Suicidal male on Stockport viaduct 19 Jul 18

[Esker-pades]

It has now been reported by a reputable national media outlet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-44893447 so within forum rules it can now be discussed. Yesterday morning it shouldn't have been discussed unless people needed advice about alternative travel arrangements.

I was mainly referring to parts around sensitivity. Some comments appear insensitive at best.

 

[farleigh]

So is there any evidence that he was mentally ill or depressed?
Sorry if I missed it but I was just wondering what with all the discussion about depression on this thread.

 

[323235]

Well there was a BTP statement to say he was detained for his own safety.

 

[6Gman]

Not really, do you?

Do you really think it's acceptable for one individual to cause so much disruption? Obviously I wasn't there so I'm not in a position to say what should have been done, seems he drunk himself into oblivion and eventually fell asleep.

Of course it's not "acceptable" ... but it has to be accepted because there's really no other option.

 

[6Gman]

What a shame the same doesn't go for the roads, where we seem to accept nearly 2000 deaths a year and they are left essentially unsupervised for people to break the law as they please. I don't say that just to drift the thread but to point out that in one situation we go to extraordinary lengths to deal with the well being of one individual whilst in others we apparently don't care at all about thousands. It's this disparity that actually makes it quite difficult to decide what society should "put up with" when it comes to preventing harm and death in a specific situation, because there's already such a wide range of responses in different circumstances. The fact is that many people act in ways that are dangerous and harmful, to themselves or others, simply on the grounds that they can't or won't wait.



Ditto.

There was a similar incident on Runcorn (road) Bridge a couple of years back. Handled in exactly the same way. All traffic halted until he was talked down.

 

[Antman]

Well there was a BTP statement to say he was detained for his own safety.

What else would they do, tell him to go home and don't do it again?

 

[tommy2215]

Is there any evidence he was depressed? From what I've heard not much of what he did would be something only someone with depression would do. Also, drinking petrol? How could you drink any amount of petrol and not get seriously ill or even die from it?

 

[EM2]

Is there any evidence he was depressed? From what I've heard not much of what he did would be something only someone with depression would do. Also, drinking petrol? How could you drink any amount of petrol and not get seriously ill or even die from it?

Depression takes many forms. What one person does could be completely different to what someone else might do.

 

[Signal Head]

There were clearly mental health issues involved here, no one of completely sound mind behaves in this fashion.

However, if you really want to end it all, there are ways to do so without causing chaos.

He was up there at 05:30, just around start of service, and apart from being spotted by the Heaton Norris signalman (apparently) there was no one else around, so there's opportunity to jump before anyone else gets there, *if* that's really your intention.

It seems that wasn't the intention here, but instead he wanted to cause disruption, or simply to get attention. He succeeded in both of those.

Trains were being run past, at caution, on both Down lines, he was therefore in full view of passengers, somebody had presumably decided that he wasn't going to take a dive in front of those passengers, or jump in front of a train, otherwise, surely, no services would have run at all, on any line.

Other options: attempt to persuade him to get down for an hour or two, after that, if the assessment is that he isn't an immediate danger to himself, withdraw the majority of the personnel, leave just enough to monitor, and reopen the lines, except the one immediately adjacent, then pass trains at caution, and wait for the person to decide to come down of their own accord. With any attention-seeking tendency unfulfilled, this may well have happened considerably earlier than 22hrs in.

Yesterday the weather was fine, I suspect this incident would not have lasted nearly as long if it had been cold, windy and wet.

 

[flixtonman]

We are discussing here a fellow human being, about whom we know nothing for certain: nothing about his health, family or problems. The emergency services were in the same boat. In all conscious, they had no option other than to use their best endeavours to save him from possible death. Questions such as whether he had been drinking petrol/alcohol and how long he had been drinking, had taken a packed lunch with him onto the viaduct or had done it before are all for later. The answers to those questions may lead to one or other of a mental health intervention or prosecution - after a measured assessment of his history and circumstances. In the meantime, comments about consequential delays to the travelling public are unkind.

 

[MichaelAMW]

There was a similar incident on Runcorn (road) Bridge a couple of years back. Handled in exactly the same way. All traffic halted until he was talked down.

Yes, but my point was that it's hard to determine the value of a human life in a particular situation when society clearly varies so much in what it will tolerate for the sake of its covenience. In the railway situation it appears that helping someone stay alive is given more consideration overall but there are no objective criteria for how to handle these things. I wasn't trying to make the comparison at quite such a detailed level, much as this didn't necessarily come across all that well.

 

[Antman]

There were clearly mental health issues involved here, no one of completely sound mind behaves in this fashion.

However, if you really want to end it all, there are ways to do so without causing chaos.

He was up there at 05:30, just around start of service, and apart from being spotted by the Heaton Norris signalman (apparently) there was no one else around, so there's opportunity to jump before anyone else gets there, *if* that's really your intention.

It seems that wasn't the intention here, but instead he wanted to cause disruption, or simply to get attention. He succeeded in both of those.

Trains were being run past, at caution, on both Down lines, he was therefore in full view of passengers, somebody had presumably decided that he wasn't going to take a dive in front of those passengers, or jump in front of a train, otherwise, surely, no services would have run at all, on any line.

Other options: attempt to persuade him to get down for an hour or two, after that, if the assessment is that he isn't an immediate danger to himself, withdraw the majority of the personnel, leave just enough to monitor, and reopen the lines, except the one immediately adjacent, then pass trains at caution, and wait for the person to decide to come down of their own accord. With any attention-seeking tendency unfulfilled, this may well have happened considerably earlier than 22hrs in.

Yesterday the weather was fine, I suspect this incident would not have lasted nearly as long if it had been cold, windy and wet.

I think you've summed it up very well.

 

[Cletus]

Here's one of the photos on googlemaps showing the north end of Stockport station (dated 2015)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4...i-0-ya154.3233-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352?hl=en

 

[Antman]

Sorry, but you don't know what he was thinking.

Well he was thoughtful enough to make sure he had enough to eat and drink with him and do you honestly think he would have done this in the depths of winter?

 

[Bayum]

There were clearly mental health issues involved here, no one of completely sound mind behaves in this fashion.

However, if you really want to end it all, there are ways to do so without causing chaos.

He was up there at 05:30, just around start of service, and apart from being spotted by the Heaton Norris signalman (apparently) there was no one else around, so there's opportunity to jump before anyone else gets there, *if* that's really your intention.

It seems that wasn't the intention here, but instead he wanted to cause disruption, or simply to get attention. He succeeded in both of those.

Trains were being run past, at caution, on both Down lines, he was therefore in full view of passengers, somebody had presumably decided that he wasn't going to take a dive in front of those passengers, or jump in front of a train, otherwise, surely, no services would have run at all, on any line.

Other options: attempt to persuade him to get down for an hour or two, after that, if the assessment is that he isn't an immediate danger to himself, withdraw the majority of the personnel, leave just enough to monitor, and reopen the lines, except the one immediately adjacent, then pass trains at caution, and wait for the person to decide to come down of their own accord. With any attention-seeking tendency unfulfilled, this may well have happened considerably earlier than 22hrs in.

Yesterday the weather was fine, I suspect this incident would not have lasted nearly as long if it had been cold, windy and wet.

Yet to say he was ‘well enough’ to be classed as ‘attention seeking’, they stayed up there for 22hrs? Not entirely certain that anyone attention seeking would keep up the pretence for that length of time, indeed I’ve known psychiatrist patients to have faux seizures and symptomatic episodes that last for far less time than that. I’d be interested to know what your background in psychiatry and psychology is and to what should have changed and the groundwork to justify your reply to the thread.

You’re also ignoring the fact that regardless of your lack of psychiatry and psychology training, there are a number of diagnosable illnesses, physical and mental as well as medications that have the unfortunate risk of ‘suicidial ideation and tendencies’. Did the man have a background with psychiatric problems? Not sure people drink petrol on a regular basis... Were there other psychiatric/psychological issues there that confounded talking attempts? It’s a woman’s prerogative to listen to an argument and still make up her mind by ignoring said argument or reasoning alongside. Regardless of what you think, there are a range of other factors that could be at play here which clearly confounded the attempts to rescue and reason with the man.

 

[Llanigraham]

Well he was thoughtful enough to make sure he had enough to eat and drink with him and do you honestly think he would have done this in the depths of winter?

You do not know what he was thinking, and I don't know what he would have done at a different time of the year, so that question is pointless.
And we are still waiting for an explanation on how you would have dealt with this situation, in a safe and humane manner?

 

[Esker-pades]

Well he was thoughtful enough to make sure he had enough to eat and drink with him and do you honestly think he would have done this in the depths of winter?

Nobody can answer that with any degreee of certainty. This is becoming reliant on wild speculation.

 

[flixtonman]

George166: 'He was thoughtful enough to make sure he had enough to eat and drink'.
SignalHead: '.....he wanted to cause disruption or simply to get attention'
You should both be ashamed to jump to those conclusions when you don't know the man or his history. You may, of course, be proved to be right - but you should be cautious to express your opinions before all the evidence is in - and you should certainly not use this public forum on which to ventilate your opinions. For all you know, this man may have had a tragic history impacting on a wide family who have done all they can to minimise his effect on the rest of us.

 

[Antman]

You do not know what he was thinking, and I don't know what he would have done at a different time of the year, so that question is pointless.
And we are still waiting for an explanation on how you would have dealt with this situation, in a safe and humane manner?

And neither do you know what he was thinking. He could have been forcibly removed.

 

[AlterEgo]

What else would they do, tell him to go home and don't do it again?

I think @furnessvale pointed out this particular individual had done it before, and this incident was his second foray into the world of ruining the day for thousands of people.

 

[AlterEgo]

George166: 'He was thoughtful enough to make sure he had enough to eat and drink'.
SignalHead: '.....he wanted to cause disruption or simply to get attention'
You should both be ashamed to jump to those conclusions when you don't know the man or his history. You may, of course, be proved to be right - but you should be cautious to express your opinions before all the evidence is in - and you should certainly not use this public forum on which to ventilate your opinions. For all you know, this man may have had a tragic history impacting on a wide family who have done all they can to minimise his effect on the rest of us.

So the default assumption is that he wanted to kill himself? I find this unlikely. He had plenty of time to kill himself and someone in charge decided to run trains past him because they obviously thought he wasn’t going to do that.

Someone seeking attention might be equally unwell as someone trying to kill themselves.

 

[AndyW33]

And neither do you know what he was thinking. He could have been forcibly removed.

Tell you what, if someone ever does this again, you go and forcibly remove them so the rest of us can see how it is done.
Or maybe go and have a look at the Stockport viaduct from ground level, see how high up it is, see how long it is, and just what it crosses (I'll give you a clue - city streets, business premises, a river and a motorway). If you don't get it just right it could be you who falls 111 feet, or the person you are trying to remove. While if you fall, nobody will be in a position to take out proceedings against you, if you don't but the person you are removing does, you could easily find yourself in court facing criminal or civil charges from either the authorities, the family of the deceased, the owners of whatever he falls onto, or anyone unlucky enough to be at ground level when he falls.

 

[Merseysider]

And neither do you know what he was thinking. He could have been forcibly removed.

I can’t quite believe some of your posts.

With respect, this borders on ridiculous; at best, it is inconsidered.

Try forcibly removing someone on a parapet and you might get a struggle that turns out to be fatal to the rescuer or rescuee. Silly suggestion.

 

[whhistle]

I'm a bit brutal with this sort of thing.

I'd tell the guy that "we're coming to get him" (I appreciate perhaps not the greatest of actual words), and then proceed to go. If they jump, it's over. If not, it's likely they'll be taken into custody anyway. I don't think our nice-nice approach is the best way, and I'd be interested to see what happens if the above is used for a couple of months.

Either that or ansthetic darts may work pretty well...

I don't advocate death or dying but I see how much disruption people like this cause (see below).

You should be cautious to express your opinions before all the evidence is in - and you should certainly not use this public forum on which to ventilate your opinions.

Why not?
Isn't that what a forum is for? Discussion?
We can only form opinions on the evidence suggested so far. We'll never get the full story.

For all you know, this man may have had a tragic history impacting on a wide family who have done all they can to minimise his effect on the rest of us.

But what happens if through his selfishness, he's caused someone else to miss a visit to hospital to see an older family member - they'll never get to say goodbye now.

Perhaps someone missed a job interview?

Maybe someone got so stressed about having to change their plans that now they're afraid of the railway forever?

Perhaps someone with some sort of autism was badly affected as they couldn't cope with a change in travel plans?

So many butterfly effects.


As I read online recently, suicide doesn't end pain; it just passes it on to someone else.

 

[EM2]

I'm a bit brutal with this sort of thing.

I'd tell the guy that "we're coming to get him" (I appreciate perhaps not the greatest of actual words), and then proceed to go. If they jump, it's over. If not, it's likely they'll be taken into custody anyway.

And if he falls?

 

[Deafdoggie]

There is a bus station under the bridge too. Anyone falling off would be splattered over a large area, and could very easily kill anyone they landed on. Or they could fall through a building or bus shelter and kill or injure numerous people they land on. It really is a very high bridge!

 

[Signal Head]

There is a bus station under the bridge too. Anyone falling off would be splattered over a large area, and could very easily kill anyone they landed on. Or they could fall through a building or bus shelter and kill or injure numerous people they land on. It really is a very high bridge!

It's also rather long, and the average human would have to be subject to some significant deceleration to end up covering a 'wide area'!

From photos of the incident, taken from a passing train and published online, it was clear of major infrastructure, like the M60 and bus station. The area under the viaduct at this point is a former car park (and before that, railway goods depot), currently a construction site for a new road. Its not the highest point relative to ground, but still high enough to be fatal.

 

[Deafdoggie]

But those saying just telling him to come back, don't know he would jump there, or the other side, or further down

 

[Signal Head]

But those saying just telling him to come back, don't know he would jump there, or the other side, or further down

He's surrounded by emergency services people, how are you suggesting he would move far without being detained, certainly to the other side of the structure?
To do that, he has to come down to track level, unless he can fly of course in which case all the concerns about him falling are somewhat redundant!

 

[Deafdoggie]

If he is surrounded then there really is no excuse for this taking hours, and trains being stopped. However, I suspect he wasn't surrounded and could move. If he was surrounded a very poor response from the emergency services, as the very last thing you do with someone on a high structure is hem them in