THE 30 LIE'S ( 1 - 10)
People in the “right” places are now asking me why the “LIE'S” of TransPennine Managers have gone unpunished. The “PERJURY” committed by Manager Mark Atkinson is top of this list. With the help of certain individuals who are helping Lisa Dunster, I am gradually making ground with my complaints, individuals in high places are taking notice.
This section is dedicated to the LIE'S in Mark Atkinson's witness statement that he swore under oath were true. I will number the LIE'S and produce evidence that proves this disgusting individual is a LIAR, I cannot call this person a man, to me he is a low-life cowardly individual who cannot defend himself against these accusations, because how can anyone even attempt to defend themselves when they wilfully LIE?
Then don't forget the audience who view this site on a daily basis, many train driver's and manager's, these people know and understand the railway, he cannot escape from his LIE'S.
I would be more than happy to see this LIAR defend his witness statement in writing like this to try and prove he is telling the truth, but that would be like expecting oil to flow from a house tap.
Mark Atkinson: I hope you didn't think that as time progressed I was going to walk away from this because if you did then you are sadly mistaken, you played a large part in all of this. The damage you have caused my family can never be repaired and for that you have no idea how that makes me feel, how would you feel if someone did this to you?
The LIE'S of this individual will one day cause death(s), it will be a tragedy that was totally preventable, all caused through IGNORANCE and LIE'S, if the LIE'S of ROUTE DRIVER MANAGER MARK ATKINSON go unpunished it is akin to signing someone's death warrant.
*NOBODY CAN EVER, EVER SAY THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN WARNED*.
This section is dedicated to the LIE'S in Mark Atkinson's witness statement that he swore under oath were true. I will number the LIE'S and produce evidence that proves this disgusting individual is a LIAR, I cannot call this person a man, to me he is a low-life cowardly individual who cannot defend himself against these accusations, because how can anyone even attempt to defend themselves when they wilfully LIE?
Then don't forget the audience who view this site on a daily basis, many train driver's and manager's, these people know and understand the railway, he cannot escape from his LIE'S.
I would be more than happy to see this LIAR defend his witness statement in writing like this to try and prove he is telling the truth, but that would be like expecting oil to flow from a house tap.
Mark Atkinson: I hope you didn't think that as time progressed I was going to walk away from this because if you did then you are sadly mistaken, you played a large part in all of this. The damage you have caused my family can never be repaired and for that you have no idea how that makes me feel, how would you feel if someone did this to you?
The LIE'S of this individual will one day cause death(s), it will be a tragedy that was totally preventable, all caused through IGNORANCE and LIE'S, if the LIE'S of ROUTE DRIVER MANAGER MARK ATKINSON go unpunished it is akin to signing someone's death warrant.
*NOBODY CAN EVER, EVER SAY THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN WARNED*.
Perjury, By section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911, perjury is committed when:
A lawfully sworn witness or interpreter, in judicial proceedings, wilfully makes a false statement, false statements on oath made otherwise than in a judicial proceeding: s.2, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, and, which is material in the proceedings.
The offence is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
A conviction cannot be obtained solely on the evidence of a single witness as to the falsity of any statement. There must, by virtue of section 13 Perjury Act 1991, be some other evidence of the falsity of the statement, for example, a letter or account written by the defendant contradicting his sworn evidence is sufficient if supported by a single witness.
Perjury is regarded as "one of the most serious offences on the criminal calendar because it wholly undermines the whole basis of the administration of justice": Chapman J in R v Warne (1980) 2 Cr. App.R. (S) 42. It is regarded as serious whether it is committed in the context of a minor case, for example a car passenger who falsely states that the driver did not jump a red light as alleged, or a serious case, for example a false alibi witness in a bank robbery case.
In most cases, an offence of perjury will also amount to perverting the course of justice. If the perjury is the sole or principal act, then it will be normal to charge perjury. If the perjury is part of a much more significant series of acts aimed at perverting justice, then a charge of perverting the course of justice would be more appropriate.
Mark Atkinson read the following:- "There must, by virtue of section 13 Perjury Act 1991, be some other evidence of the falsity of the statement, for example, a letter or account written by the defendant contradicting his sworn evidence is sufficient if supported by a single witness".
Now read through the minutes of the hearing, the disciplinary outcome letter and then read my allegations of your LIE'S as set out below, I am 100% certain that this satisfies section 13 (of the) Perjury Act 1991, what do you think?
Judge Chapman J, states that someone who lie's in a trivial matter of a car jumping a red light is PERJURY that is classed as SERIOUS, you, Mark Atkinson have LIED and LIED to the point where your LIE'S are so detrimental to safety that someone will eventually be killed.
Judge Chapman J in R v Warne (1980) 2 Cr. App.R. (S) 42, has set this precedent on perjury, its guidance is simplicity, it simply highlights a basic lie on one end and a very serious lie at the other end, THE MAIN POINT IS - BOTH ARE LIES - BOTH ARE CLASSED AS PERJURY.
So with this guidance in mind, what will be thought of a person in a position of power who tells numerous lie's that not only destroy another person's family and life but ignore safety related issues that could result in many deaths?
A lawfully sworn witness or interpreter, in judicial proceedings, wilfully makes a false statement, false statements on oath made otherwise than in a judicial proceeding: s.2, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, and, which is material in the proceedings.
The offence is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
A conviction cannot be obtained solely on the evidence of a single witness as to the falsity of any statement. There must, by virtue of section 13 Perjury Act 1991, be some other evidence of the falsity of the statement, for example, a letter or account written by the defendant contradicting his sworn evidence is sufficient if supported by a single witness.
Perjury is regarded as "one of the most serious offences on the criminal calendar because it wholly undermines the whole basis of the administration of justice": Chapman J in R v Warne (1980) 2 Cr. App.R. (S) 42. It is regarded as serious whether it is committed in the context of a minor case, for example a car passenger who falsely states that the driver did not jump a red light as alleged, or a serious case, for example a false alibi witness in a bank robbery case.
In most cases, an offence of perjury will also amount to perverting the course of justice. If the perjury is the sole or principal act, then it will be normal to charge perjury. If the perjury is part of a much more significant series of acts aimed at perverting justice, then a charge of perverting the course of justice would be more appropriate.
Mark Atkinson read the following:- "There must, by virtue of section 13 Perjury Act 1991, be some other evidence of the falsity of the statement, for example, a letter or account written by the defendant contradicting his sworn evidence is sufficient if supported by a single witness".
Now read through the minutes of the hearing, the disciplinary outcome letter and then read my allegations of your LIE'S as set out below, I am 100% certain that this satisfies section 13 (of the) Perjury Act 1991, what do you think?
Judge Chapman J, states that someone who lie's in a trivial matter of a car jumping a red light is PERJURY that is classed as SERIOUS, you, Mark Atkinson have LIED and LIED to the point where your LIE'S are so detrimental to safety that someone will eventually be killed.
Judge Chapman J in R v Warne (1980) 2 Cr. App.R. (S) 42, has set this precedent on perjury, its guidance is simplicity, it simply highlights a basic lie on one end and a very serious lie at the other end, THE MAIN POINT IS - BOTH ARE LIES - BOTH ARE CLASSED AS PERJURY.
So with this guidance in mind, what will be thought of a person in a position of power who tells numerous lie's that not only destroy another person's family and life but ignore safety related issues that could result in many deaths?
The LIE'S will be set out in this format:
MA: (Actual statement made by Mark Atkinson).
LIE NO X: (1 - 30 etc). Exact wording of the LIE.
EVIDENCE: (Proof that this particular statement is a LIE).
OTHER EVIDENCE: (Contradictory or non descriptive statements made by Mark Atkinson).
All of the following under the heading MA: Is word for word from the witness statement of Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson and from this LIAR'S mouth as testified by him under oath.
LIE NO 1
MA: “On 14 January 2009, the Company's maintenance staff discovered a repair slip in the repair book, in the Driver's cab of the train driven that day by Perry Webb, listing the details of three train defects. The defects related to a defective warning horn, the Driver's cab side wiper and the Driver's cab side door drop down window. The slip also made a report of a near miss incident involving trackworkers not being given adequate warning from the train due to the faulty horn. The slip had been incorrectly completed as the reporter had omitted to include their details. The train remained in service, when it should have been removed, and was driven by numerous Drivers prior to it returning to the depot and the defect slip being found. There is no obligation on Drivers to check the repair book on the trains they are driving and as such the other Drivers were unaware of these defects”.
LIE NO 1: “The train remained in service, when it should have been removed”.
EVIDENCE: On that day in question I had a partial failure of the warning horn, for a partial failure of the warning horn the rule book states the following.
Module TW5, Section 37.3, When in service:
b) Partial failure
If the warning horn becomes partially defective (for example one tone not working), the driver must tell the train operators control at the first convenient opportunity. Carry out the instructions given.
THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT WOULD BE GIVEN ARE IN THE CONTINGENCY PLANS BELOW.
TransPennine Express Contingency Plans state:
Partially defective – one tone failed in an active cab.
In service action – train may complete its journey.
So we have the rule book and TPE's own contingency plans, neither of which state that this train should have been removed from service. This statement, “The train remained in service, when it should have been removed”, is therefore a complete LIE.
Mark Atkinson being a Route Driver Manager should, please note I said "should" understand the rule book and contingency plans inside out. What he has stated here is not a mistake but a BLATANT LIE.
OTHER EVIDENCE: There are two further statements in this passage, the first one is, “The defects related to a defective warning horn”. Because of the numerous LIE'S Mark Atkinson has told he knows that he cannot state that the warning horn was a partial failure, he also knows that he cannot state that the warning horn had a complete failure, so he opts for a rather generic description of simply a “defective warning horn”. Although any failure of the warning horn can be classed as defective, in this case on the railway we only have two terms for a warning horn failure, partial failure and complete failure.
Partial Failure: Only one tone works.
Complete Failure: Both tones fail to work at the same time.
Mark Atkinson knew from my hearing that the failure I had that morning was a "partial failure", he also knows that even if I was guilty of failing to report a partial failure of the warning horn, this can hardly be classed as gross misconduct. Once again, I have proof that numerous other drivers failed to report partial and complete failures of the warning horn, yet not one of them received any disciplinary action against them, what happened to "equity"? Why was I the only driver disciplined?
Mark Atkinson SHOULD have been able to ascertain from the charges laid against me by Manager Barry Cook and the Investigation Report by Manager Stephen Percival exactly what type of warning horn failure I encountered that fateful morning.
The second statement is “Other drivers were unaware of the defects”. This is because they simply never materialised again, in other words the train was safe to run. This statement is clearly made to make me look as bad as possible. I listed 3 defects on the repair slip.
Defect 1: The drivers cab side wiper: There was an intermittent fault with the sweeping function of this wiper, this was a common problem which occurred all the time, I have documented evidence to prove this.
Defect 2: Driver's cab side door drop down window: Another common problem, air turbulence noise from this faulty window was deafening especially when travelling at high speeds. Once again I have documented evidence of this type of problem.
Defect 3: The Warning Horn: I had a partial failure which rectified itself due to the rise in temperature, that is why no other driver had an issue with this warning horn. I have categorical proof that this failure was an everyday, every train occurrence, it was par for the course, in
other words you knew it would occur during your shift with the right weather conditions present.
LIE NO 2
MA: "8.1 on Wednesday 14 January, you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn”; 1. “You didn't stop and report it at the controlling signaller”.
LIE NO 2: “You didn't stop and report it at the controlling signaller”.
EVIDENCE: The Rule Book states,
Module TW5, Section 37.3, When in service.
b) Partial failure
If the warning horn becomes partially defective while the train is in service, the driver must now tell the train operators control, not the signaller.
Therefore by Mark Atkinson stating that I should have, "You didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaller”, is another complete LIE.
OTHER EVIDENCE: The statement, “you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn”. Yet again the use of terminology used is not railway terminology to describe a warning horn failure, it is either a “partial” or “complete” failure, so why would Mark Atkinson still refer to this defect as being simply a “defective” warning horn? Please note how the “defective” warning horn is described differently further on but once again not in railway terminology!
THIS LIE IS IN TOTAL CONTRADICTION TO HIS DISCIPLINARY HEARING OUTCOME LETTER HE SENT TO ME DATED 8th July 2009. Mark Atkinson's response in that letter was in reference to a PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn, the letter is shown below.
Findings: "On the day in question you did fail to follow the correct procedure by not reporting it via telephone to the control". Yet above in his witness statement he says, “You didn't stop and report it at the controlling signaller”.
Judge Burton believed that I should have STOPPED my train and reported the PARTIALLY defective warning horn immediately! Combine this with the other LIE'S and the fact that I represented myself, what chance did I actually stand?
Judge Burton's written reason's prove that he believed everything in Mark Atkinson's witness statement, Judge Burton based his decision to find in their favour on these LIE'S.
Judge Burton believed that I should have STOPPED my train and reported the PARTIALLY defective warning horn immediately! Combine this with the other LIE'S and the fact that I represented myself, what chance did I actually stand?
Judge Burton's written reason's prove that he believed everything in Mark Atkinson's witness statement, Judge Burton based his decision to find in their favour on these LIE'S.
LIE NO 3
MA: "8.1 on Wednesday 14 January, you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn”; “At no point did you reduce the train speed”.
LIE NO 3: “At no point did you reduce the train speed”.
EVIDENCE: Why would I need to "reduce the train speed"? The rule book as I have pointed out above does not tell me that I have to reduce the train speed for a partial failure of the warning horn. So here we have another blatant Mark Atkinson LIE.
Findings: From the disciplinary hearing outcome letter above what is mentioned about "reducing the train speed"? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Please note, that the terminology used to describe the warning horn failure is "defective".
MA: "8.1 on Wednesday 14 January, you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn”; “At no point did you reduce the train speed”.
LIE NO 3: “At no point did you reduce the train speed”.
EVIDENCE: Why would I need to "reduce the train speed"? The rule book as I have pointed out above does not tell me that I have to reduce the train speed for a partial failure of the warning horn. So here we have another blatant Mark Atkinson LIE.
Findings: From the disciplinary hearing outcome letter above what is mentioned about "reducing the train speed"? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Please note, that the terminology used to describe the warning horn failure is "defective".
LIE NO 4
MA: "8.2 you also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident, resulting in a train being taken out of service”.
LIE NO 4: “you also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident”.
EVIDENCE: There is no set down procedure in writing for “reporting a near miss incident”. Therefore there simply was no procedure for me to follow. Yet another LIE. I did request a copy from TPE of the supposed "near miss procedure", email evidence I have, said it was in the driver standards booklet, I explained it was not in that booklet, I was then told it was in the rule book, once again I explained it was not there.
Findings: From the disciplinary hearing outcome letter above Mark Atkinson states, "Following an investigation into a non reported near miss it was discovered that the whole incident was a premeditated fabrication and that if there had been a near miss you failed to report it correctly".
Mark Atkinson clearly knew that there had not been a near miss, so how can he state that I failed to follow a procedure that he states in his findings was a fabrication and did not happen?
OTHER EVIDENCE: As I stated from my first interview and each subsequent interview or hearing,
there was no near miss, so how can I be charged with failing to follow a procedure that firstly does not exist and secondly report a near miss incident that did not happen? How can I even be charged with this in the first place?
Hypothetically, I could then say, did TPE report this near miss using the RIDDOR procedure, if not, why not?
LIE NO 5
MA: "8.2 you also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident, resulting in a train being taken out of service”.
LIE NO 5: “resulting in a train being taken out of service”.
EVIDENCE: Throughout this witness statement Mark Atkinson is screaming that I let this train remain in service? But apparently now, the train was taken out of service? This is what Mark Atkinson says further on, “18.5 his actions ensured that the unit remained in public service until it reached the depot”.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Anyone who drives trains in the UK would testify that trains are never, I repeat never removed from service after a near miss incident unless the driver is that badly shaken and no relief driver is available to take the train forward. Therefore once again, Mark Atkinson is a LIAR.
LIE NO 6
MA: "13. On 17 June 2009, his sick pay was stopped as a result of his failure to attend a scheduled Occupational Health appointment or inform the Company that he was remaining abroad after the end of his scheduled leave”.
LIE NO 6: “On 17 June 2009, his sick pay was stopped”.
EVIDENCE: My sick pay was stopped well before then, the following is taken from an email sent to me by Charlotte Pears from human resources. "I wrote to you on 26th May to advise that company sick pay had been withdrawn with effect from 18th May. For your information attached are copies of all correspondence that I've sent to you".
OTHER EVIDENCE: This is one of many examples which proves that Mark Atkinson is not fully converse with the sequence of events even after the hearing and appeal.
MA: "13. On 17 June 2009, his sick pay was stopped as a result of his failure to attend a scheduled Occupational Health appointment or inform the Company that he was remaining abroad after the end of his scheduled leave”.
LIE NO 6: “On 17 June 2009, his sick pay was stopped”.
EVIDENCE: My sick pay was stopped well before then, the following is taken from an email sent to me by Charlotte Pears from human resources. "I wrote to you on 26th May to advise that company sick pay had been withdrawn with effect from 18th May. For your information attached are copies of all correspondence that I've sent to you".
OTHER EVIDENCE: This is one of many examples which proves that Mark Atkinson is not fully converse with the sequence of events even after the hearing and appeal.
LIE NO 7
MA: “16. On 30 June 2009, I conducted the disciplinary hearing following a rearranged Occupational Health meeting on 22 June 2009 which confirmed that Mr Webb was fit to attend
such a hearing. Charlotte Pears, Employee Relations Manager, took notes of the hearing. Prior to the hearing I considered the Investigation Report, the Industry Rule Book and the Company's procedures on defect reporting”.
LIE NO 7: “Prior to the hearing I considered the Investigation Report”.
EVIDENCE: The Investigation report was completely flawed, it never ascertained the most
important factor regarding the behaviour of the warning horn that morning in question, yet as we will see, Mark Atkinson decides for himself and makes the decision that the warning horn failure was a “full failure”, initially described by him as a “defective” failure, as earlier in this statement I have highlighted the fact that Mark Atkinson only refers to the warning horn as being "defective".
If Mark Atkinson had considered the Investigation Report he would surely have questioned the reason why the behaviour of the warning horn was not ascertained or mentioned, therefore he
could not possibly have considered the Investigation Report regarding the warning horn failure, quite simply, there is no information to be found in the investigation report regarding the warning horn and how it functioned on that morning, another LIE.
All it would take is two simple questions to Mark Atkinson. From where, did you find information that gave you the assumption that the train in question had a "defective" or "full" warning horn failure?
When you were told by me in the hearing that I had a partial failure of the warning horn on that morning why did you repeatedly LIE in this statement calling it in essence a complete warning horn failure, even going as far as putting two rules into one and accusing me of failing to report a partial and complete failure at the same time? See LIE NO 10 for evidence of this.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Remember that one of my charges was, “on Wednesday 14 January you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn”; Yet nowhere in the investigation report is there any mention of the so called “defective warning horn”, so I ask the question, where did this charge originate from, where was the evidence and their belief that I failed to carry out this so called procedure because there is no laid down procedure for reporting a warning horn described as being simply "defective".
MA: “16. On 30 June 2009, I conducted the disciplinary hearing following a rearranged Occupational Health meeting on 22 June 2009 which confirmed that Mr Webb was fit to attend
such a hearing. Charlotte Pears, Employee Relations Manager, took notes of the hearing. Prior to the hearing I considered the Investigation Report, the Industry Rule Book and the Company's procedures on defect reporting”.
LIE NO 7: “Prior to the hearing I considered the Investigation Report”.
EVIDENCE: The Investigation report was completely flawed, it never ascertained the most
important factor regarding the behaviour of the warning horn that morning in question, yet as we will see, Mark Atkinson decides for himself and makes the decision that the warning horn failure was a “full failure”, initially described by him as a “defective” failure, as earlier in this statement I have highlighted the fact that Mark Atkinson only refers to the warning horn as being "defective".
If Mark Atkinson had considered the Investigation Report he would surely have questioned the reason why the behaviour of the warning horn was not ascertained or mentioned, therefore he
could not possibly have considered the Investigation Report regarding the warning horn failure, quite simply, there is no information to be found in the investigation report regarding the warning horn and how it functioned on that morning, another LIE.
All it would take is two simple questions to Mark Atkinson. From where, did you find information that gave you the assumption that the train in question had a "defective" or "full" warning horn failure?
When you were told by me in the hearing that I had a partial failure of the warning horn on that morning why did you repeatedly LIE in this statement calling it in essence a complete warning horn failure, even going as far as putting two rules into one and accusing me of failing to report a partial and complete failure at the same time? See LIE NO 10 for evidence of this.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Remember that one of my charges was, “on Wednesday 14 January you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn”; Yet nowhere in the investigation report is there any mention of the so called “defective warning horn”, so I ask the question, where did this charge originate from, where was the evidence and their belief that I failed to carry out this so called procedure because there is no laid down procedure for reporting a warning horn described as being simply "defective".
LIE NO 8
MA: “16. On 30 June 2009, I conducted the disciplinary hearing following a rearranged
Occupational Health meeting on 22 June 2009 which confirmed that Mr Webb was fit
to attend such a hearing. Charlotte Pears, Employee Relations Manager, took notes of the hearing. Prior to the hearing I considered the Investigation Report, the Industry Rule Book and the Company's procedures on defect reporting”.
LIE NO 8: “Prior to the hearing I considered the Industry Rule Book”.
EVIDENCE: In my hearing with Mark Atkinson I clearly explained that I treated the warning horn
failure that morning as a “PARTIAL FAILURE”. The Industry rule book does not tell me to, Stop and report a partial failure of the warning horn to the signaller, it does not tell me to reduce train speed, it does not state the train should be removed from service, so yet again I find Mark Atkinson a LIAR, he could not possibly have considered the rule book in connection with a partial failure of the warning horn.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Remembering that the type of warning horn failure should already have been ascertained prior to this hearing, this was a fundamental part of the charges against me, yet never mentioned in the shambles of an investigation report!
MA: “16. On 30 June 2009, I conducted the disciplinary hearing following a rearranged
Occupational Health meeting on 22 June 2009 which confirmed that Mr Webb was fit
to attend such a hearing. Charlotte Pears, Employee Relations Manager, took notes of the hearing. Prior to the hearing I considered the Investigation Report, the Industry Rule Book and the Company's procedures on defect reporting”.
LIE NO 8: “Prior to the hearing I considered the Industry Rule Book”.
EVIDENCE: In my hearing with Mark Atkinson I clearly explained that I treated the warning horn
failure that morning as a “PARTIAL FAILURE”. The Industry rule book does not tell me to, Stop and report a partial failure of the warning horn to the signaller, it does not tell me to reduce train speed, it does not state the train should be removed from service, so yet again I find Mark Atkinson a LIAR, he could not possibly have considered the rule book in connection with a partial failure of the warning horn.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Remembering that the type of warning horn failure should already have been ascertained prior to this hearing, this was a fundamental part of the charges against me, yet never mentioned in the shambles of an investigation report!
LIE NO 9
MA: “16. On 30 June 2009, I conducted the disciplinary hearing following a rearranged Occupational Health meeting on 22 June 2009 which confirmed that Mr Webb was fit to attend such a hearing. Charlotte Pears, Employee Relations Manager, took notes of the hearing. Prior to the hearing I considered the Investigation Report, the Industry Rule Book and the Company's procedures on defect reporting”.
LIE NO 9: “Prior to the hearing I considered the Company's procedures on defect reporting”.
EVIDENCE: If this was true, then Mark Atkinson would have been aware that part of the Companies procedures are the contingency plans, which allow a train that has a partially defective warning horn to run round all day without any restrictions to its speed. Therefore I do
not believe that Mark Atkinson could possibly have considered all the company procedures involved in defect reporting. Another LIE.
MA: “16. On 30 June 2009, I conducted the disciplinary hearing following a rearranged Occupational Health meeting on 22 June 2009 which confirmed that Mr Webb was fit to attend such a hearing. Charlotte Pears, Employee Relations Manager, took notes of the hearing. Prior to the hearing I considered the Investigation Report, the Industry Rule Book and the Company's procedures on defect reporting”.
LIE NO 9: “Prior to the hearing I considered the Company's procedures on defect reporting”.
EVIDENCE: If this was true, then Mark Atkinson would have been aware that part of the Companies procedures are the contingency plans, which allow a train that has a partially defective warning horn to run round all day without any restrictions to its speed. Therefore I do
not believe that Mark Atkinson could possibly have considered all the company procedures involved in defect reporting. Another LIE.
LIE NO 10
MA: “18. In relation to charge one, I expanded that Mr Webb's failures in reporting the horn defect were that as per the Rule Book: 18.1 he did not stop immediately or at the earliest convenience (Darlington or Northallerton stations or signal stops) and report the matter to the controlling signaller as specified in the procedure”;
LIE NO 10: “18.1 he did not stop immediately or at the earliest convenience (Darlington or Northallerton stations or signal stops) and report the matter to the controlling signaller as specified in the procedure;
EVIDENCE: Where do I start with this statement? Talk about keeping your options open. This shows that Mark Atkinson after everything we have gone through, investigation, hearing and appeal hearing still didn't understand this situation! How could Mark Atkinson have a belief that I was guilty if we get all the way to an employment tribunal and he is still clueless as to what actually happened that morning. How could he have possibly formed a belief that I was guilty?
For a failure of the warning horn we have two sets of rules.
PARTIAL FAILURE: If the warning horn becomes partially defective (for example one tone not working), the driver must tell the train operators control at the first convenient opportunity. Carry out the instructions given.
COMPLETE FAILURE: If the warning horn becomes completely defective on a train or traction unit which is in service you must:
Tell the signaller immediately. Not move the train until instructed to do so. Carry out the instructions given which will deal with the train as shown in part A section 2.10 of this module.
When you begin your journey again the train must travel at a speed of not more than 20mph.
Quite clearly from the above passage by Mark Atkinson, he has no idea which rule was
supposedly broken, “Stop immediately” would suggest a “complete failure”, but the earliest convenience would suggest a “partial failure”, and reporting the matter to the signaller then suggests a “complete failure”. Further implying that from the statement he has made there is only one procedure! THE QUESTION IS WHICH ONE? The answer, is the one he decides in the context of his writing. It is the procedure that makes me look wrong, the procedure that maximises his case against me regardless of the actual evidence, what chance did I stand against these LIES?
Surely anyone can see that he is in far too deep now to get out of these LIES, this statement is a complete jumbled mess, but this is what happens to an HABITUAL LIAR.
Findings: Remember from above the disciplinary hearing outcome letter, there is no mention of stopping immediately and informing the signaller.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Mark Atkinson was totally clueless because the Investigation Report carried out by Stephen Percival was totally one sided and the only aim of that investigation was to put me as far down as possible. Charges were brought against me that could not have possibly originated from that investigation, however these charges alone could not have been gross misconduct, yet they twisted the rules and regulations to fit their LIES, nobody can win against such CORRUPTION and LIES.
LIES 11 - 20 will appear on Page 2:
MA: “18. In relation to charge one, I expanded that Mr Webb's failures in reporting the horn defect were that as per the Rule Book: 18.1 he did not stop immediately or at the earliest convenience (Darlington or Northallerton stations or signal stops) and report the matter to the controlling signaller as specified in the procedure”;
LIE NO 10: “18.1 he did not stop immediately or at the earliest convenience (Darlington or Northallerton stations or signal stops) and report the matter to the controlling signaller as specified in the procedure;
EVIDENCE: Where do I start with this statement? Talk about keeping your options open. This shows that Mark Atkinson after everything we have gone through, investigation, hearing and appeal hearing still didn't understand this situation! How could Mark Atkinson have a belief that I was guilty if we get all the way to an employment tribunal and he is still clueless as to what actually happened that morning. How could he have possibly formed a belief that I was guilty?
For a failure of the warning horn we have two sets of rules.
PARTIAL FAILURE: If the warning horn becomes partially defective (for example one tone not working), the driver must tell the train operators control at the first convenient opportunity. Carry out the instructions given.
COMPLETE FAILURE: If the warning horn becomes completely defective on a train or traction unit which is in service you must:
Tell the signaller immediately. Not move the train until instructed to do so. Carry out the instructions given which will deal with the train as shown in part A section 2.10 of this module.
When you begin your journey again the train must travel at a speed of not more than 20mph.
Quite clearly from the above passage by Mark Atkinson, he has no idea which rule was
supposedly broken, “Stop immediately” would suggest a “complete failure”, but the earliest convenience would suggest a “partial failure”, and reporting the matter to the signaller then suggests a “complete failure”. Further implying that from the statement he has made there is only one procedure! THE QUESTION IS WHICH ONE? The answer, is the one he decides in the context of his writing. It is the procedure that makes me look wrong, the procedure that maximises his case against me regardless of the actual evidence, what chance did I stand against these LIES?
Surely anyone can see that he is in far too deep now to get out of these LIES, this statement is a complete jumbled mess, but this is what happens to an HABITUAL LIAR.
Findings: Remember from above the disciplinary hearing outcome letter, there is no mention of stopping immediately and informing the signaller.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Mark Atkinson was totally clueless because the Investigation Report carried out by Stephen Percival was totally one sided and the only aim of that investigation was to put me as far down as possible. Charges were brought against me that could not have possibly originated from that investigation, however these charges alone could not have been gross misconduct, yet they twisted the rules and regulations to fit their LIES, nobody can win against such CORRUPTION and LIES.
LIES 11 - 20 will appear on Page 2: