Analysis of Paul Watson's Witness Statement (No 34).
Lets take a detailed look and analyse exactly what the statement below implies.
34. "I concluded that I upheld the decision of Mr Atkinson to dismiss, on the basis that none of the information provided to me had established that he had not committed the charges he was found to have committed. I could not see that his suggestion that his frustration was sufficient to justify fabricating a safety incident, resulting in a train being taken out of action, was acceptable. It was clear from the actions of the Company on the day that the Company does react to Driver complaints as soon as the defects are reported. The train in question was taken out of service as soon as the defect slip was found which resulted in a deficiency in train numbers".
Firstly Head of Operational Safety Paul Watson upholds the decision of Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson to dismiss me. This was a decision decided on the wrong set of facts.
Paul Watson states that this, is on the basis that the information I supplied at my appeal established that I DID commit the 3 charges of gross misconduct that Mark Atkinson found me guilty of.
Lets take a look at what Mark Atkinson found me guilty on.
Extracts from the summing up at my hearing and witness statement:
CHARGE 1: MA “It is my belief that this charge is proven that on the day in question you did fail to follow the correct procedure. The unit stayed in service was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk”.
1. “You didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaler”.
2. “You didn`t report it to the train operating company control”.
3. “At no point did you reduce the train speed”.
4. “You didn`t complete the repair book procedure correctly”.
5. “The train remained in service, when it should have been removed".
This is just totally unbelievable, how can Paul Watson uphold the decision to dismiss me when I proved with evidence from my hearing minutes and as he himself was fully aware that the warning horn was only a partial failure. Mark Atkinson found me guilty on a complete failure of the warning horn.
Paul Watson states that this, is on the basis that the information I supplied at my appeal established that I DID commit the 3 charges of gross misconduct that Mark Atkinson found me guilty of.
Lets take a look at what Mark Atkinson found me guilty on.
Extracts from the summing up at my hearing and witness statement:
CHARGE 1: MA “It is my belief that this charge is proven that on the day in question you did fail to follow the correct procedure. The unit stayed in service was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk”.
1. “You didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaler”.
2. “You didn`t report it to the train operating company control”.
3. “At no point did you reduce the train speed”.
4. “You didn`t complete the repair book procedure correctly”.
5. “The train remained in service, when it should have been removed".
This is just totally unbelievable, how can Paul Watson uphold the decision to dismiss me when I proved with evidence from my hearing minutes and as he himself was fully aware that the warning horn was only a partial failure. Mark Atkinson found me guilty on a complete failure of the warning horn.
CHARGE 2: MA “The failure to follow the correct reporting procedure for reporting a near miss. It is my belief that this is proven because the whole incident was a premeditated fabrication”. “You clearly failed to follow the correct process for following and reporting a near miss, when the fault came to light, the train was taken out of service for investigation and repair”.
How can Paul Watson find me guilty on what Mark Atkinson's says above?
MA “It is my belief that this is proven because the whole incident was a premeditated fabrication”. I never once admitted or mentioned that my actions on that day were premeditated, even the investigating officer could only say, “possibly a premeditated act”. MA again, is wrong in his assumption, it was not a premeditated act, therefore his belief, that what I did, in other words, my guilt, was in his mind based upon premeditation, that is totally misguided.
MA, second part, “You clearly failed to follow the correct process for following and reporting a near miss”. Firstly, where can the procedure for reporting a near miss be found? How can I follow any type of procedure when I clearly stated in the very first interview, “that he had NOT had a near miss”.
There was no procedure to follow, because there was no near miss. If there had been a procedure to follow then I do not know where it is and this is despite many requests for it, TPE never produced it, remember when I requested it, Miss Pears said firstly it was in the rule book and then it was apparently in the Train Driving Competence Standards Booklet, (SC1).
Again all of this information was available in the investigation report and mentioned to MA during my hearing, how can I clearly fail to follow this procedure? On this issue MA made a decision on something that again is not factual.
THEREFORE AS MARK ATKINSON APPARENTLY BELIEVED THIS AND PAUL WATSON ENDORSES IT, HOW POSSIBLY CAN MARK ATKINSON STATE THE FOLLOWING IN HIS WITNESS STATEMENT?
7. “On 15 January 2009, Mr Webb was interviewed at an investigatory meeting where he admitted that he had filled in the anonymous repair slip and that the near miss incident never occurred. A further investigatory meeting was held on 20 January 2009 where he was suspended from duty”.
I COULD NOT FOLLOW A PROCEDURE FOR SOMETHING THAT NEVER HAPPENED, LIKEWISE TPE COULD NOT REPORT THE NEAR MISS USING THE RIDDOR REPORTING PROCEDURE. THE WHOLE CHARGE AND HOW THEY DEALT WITH THIS WAS A COMPLETE SHAM, IN OTHER WORDS A CONSPIRED SET UP.
How can Paul Watson find me guilty on what Mark Atkinson's says above?
MA “It is my belief that this is proven because the whole incident was a premeditated fabrication”. I never once admitted or mentioned that my actions on that day were premeditated, even the investigating officer could only say, “possibly a premeditated act”. MA again, is wrong in his assumption, it was not a premeditated act, therefore his belief, that what I did, in other words, my guilt, was in his mind based upon premeditation, that is totally misguided.
MA, second part, “You clearly failed to follow the correct process for following and reporting a near miss”. Firstly, where can the procedure for reporting a near miss be found? How can I follow any type of procedure when I clearly stated in the very first interview, “that he had NOT had a near miss”.
There was no procedure to follow, because there was no near miss. If there had been a procedure to follow then I do not know where it is and this is despite many requests for it, TPE never produced it, remember when I requested it, Miss Pears said firstly it was in the rule book and then it was apparently in the Train Driving Competence Standards Booklet, (SC1).
Again all of this information was available in the investigation report and mentioned to MA during my hearing, how can I clearly fail to follow this procedure? On this issue MA made a decision on something that again is not factual.
THEREFORE AS MARK ATKINSON APPARENTLY BELIEVED THIS AND PAUL WATSON ENDORSES IT, HOW POSSIBLY CAN MARK ATKINSON STATE THE FOLLOWING IN HIS WITNESS STATEMENT?
7. “On 15 January 2009, Mr Webb was interviewed at an investigatory meeting where he admitted that he had filled in the anonymous repair slip and that the near miss incident never occurred. A further investigatory meeting was held on 20 January 2009 where he was suspended from duty”.
I COULD NOT FOLLOW A PROCEDURE FOR SOMETHING THAT NEVER HAPPENED, LIKEWISE TPE COULD NOT REPORT THE NEAR MISS USING THE RIDDOR REPORTING PROCEDURE. THE WHOLE CHARGE AND HOW THEY DEALT WITH THIS WAS A COMPLETE SHAM, IN OTHER WORDS A CONSPIRED SET UP.
CHARGE 3: MA “It is my belief that this issue was covered in charge one as you represented Steve and I will withdraw it on this occasion”.
How can Paul Watson agree with Mark Atkinson's witness statement that said this about charge 3:-
20. In relation to charge three (the train defects), I stated that:
20.1 he failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting train defects;
20.2 he did not stop and report the safety defects correctly;
20.3 he did not inform the company's control/the signal box or controlling signal;
20.4 he did not complete the repair book correctly, by omitting his details; and
20.5 he allowed a train to remain in service, as a result of his above failures, with an allegedly faulty warning horn, wipers, window and excessive Driver cab noise.
Again, this just shows what a BLATANT LIAR MARK ATKINSON IS, as he never mentioned once in my hearing anything regarding charge 3.
Mark Atkinson's exact wording about charge 3 was, “It is my belief that this issue was covered in charge one as you represented Steve and I will withdraw it on this occasion”.
So if he had withdrawn this charge, why would he include it in his witness statement and make it out as if he had actually found me guilty on this?
Even with a Partial failure of the warning horn, cab noise and an intermittent wiper fault, where would any of the above come into this? Mark Atkinson is a COMPULSIVE LIAR.
ABOVE I HAVE PROVEN BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT I WAS FOUND GUILTY BY MARK ATKINSON ON FAILING TO FOLLOW PROCEDURES ON ISSUES THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
ALSO I AM FOUND GUILTY FOR NOT FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE FOR AN EVENT THAT NEVER HAPPENED, I COULD ONLY FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE IF THE NEAR MISS HAD HAPPENED.
YET PAUL WATSON UPHOLDS MARK ATKINSON'S DECISION DESPITE EVIDENCE GIVEN IN MY HEARING THAT I NEVER COMMITTED THE BREACH OF PROCEDURES MARK ATKINSON FOUND ME GUILTY ON.
THIS IS WHY ONE DAY, I WILL EVENTUALLY GET JUSTICE.
How can Paul Watson agree with Mark Atkinson's witness statement that said this about charge 3:-
20. In relation to charge three (the train defects), I stated that:
20.1 he failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting train defects;
20.2 he did not stop and report the safety defects correctly;
20.3 he did not inform the company's control/the signal box or controlling signal;
20.4 he did not complete the repair book correctly, by omitting his details; and
20.5 he allowed a train to remain in service, as a result of his above failures, with an allegedly faulty warning horn, wipers, window and excessive Driver cab noise.
Again, this just shows what a BLATANT LIAR MARK ATKINSON IS, as he never mentioned once in my hearing anything regarding charge 3.
Mark Atkinson's exact wording about charge 3 was, “It is my belief that this issue was covered in charge one as you represented Steve and I will withdraw it on this occasion”.
So if he had withdrawn this charge, why would he include it in his witness statement and make it out as if he had actually found me guilty on this?
Even with a Partial failure of the warning horn, cab noise and an intermittent wiper fault, where would any of the above come into this? Mark Atkinson is a COMPULSIVE LIAR.
ABOVE I HAVE PROVEN BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT I WAS FOUND GUILTY BY MARK ATKINSON ON FAILING TO FOLLOW PROCEDURES ON ISSUES THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
ALSO I AM FOUND GUILTY FOR NOT FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE FOR AN EVENT THAT NEVER HAPPENED, I COULD ONLY FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE IF THE NEAR MISS HAD HAPPENED.
YET PAUL WATSON UPHOLDS MARK ATKINSON'S DECISION DESPITE EVIDENCE GIVEN IN MY HEARING THAT I NEVER COMMITTED THE BREACH OF PROCEDURES MARK ATKINSON FOUND ME GUILTY ON.
THIS IS WHY ONE DAY, I WILL EVENTUALLY GET JUSTICE.