attempt? Had you considered that the person from Hythe could possibly have been a railway employee? Let us wait until we know the full story before we jump to conclusions and make judgements without the evidence. Linesman

1:50pm Sat 24 Nov 12

ck12001 says...

Thank you linesman. It was not a suicide attempt,please before anyone comments again make sure you know all the facts!
Thank you linesman. It was not a suicide attempt,please before anyone comments again make sure you know all the facts! ck12001

2:18pm Sat 24 Nov 12

andysaints007 says...

SpLiDgE wrote:
Glad your irresponsible inaccurate correspondence has been fixed. But you should do something nice for the family for falsely reporting the worse news anyone could read about a loved one.
IDIOT
[quote][p][bold]SpLiDgE[/bold] wrote: Glad your irresponsible inaccurate correspondence has been fixed. But you should do something nice for the family for falsely reporting the worse news anyone could read about a loved one.[/p][/quote]IDIOT andysaints007

2:30pm Sat 24 Nov 12

chunky_lover says...

"Man survives collision with train in Southampton" - Fairplay!
"Man survives collision with train in Southampton" - Fairplay! chunky_lover

3:10pm Sat 24 Nov 12

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
Given the trauma no doubt caused to the train driver and indeed the cost of the delays to the hundreds (if not thousands) of people on board the trains, I sincerely hope this selfish individual is charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' or some other suitable criminal offence. I appreciate some people find life too much to take but there's no excuse for inflicting your chosen way out on innocent bystanders.
I think that you are jumping to conclusions.

What information have you got that indicates that there was a 'selfish individual' involved?

Are you suggesting that this was a suicide attempt?

Had you considered that the person from Hythe could possibly have been a railway employee?

Let us wait until we know the full story before we jump to conclusions and make judgements without the evidence.
Was going to say he or she could of been a linesman
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: Given the trauma no doubt caused to the train driver and indeed the cost of the delays to the hundreds (if not thousands) of people on board the trains, I sincerely hope this selfish individual is charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' or some other suitable criminal offence. I appreciate some people find life too much to take but there's no excuse for inflicting your chosen way out on innocent bystanders.[/p][/quote]I think that you are jumping to conclusions. What information have you got that indicates that there was a 'selfish individual' involved? Are you suggesting that this was a suicide attempt? Had you considered that the person from Hythe could possibly have been a railway employee? Let us wait until we know the full story before we jump to conclusions and make judgements without the evidence.[/p][/quote]Was going to say he or she could of been a linesman southy

3:14pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Forest Resident says...

The use of the term 'trespasser' in the article and no mention of any involvement by HSE (mandatory in industrial workplace accidents) suggests this isn't an incident involving an employee.
The use of the term 'trespasser' in the article and no mention of any involvement by HSE (mandatory in industrial workplace accidents) suggests this isn't an incident involving an employee. Forest Resident

3:54pm Sat 24 Nov 12

SpLiDgE says...

For your information the person is a life long friend and just like many other friends and family waiting and finding information out, Its not nice to read upon the original article and jump to the conclusion that the worst has happened before the true facts was passed on to us. If any charges should be made, it should be the SCC for the unsafe (and known for many years) footpath located at this site. The rusted decaying fences and no lights above head. Learn the truth before you keyboard worriers start arguing among yourselves.
For your information the person is a life long friend and just like many other friends and family waiting and finding information out, Its not nice to read upon the original article and jump to the conclusion that the worst has happened before the true facts was passed on to us. If any charges should be made, it should be the SCC for the unsafe (and known for many years) footpath located at this site. The rusted decaying fences and no lights above head. Learn the truth before you keyboard worriers start arguing among yourselves. SpLiDgE

4:04pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Linesman says...

Forest Resident wrote:
The use of the term 'trespasser' in the article and no mention of any involvement by HSE (mandatory in industrial workplace accidents) suggests this isn't an incident involving an employee.
'Passengers were INITIALLY told that the trespasser on the tracks had died.'

Like yourself, someone else was obviously jumping to conclusions, because the person had not died.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: The use of the term 'trespasser' in the article and no mention of any involvement by HSE (mandatory in industrial workplace accidents) suggests this isn't an incident involving an employee.[/p][/quote]'Passengers were INITIALLY told that the trespasser on the tracks had died.' Like yourself, someone else was obviously jumping to conclusions, because the person had not died. Linesman

4:10pm Sat 24 Nov 12

userds5050 says...

andysaints007 wrote:
SpLiDgE wrote:
Glad your irresponsible inaccurate correspondence has been fixed. But you should do something nice for the family for falsely reporting the worse news anyone could read about a loved one.
IDIOT
If you haven't got anything constructive to say don't say anything. You seem to be making a habit of slagging people without the full facts. At the end of the day the Echo got the story wrong. There will be plenty of people who are not close family, not at the hospital looking on here for updates.
[quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpLiDgE[/bold] wrote: Glad your irresponsible inaccurate correspondence has been fixed. But you should do something nice for the family for falsely reporting the worse news anyone could read about a loved one.[/p][/quote]IDIOT[/p][/quote]If you haven't got anything constructive to say don't say anything. You seem to be making a habit of slagging people without the full facts. At the end of the day the Echo got the story wrong. There will be plenty of people who are not close family, not at the hospital looking on here for updates. userds5050

4:13pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Forest Resident says...

My conclusions are perfectly reasonable based upon the information as reported in the article, if you're offended by them then don't read them, its not a tribute page after all. The free press we enjoy also entitles readers to 'fair comment' which is all anybody here is doing.
My conclusions are perfectly reasonable based upon the information as reported in the article, if you're offended by them then don't read them, its not a tribute page after all. The free press we enjoy also entitles readers to 'fair comment' which is all anybody here is doing. Forest Resident

4:26pm Sat 24 Nov 12

userds5050 says...

Forest Resident wrote:
My conclusions are perfectly reasonable based upon the information as reported in the article, if you're offended by them then don't read them, its not a tribute page after all. The free press we enjoy also entitles readers to 'fair comment' which is all anybody here is doing.
There are also libel laws in this country. You don't know why the individual was on the line. There's no information about it in the article. There's nothing fair about your comments.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: My conclusions are perfectly reasonable based upon the information as reported in the article, if you're offended by them then don't read them, its not a tribute page after all. The free press we enjoy also entitles readers to 'fair comment' which is all anybody here is doing.[/p][/quote]There are also libel laws in this country. You don't know why the individual was on the line. There's no information about it in the article. There's nothing fair about your comments. userds5050

4:35pm Sat 24 Nov 12

ck12001 says...

Forest Resident wrote:
My conclusions are perfectly reasonable based upon the information as reported in the article, if you're offended by them then don't read them, its not a tribute page after all. The free press we enjoy also entitles readers to 'fair comment' which is all anybody here is doing.
you are entitled to a opinion but when you jump to conclusions about a suicide attempt and talk about charges whilst hes in a bad way is very upsetting for our family.He is a human being after all not just something to gossip rubbish about and jump to conclusions! No its not a tribute page but who are you to say what charges he should faces!
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: My conclusions are perfectly reasonable based upon the information as reported in the article, if you're offended by them then don't read them, its not a tribute page after all. The free press we enjoy also entitles readers to 'fair comment' which is all anybody here is doing.[/p][/quote]you are entitled to a opinion but when you jump to conclusions about a suicide attempt and talk about charges whilst hes in a bad way is very upsetting for our family.He is a human being after all not just something to gossip rubbish about and jump to conclusions! No its not a tribute page but who are you to say what charges he should faces! ck12001

4:36pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Forest Resident says...

The article clearly uses the term 'trespassing', it's a perfectly reasonable assertion therefore that the involved person could have attempted suicide. To be libellous I would have to name the individual, just because you may know them does not make it libel, it remains 'fair comment' based purely on the details of the article.
The article clearly uses the term 'trespassing', it's a perfectly reasonable assertion therefore that the involved person could have attempted suicide. To be libellous I would have to name the individual, just because you may know them does not make it libel, it remains 'fair comment' based purely on the details of the article. Forest Resident

4:41pm Sat 24 Nov 12

ck12001 says...

well you are wrong like many others! It was not a suicide attempt.
well you are wrong like many others! It was not a suicide attempt. ck12001

5:01pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Linesman says...

Forest Resident wrote:
My conclusions are perfectly reasonable based upon the information as reported in the article, if you're offended by them then don't read them, its not a tribute page after all. The free press we enjoy also entitles readers to 'fair comment' which is all anybody here is doing.
I am not offended, just disappointed that someone should make such comments when they are not aware of the FACTS.

That someone should appear more concerned about possible delays and cost than they were about the possible loss of someone's life indicates to me someone who puts more value on material things than they do the precious gift of life.

That someone wants a person charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' before they know exactly how this incident took place, indicates a person who, if selected for Jury service, would find the defendant Guilty before hearing their defence.

To assume that, just because someone has been hit by a train, it must be a suicide attempt, means that they cannot understand that it is a possible accident, which shows a lack of thought before condemning the victim.

So much for conclusions that are perfectly reasonable based on the information as reported in the article.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: My conclusions are perfectly reasonable based upon the information as reported in the article, if you're offended by them then don't read them, its not a tribute page after all. The free press we enjoy also entitles readers to 'fair comment' which is all anybody here is doing.[/p][/quote]I am not offended, just disappointed that someone should make such comments when they are not aware of the FACTS. That someone should appear more concerned about possible delays and cost than they were about the possible loss of someone's life indicates to me someone who puts more value on material things than they do the precious gift of life. That someone wants a person charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' before they know exactly how this incident took place, indicates a person who, if selected for Jury service, would find the defendant Guilty before hearing their defence. To assume that, just because someone has been hit by a train, it must be a suicide attempt, means that they cannot understand that it is a possible accident, which shows a lack of thought before condemning the victim. So much for conclusions that are perfectly reasonable based on the information as reported in the article. Linesman

5:46pm Sat 24 Nov 12

userds5050 says...

Forest Resident wrote:
The article clearly uses the term 'trespassing', it's a perfectly reasonable assertion therefore that the involved person could have attempted suicide. To be libellous I would have to name the individual, just because you may know them does not make it libel, it remains 'fair comment' based purely on the details of the article.
What are you talking about? So because it says "trespassing" it must be a suicide attempt? WTF! Again, there could have been a number of reason he was on the line. You're just speculating.
Also, in the light of the BBC, ITV paying damages to Lord McAlpine you don't need to have named someone to have libelled them if their name later comes out in the public domain. Think on.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: The article clearly uses the term 'trespassing', it's a perfectly reasonable assertion therefore that the involved person could have attempted suicide. To be libellous I would have to name the individual, just because you may know them does not make it libel, it remains 'fair comment' based purely on the details of the article.[/p][/quote]What are you talking about? So because it says "trespassing" it must be a suicide attempt? WTF! Again, there could have been a number of reason he was on the line. You're just speculating. Also, in the light of the BBC, ITV paying damages to Lord McAlpine you don't need to have named someone to have libelled them if their name later comes out in the public domain. Think on. userds5050

5:59pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

SpLiDgE wrote:
For your information the person is a life long friend and just like many other friends and family waiting and finding information out, Its not nice to read upon the original article and jump to the conclusion that the worst has happened before the true facts was passed on to us. If any charges should be made, it should be the SCC for the unsafe (and known for many years) footpath located at this site. The rusted decaying fences and no lights above head. Learn the truth before you keyboard worriers start arguing among yourselves.
He is one lucky man to still be alive and I hope he can pull through but to say it's the councils fault is wrong, it is network rail who you should be pointing fingers at for poor maintenance, the railways (and any railway structures such as stations, bridges, footpaths and tunnels) are their property after all, so it is down to them to make it as unlikely as possible for people to end up on the line in any situation, not the councils responsibility but on the other hand, SSC should have passed those concerns onto network rail, if it's found that they didn't then they would be prosecuted for failing to notify the appropriate people but then SSC like to make sure they can pass the blame quickly so they probably did notify network rail, either way, in the end it still falls down to it being network rails responsibility, again I hope your friend pulls through.
[quote][p][bold]SpLiDgE[/bold] wrote: For your information the person is a life long friend and just like many other friends and family waiting and finding information out, Its not nice to read upon the original article and jump to the conclusion that the worst has happened before the true facts was passed on to us. If any charges should be made, it should be the SCC for the unsafe (and known for many years) footpath located at this site. The rusted decaying fences and no lights above head. Learn the truth before you keyboard worriers start arguing among yourselves.[/p][/quote]He is one lucky man to still be alive and I hope he can pull through but to say it's the councils fault is wrong, it is network rail who you should be pointing fingers at for poor maintenance, the railways (and any railway structures such as stations, bridges, footpaths and tunnels) are their property after all, so it is down to them to make it as unlikely as possible for people to end up on the line in any situation, not the councils responsibility but on the other hand, SSC should have passed those concerns onto network rail, if it's found that they didn't then they would be prosecuted for failing to notify the appropriate people but then SSC like to make sure they can pass the blame quickly so they probably did notify network rail, either way, in the end it still falls down to it being network rails responsibility, again I hope your friend pulls through. Ginger_cyclist

5:59pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Forest Resident says...

I've thought on, and I stand by my reasonable comments based upon the above written article. God bless free speech.
I've thought on, and I stand by my reasonable comments based upon the above written article. God bless free speech. Forest Resident

6:03pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

userds5050 wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
The article clearly uses the term 'trespassing', it's a perfectly reasonable assertion therefore that the involved person could have attempted suicide. To be libellous I would have to name the individual, just because you may know them does not make it libel, it remains 'fair comment' based purely on the details of the article.
What are you talking about? So because it says "trespassing" it must be a suicide attempt? WTF! Again, there could have been a number of reason he was on the line. You're just speculating.
Also, in the light of the BBC, ITV paying damages to Lord McAlpine you don't need to have named someone to have libelled them if their name later comes out in the public domain. Think on.
Sounds like what my mum did earlier, she made the assumption that the guy was messing around on the line, I corrected her by saying there was any number of possibilities as to how he got there.
[quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: The article clearly uses the term 'trespassing', it's a perfectly reasonable assertion therefore that the involved person could have attempted suicide. To be libellous I would have to name the individual, just because you may know them does not make it libel, it remains 'fair comment' based purely on the details of the article.[/p][/quote]What are you talking about? So because it says "trespassing" it must be a suicide attempt? WTF! Again, there could have been a number of reason he was on the line. You're just speculating. Also, in the light of the BBC, ITV paying damages to Lord McAlpine you don't need to have named someone to have libelled them if their name later comes out in the public domain. Think on.[/p][/quote]Sounds like what my mum did earlier, she made the assumption that the guy was messing around on the line, I corrected her by saying there was any number of possibilities as to how he got there. Ginger_cyclist

6:11pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Forest Resident wrote:
I've thought on, and I stand by my reasonable comments based upon the above written article. God bless free speech.
Don't be stupid, the article said he was "DESCRIBED AS A TRESPASSER", it didn't say that he was one as they still need to find out how he got there in the first place, for all we know at the moment, he could have been taken by little green men and then dropped there when they finished the experiments, highly unlikely I know(why if they exist, would they want anything to do with a race that is it's own worst enemy is beyond me) but based purely on the fact that he was where he wasn't supposed to be, people could come up with all sorts of ways he could have got there or the reason he was there, until we know for sure, you shouldn't jump to conclusions.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: I've thought on, and I stand by my reasonable comments based upon the above written article. God bless free speech.[/p][/quote]Don't be stupid, the article said he was "DESCRIBED AS A TRESPASSER", it didn't say that he was one as they still need to find out how he got there in the first place, for all we know at the moment, he could have been taken by little green men and then dropped there when they finished the experiments, highly unlikely I know(why if they exist, would they want anything to do with a race that is it's own worst enemy is beyond me) but based purely on the fact that he was where he wasn't supposed to be, people could come up with all sorts of ways he could have got there or the reason he was there, until we know for sure, you shouldn't jump to conclusions. Ginger_cyclist

6:20pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Forest Resident says...

God forbid people should form an opinion based on the contents of a news article which is allegedly written in accordance with press standards! Isn't that the entire purpose of a "comments'' facility?
God forbid people should form an opinion based on the contents of a news article which is allegedly written in accordance with press standards! Isn't that the entire purpose of a "comments'' facility? Forest Resident

6:22pm Sat 24 Nov 12

userds5050 says...

Forest Resident wrote:
I've thought on, and I stand by my reasonable comments based upon the above written article. God bless free speech.
Free speech and a free press doesn't extend to making stuff up. I don't normally like using the T word as it's often misused but for you I think it might be warranted. Troll.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: I've thought on, and I stand by my reasonable comments based upon the above written article. God bless free speech.[/p][/quote]Free speech and a free press doesn't extend to making stuff up. I don't normally like using the T word as it's often misused but for you I think it might be warranted. Troll. userds5050

6:26pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Forest Resident says...

My comments relate directly to the news article, please do enlighten me how that translates to being a mythical beast who dwells under bridges?
My comments relate directly to the news article, please do enlighten me how that translates to being a mythical beast who dwells under bridges? Forest Resident

6:27pm Sat 24 Nov 12

SpLiDgE says...

Forest Resident wrote:
I've thought on, and I stand by my reasonable comments based upon the above written article. God bless free speech.
Free speech is a wonderful thing. But freelance Journalists who don't follow up on facts just to get a story in a paper for a quick payout is dangerous. It leads to people like yourself to jump to a conclusion and spout hurtful speculations.
Luckily he is one hell of a strong minded person with a lot of luck on his side.
And with good people around him will pull through this!
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: I've thought on, and I stand by my reasonable comments based upon the above written article. God bless free speech.[/p][/quote]Free speech is a wonderful thing. But freelance Journalists who don't follow up on facts just to get a story in a paper for a quick payout is dangerous. It leads to people like yourself to jump to a conclusion and spout hurtful speculations. Luckily he is one hell of a strong minded person with a lot of luck on his side. And with good people around him will pull through this! SpLiDgE

6:30pm Sat 24 Nov 12

userds5050 says...

They don't relate to the article at all. You're just making stuff up. Now get back under your bridge.
They don't relate to the article at all. You're just making stuff up. Now get back under your bridge. userds5050

6:42pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Forest Resident says...

userds5050 wrote:
They don't relate to the article at all. You're just making stuff up. Now get back under your bridge.
What have I 'made up' exactly? I've done nothing more than make a perfectly reasonable supposition on what might have occurred based solely upon the reported articles contents. You are free to dislike my comments but do not try to censor me by branding me a troll, name calling is rather childish.
[quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: They don't relate to the article at all. You're just making stuff up. Now get back under your bridge.[/p][/quote]What have I 'made up' exactly? I've done nothing more than make a perfectly reasonable supposition on what might have occurred based solely upon the reported articles contents. You are free to dislike my comments but do not try to censor me by branding me a troll, name calling is rather childish. Forest Resident

6:58pm Sat 24 Nov 12

userds5050 says...

You're even pretending to not know the modern definition of the word Troll now. Yes, you made a supposition, but you supposed erroneously.
You're even pretending to not know the modern definition of the word Troll now. Yes, you made a supposition, but you supposed erroneously. userds5050

7:08pm Sat 24 Nov 12

ck12001 says...

This is getting stupid at the end of the day someone i love very much is in hospital,the first report upset me and i find your "conclusions"Forest Resident very offensive. I know the truth and all im sayin is your wrong.
This is getting stupid at the end of the day someone i love very much is in hospital,the first report upset me and i find your "conclusions"Forest Resident very offensive. I know the truth and all im sayin is your wrong. ck12001

7:30pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Linesman says...

Forest Resident wrote:
I've thought on, and I stand by my reasonable comments based upon the above written article. God bless free speech.
Of course you do.

With your previous comments and excuses, I would expect nothing more.

The fact that everyone else things that your so-called 'reasonable comments' are unreasonable, would have not convince you that you could possibly be wrong or that you had jumped to the wrong conclusion.

We would expect nothing less from such a self-opinionated person.

If, when the facts are known, and if your conclusions should prove to be incorrect, it would not surprise me to know that you changed your nom de plume, and berated Forest Resident for the comments expressed today.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: I've thought on, and I stand by my reasonable comments based upon the above written article. God bless free speech.[/p][/quote]Of course you do. With your previous comments and excuses, I would expect nothing more. The fact that everyone else things that your so-called 'reasonable comments' are unreasonable, would have not convince you that you could possibly be wrong or that you had jumped to the wrong conclusion. We would expect nothing less from such a self-opinionated person. If, when the facts are known, and if your conclusions should prove to be incorrect, it would not surprise me to know that you changed your nom de plume, and berated Forest Resident for the comments expressed today. Linesman

7:37pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Sir Ad E Noid says...

Linesman wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
Given the trauma no doubt caused to the train driver and indeed the cost of the delays to the hundreds (if not thousands) of people on board the trains, I sincerely hope this selfish individual is charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' or some other suitable criminal offence. I appreciate some people find life too much to take but there's no excuse for inflicting your chosen way out on innocent bystanders.
I think that you are jumping to conclusions.

What information have you got that indicates that there was a 'selfish individual' involved?

Are you suggesting that this was a suicide attempt?

Had you considered that the person from Hythe could possibly have been a railway employee?

Let us wait until we know the full story before we jump to conclusions and make judgements without the evidence.
I sent this email to the news desk and Ian Murray last night:

Ian,

Why, oh, why do you allow comments on such a sensitive subject. Is it not enough for the Echo that they have the scoop on this incident. He/She is a Son/Daughter who has tragically lost their life, for what ever reason. You know that the ghouls (It has disrupted my travel plans, the selfish person Etc) will appear and drag this into the gutter. You have compassion, so please block comments on this incident. Do I have plead with you every time this sort of incident happens, to prevent the inevitable?

Ian, I do expect a reply on your thoughts on this most sensitive of subjects.

Yours Sincerely,

**** Xxxxx.

That mail was directly aimed at social retards that feel they can inflict more pain onto the family of the deceased. It appears it didn't take too long for the low life to show his/her hand. My comments do almost match. My mail was based on the facts before the real situation was reported ie: A fatality had occurred.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: Given the trauma no doubt caused to the train driver and indeed the cost of the delays to the hundreds (if not thousands) of people on board the trains, I sincerely hope this selfish individual is charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' or some other suitable criminal offence. I appreciate some people find life too much to take but there's no excuse for inflicting your chosen way out on innocent bystanders.[/p][/quote]I think that you are jumping to conclusions. What information have you got that indicates that there was a 'selfish individual' involved? Are you suggesting that this was a suicide attempt? Had you considered that the person from Hythe could possibly have been a railway employee? Let us wait until we know the full story before we jump to conclusions and make judgements without the evidence.[/p][/quote]I sent this email to the news desk and Ian Murray last night: Ian, Why, oh, why do you allow comments on such a sensitive subject. Is it not enough for the Echo that they have the scoop on this incident. He/She is a Son/Daughter who has tragically lost their life, for what ever reason. You know that the ghouls (It has disrupted my travel plans, the selfish person Etc) will appear and drag this into the gutter. You have compassion, so please block comments on this incident. Do I have plead with you every time this sort of incident happens, to prevent the inevitable? Ian, I do expect a reply on your thoughts on this most sensitive of subjects. Yours Sincerely, **** Xxxxx. That mail was directly aimed at social retards that feel they can inflict more pain onto the family of the deceased. It appears it didn't take too long for the low life to show his/her hand. My comments do almost match. My mail was based on the facts before the real situation was reported ie: A fatality had occurred. Sir Ad E Noid

7:39pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Linesman says...

Forest Resident wrote:
userds5050 wrote:
They don't relate to the article at all. You're just making stuff up. Now get back under your bridge.
What have I 'made up' exactly? I've done nothing more than make a perfectly reasonable supposition on what might have occurred based solely upon the reported articles contents. You are free to dislike my comments but do not try to censor me by branding me a troll, name calling is rather childish.
Check out your original comment timed at 1:26 to see what you Made Up.

Where, in the Echo article did it state that the victim was attempting suicide?

It did not, but that is what you were claiming he was.

Nowhere in the article did it describe the victim as Selfish, but that is something that you made up to suite the conclusions that you had hastily jumped to.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: They don't relate to the article at all. You're just making stuff up. Now get back under your bridge.[/p][/quote]What have I 'made up' exactly? I've done nothing more than make a perfectly reasonable supposition on what might have occurred based solely upon the reported articles contents. You are free to dislike my comments but do not try to censor me by branding me a troll, name calling is rather childish.[/p][/quote]Check out your original comment timed at 1:26 to see what you Made Up. Where, in the Echo article did it state that the victim was attempting suicide? It did not, but that is what you were claiming he was. Nowhere in the article did it describe the victim as Selfish, but that is something that you made up to suite the conclusions that you had hastily jumped to. Linesman

8:31pm Sat 24 Nov 12

SpLiDgE says...

Forest Resident maybe you should change your name to Buncombe after your comments today.
Forest Resident maybe you should change your name to Buncombe after your comments today. SpLiDgE

8:48pm Sat 24 Nov 12

barnjo says...

What a lucky boy, hopefully he will learn from his mistake, trains can smart a little when they hit you so don't walk near them! Fingers crossed he makes a full recovery.
What a lucky boy, hopefully he will learn from his mistake, trains can smart a little when they hit you so don't walk near them! Fingers crossed he makes a full recovery. barnjo

11:02pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Linesman says...

barnjo wrote:
What a lucky boy, hopefully he will learn from his mistake, trains can smart a little when they hit you so don't walk near them! Fingers crossed he makes a full recovery.
I echo that comment, and I also hope that Forest Resident gets the help they need, because I think they are sick.
[quote][p][bold]barnjo[/bold] wrote: What a lucky boy, hopefully he will learn from his mistake, trains can smart a little when they hit you so don't walk near them! Fingers crossed he makes a full recovery.[/p][/quote]I echo that comment, and I also hope that Forest Resident gets the help they need, because I think they are sick. Linesman

11:07pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
Given the trauma no doubt caused to the train driver and indeed the cost of the delays to the hundreds (if not thousands) of people on board the trains, I sincerely hope this selfish individual is charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' or some other suitable criminal offence. I appreciate some people find life too much to take but there's no excuse for inflicting your chosen way out on innocent bystanders.
I think that you are jumping to conclusions.

What information have you got that indicates that there was a 'selfish individual' involved?

Are you suggesting that this was a suicide attempt?

Had you considered that the person from Hythe could possibly have been a railway employee?

Let us wait until we know the full story before we jump to conclusions and make judgements without the evidence.
I sent this email to the news desk and Ian Murray last night:

Ian,

Why, oh, why do you allow comments on such a sensitive subject. Is it not enough for the Echo that they have the scoop on this incident. He/She is a Son/Daughter who has tragically lost their life, for what ever reason. You know that the ghouls (It has disrupted my travel plans, the selfish person Etc) will appear and drag this into the gutter. You have compassion, so please block comments on this incident. Do I have plead with you every time this sort of incident happens, to prevent the inevitable?

Ian, I do expect a reply on your thoughts on this most sensitive of subjects.

Yours Sincerely,

**** Xxxxx.

That mail was directly aimed at social retards that feel they can inflict more pain onto the family of the deceased. It appears it didn't take too long for the low life to show his/her hand. My comments do almost match. My mail was based on the facts before the real situation was reported ie: A fatality had occurred.
Your effort deserves appreciation. Hope the editor will act on your request.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: Given the trauma no doubt caused to the train driver and indeed the cost of the delays to the hundreds (if not thousands) of people on board the trains, I sincerely hope this selfish individual is charged with 'endangering safety on the railway' or some other suitable criminal offence. I appreciate some people find life too much to take but there's no excuse for inflicting your chosen way out on innocent bystanders.[/p][/quote]I think that you are jumping to conclusions. What information have you got that indicates that there was a 'selfish individual' involved? Are you suggesting that this was a suicide attempt? Had you considered that the person from Hythe could possibly have been a railway employee? Let us wait until we know the full story before we jump to conclusions and make judgements without the evidence.[/p][/quote]I sent this email to the news desk and Ian Murray last night: Ian, Why, oh, why do you allow comments on such a sensitive subject. Is it not enough for the Echo that they have the scoop on this incident. He/She is a Son/Daughter who has tragically lost their life, for what ever reason. You know that the ghouls (It has disrupted my travel plans, the selfish person Etc) will appear and drag this into the gutter. You have compassion, so please block comments on this incident. Do I have plead with you every time this sort of incident happens, to prevent the inevitable? Ian, I do expect a reply on your thoughts on this most sensitive of subjects. Yours Sincerely, **** Xxxxx. That mail was directly aimed at social retards that feel they can inflict more pain onto the family of the deceased. It appears it didn't take too long for the low life to show his/her hand. My comments do almost match. My mail was based on the facts before the real situation was reported ie: A fatality had occurred.[/p][/quote]Your effort deserves appreciation. Hope the editor will act on your request. Paramjit Bahia

11:09pm Sat 24 Nov 12

pgbpgb says...

As one of the hundreds (thousands?) of rail passengers affected, I want to say first of all how relieved I was to find out that the person hit by the train has survived. The train companies eventually got me back to south Manchester at 2:30am the following day - 3 hours later than expected.

I was waiting for the 19:15 on Southampton Central and would like to pay tribute to the staff at the station who were dealing with other delays and problems at the time (some due to the bad weather) and clearly did their best to keep us informed. When it was clear that there would be a long delay, a very calm official dealt with a large crowd giving clear concise relevant advice to each individual in turn. He advised me to travel to Birmingham on the 20:15 on the first leg of a complicated journey.

I had a conversation with a fellow passenger who I met later on at Wolverhampton and who was on board the train involved in the incident. It was travelling from Bournemouth to Southampton, rather than the opposite direction as stated in the article.

Another inaccuracy in the article was that the incident couldn't have happened at about 19:45 if it was reported to the BTP at 19:31! In fact the train was due at Southampton at 19:15 and was described as "on time". During the next 20 minutes, we were informed that "the train was delayed", then that "there had been an incident at Millbrook", then that "the train had hit debris" and then that "the train had hit a person".

Finally my thoughts and prayers are with the person who was injured, the train driver, the paramedics and all the railway staff who had to deal with a very upsetting incident.
As one of the hundreds (thousands?) of rail passengers affected, I want to say first of all how relieved I was to find out that the person hit by the train has survived. The train companies eventually got me back to south Manchester at 2:30am the following day - 3 hours later than expected. I was waiting for the 19:15 on Southampton Central and would like to pay tribute to the staff at the station who were dealing with other delays and problems at the time (some due to the bad weather) and clearly did their best to keep us informed. When it was clear that there would be a long delay, a very calm official dealt with a large crowd giving clear concise relevant advice to each individual in turn. He advised me to travel to Birmingham on the 20:15 on the first leg of a complicated journey. I had a conversation with a fellow passenger who I met later on at Wolverhampton and who was on board the train involved in the incident. It was travelling from Bournemouth to Southampton, rather than the opposite direction as stated in the article. Another inaccuracy in the article was that the incident couldn't have happened at about 19:45 if it was reported to the BTP at 19:31! In fact the train was due at Southampton at 19:15 and was described as "on time". During the next 20 minutes, we were informed that "the train was delayed", then that "there had been an incident at Millbrook", then that "the train had hit debris" and then that "the train had hit a person". Finally my thoughts and prayers are with the person who was injured, the train driver, the paramedics and all the railway staff who had to deal with a very upsetting incident. pgbpgb

11:40pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

pgbpgb wrote:
As one of the hundreds (thousands?) of rail passengers affected, I want to say first of all how relieved I was to find out that the person hit by the train has survived. The train companies eventually got me back to south Manchester at 2:30am the following day - 3 hours later than expected.

I was waiting for the 19:15 on Southampton Central and would like to pay tribute to the staff at the station who were dealing with other delays and problems at the time (some due to the bad weather) and clearly did their best to keep us informed. When it was clear that there would be a long delay, a very calm official dealt with a large crowd giving clear concise relevant advice to each individual in turn. He advised me to travel to Birmingham on the 20:15 on the first leg of a complicated journey.

I had a conversation with a fellow passenger who I met later on at Wolverhampton and who was on board the train involved in the incident. It was travelling from Bournemouth to Southampton, rather than the opposite direction as stated in the article.

Another inaccuracy in the article was that the incident couldn't have happened at about 19:45 if it was reported to the BTP at 19:31! In fact the train was due at Southampton at 19:15 and was described as "on time". During the next 20 minutes, we were informed that "the train was delayed", then that "there had been an incident at Millbrook", then that "the train had hit debris" and then that "the train had hit a person".

Finally my thoughts and prayers are with the person who was injured, the train driver, the paramedics and all the railway staff who had to deal with a very upsetting incident.
Typical Daily Echo if you ask me, poor journalism, poor journalism everywhere, probably done by a rookie freelance journalist though I would expect much better from a 5 year old, I mean at least a 5 year old would get the details correct.
[quote][p][bold]pgbpgb[/bold] wrote: As one of the hundreds (thousands?) of rail passengers affected, I want to say first of all how relieved I was to find out that the person hit by the train has survived. The train companies eventually got me back to south Manchester at 2:30am the following day - 3 hours later than expected. I was waiting for the 19:15 on Southampton Central and would like to pay tribute to the staff at the station who were dealing with other delays and problems at the time (some due to the bad weather) and clearly did their best to keep us informed. When it was clear that there would be a long delay, a very calm official dealt with a large crowd giving clear concise relevant advice to each individual in turn. He advised me to travel to Birmingham on the 20:15 on the first leg of a complicated journey. I had a conversation with a fellow passenger who I met later on at Wolverhampton and who was on board the train involved in the incident. It was travelling from Bournemouth to Southampton, rather than the opposite direction as stated in the article. Another inaccuracy in the article was that the incident couldn't have happened at about 19:45 if it was reported to the BTP at 19:31! In fact the train was due at Southampton at 19:15 and was described as "on time". During the next 20 minutes, we were informed that "the train was delayed", then that "there had been an incident at Millbrook", then that "the train had hit debris" and then that "the train had hit a person". Finally my thoughts and prayers are with the person who was injured, the train driver, the paramedics and all the railway staff who had to deal with a very upsetting incident.[/p][/quote]Typical Daily Echo if you ask me, poor journalism, poor journalism everywhere, probably done by a rookie freelance journalist though I would expect much better from a 5 year old, I mean at least a 5 year old would get the details correct. Ginger_cyclist

8:11am Sun 25 Nov 12

Linesman says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
pgbpgb wrote:
As one of the hundreds (thousands?) of rail passengers affected, I want to say first of all how relieved I was to find out that the person hit by the train has survived. The train companies eventually got me back to south Manchester at 2:30am the following day - 3 hours later than expected.

I was waiting for the 19:15 on Southampton Central and would like to pay tribute to the staff at the station who were dealing with other delays and problems at the time (some due to the bad weather) and clearly did their best to keep us informed. When it was clear that there would be a long delay, a very calm official dealt with a large crowd giving clear concise relevant advice to each individual in turn. He advised me to travel to Birmingham on the 20:15 on the first leg of a complicated journey.

I had a conversation with a fellow passenger who I met later on at Wolverhampton and who was on board the train involved in the incident. It was travelling from Bournemouth to Southampton, rather than the opposite direction as stated in the article.

Another inaccuracy in the article was that the incident couldn't have happened at about 19:45 if it was reported to the BTP at 19:31! In fact the train was due at Southampton at 19:15 and was described as "on time". During the next 20 minutes, we were informed that "the train was delayed", then that "there had been an incident at Millbrook", then that "the train had hit debris" and then that "the train had hit a person".

Finally my thoughts and prayers are with the person who was injured, the train driver, the paramedics and all the railway staff who had to deal with a very upsetting incident.
Typical Daily Echo if you ask me, poor journalism, poor journalism everywhere, probably done by a rookie freelance journalist though I would expect much better from a 5 year old, I mean at least a 5 year old would get the details correct.
It should, of course, be remembered that the journalist was not at the scene of the incident when it happened, and would be relying on information that was given by those who were.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pgbpgb[/bold] wrote: As one of the hundreds (thousands?) of rail passengers affected, I want to say first of all how relieved I was to find out that the person hit by the train has survived. The train companies eventually got me back to south Manchester at 2:30am the following day - 3 hours later than expected. I was waiting for the 19:15 on Southampton Central and would like to pay tribute to the staff at the station who were dealing with other delays and problems at the time (some due to the bad weather) and clearly did their best to keep us informed. When it was clear that there would be a long delay, a very calm official dealt with a large crowd giving clear concise relevant advice to each individual in turn. He advised me to travel to Birmingham on the 20:15 on the first leg of a complicated journey. I had a conversation with a fellow passenger who I met later on at Wolverhampton and who was on board the train involved in the incident. It was travelling from Bournemouth to Southampton, rather than the opposite direction as stated in the article. Another inaccuracy in the article was that the incident couldn't have happened at about 19:45 if it was reported to the BTP at 19:31! In fact the train was due at Southampton at 19:15 and was described as "on time". During the next 20 minutes, we were informed that "the train was delayed", then that "there had been an incident at Millbrook", then that "the train had hit debris" and then that "the train had hit a person". Finally my thoughts and prayers are with the person who was injured, the train driver, the paramedics and all the railway staff who had to deal with a very upsetting incident.[/p][/quote]Typical Daily Echo if you ask me, poor journalism, poor journalism everywhere, probably done by a rookie freelance journalist though I would expect much better from a 5 year old, I mean at least a 5 year old would get the details correct.[/p][/quote]It should, of course, be remembered that the journalist was not at the scene of the incident when it happened, and would be relying on information that was given by those who were. Linesman

11:24am Sun 25 Nov 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Linesman wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
pgbpgb wrote:
As one of the hundreds (thousands?) of rail passengers affected, I want to say first of all how relieved I was to find out that the person hit by the train has survived. The train companies eventually got me back to south Manchester at 2:30am the following day - 3 hours later than expected.

I was waiting for the 19:15 on Southampton Central and would like to pay tribute to the staff at the station who were dealing with other delays and problems at the time (some due to the bad weather) and clearly did their best to keep us informed. When it was clear that there would be a long delay, a very calm official dealt with a large crowd giving clear concise relevant advice to each individual in turn. He advised me to travel to Birmingham on the 20:15 on the first leg of a complicated journey.

I had a conversation with a fellow passenger who I met later on at Wolverhampton and who was on board the train involved in the incident. It was travelling from Bournemouth to Southampton, rather than the opposite direction as stated in the article.

Another inaccuracy in the article was that the incident couldn't have happened at about 19:45 if it was reported to the BTP at 19:31! In fact the train was due at Southampton at 19:15 and was described as "on time". During the next 20 minutes, we were informed that "the train was delayed", then that "there had been an incident at Millbrook", then that "the train had hit debris" and then that "the train had hit a person".

Finally my thoughts and prayers are with the person who was injured, the train driver, the paramedics and all the railway staff who had to deal with a very upsetting incident.
Typical Daily Echo if you ask me, poor journalism, poor journalism everywhere, probably done by a rookie freelance journalist though I would expect much better from a 5 year old, I mean at least a 5 year old would get the details correct.
It should, of course, be remembered that the journalist was not at the scene of the incident when it happened, and would be relying on information that was given by those who were.
Exactly, a 5 year old (if they were allowed to be) would actually be on the scene to ask questions and see what happened, not rely on word of mouth and Chinese whispers.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pgbpgb[/bold] wrote: As one of the hundreds (thousands?) of rail passengers affected, I want to say first of all how relieved I was to find out that the person hit by the train has survived. The train companies eventually got me back to south Manchester at 2:30am the following day - 3 hours later than expected. I was waiting for the 19:15 on Southampton Central and would like to pay tribute to the staff at the station who were dealing with other delays and problems at the time (some due to the bad weather) and clearly did their best to keep us informed. When it was clear that there would be a long delay, a very calm official dealt with a large crowd giving clear concise relevant advice to each individual in turn. He advised me to travel to Birmingham on the 20:15 on the first leg of a complicated journey. I had a conversation with a fellow passenger who I met later on at Wolverhampton and who was on board the train involved in the incident. It was travelling from Bournemouth to Southampton, rather than the opposite direction as stated in the article. Another inaccuracy in the article was that the incident couldn't have happened at about 19:45 if it was reported to the BTP at 19:31! In fact the train was due at Southampton at 19:15 and was described as "on time". During the next 20 minutes, we were informed that "the train was delayed", then that "there had been an incident at Millbrook", then that "the train had hit debris" and then that "the train had hit a person". Finally my thoughts and prayers are with the person who was injured, the train driver, the paramedics and all the railway staff who had to deal with a very upsetting incident.[/p][/quote]Typical Daily Echo if you ask me, poor journalism, poor journalism everywhere, probably done by a rookie freelance journalist though I would expect much better from a 5 year old, I mean at least a 5 year old would get the details correct.[/p][/quote]It should, of course, be remembered that the journalist was not at the scene of the incident when it happened, and would be relying on information that was given by those who were.[/p][/quote]Exactly, a 5 year old (if they were allowed to be) would actually be on the scene to ask questions and see what happened, not rely on word of mouth and Chinese whispers. Ginger_cyclist

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree