Disciplinary Hearing Outcome Letter (page 2)
Charge 2: This is totally unbelievable, it is common logic: Lets just use a simplified procedure to help Mark Atkinson try and understand basic logic.
The following is a procedure for "flushing a toilet":- "After using this toilet you must flush immediately, failure to flush will result in a £100 fine".
On this day in question I decide that I need the toilet, I walk inside and realise that I don't need to use it anymore, so I leave the toilet.
So Mark Atkinson, Should I be fined £100 for not flushing the toilet?
Procedure states, "After using the toilet".
Did I actually use this toilet? The answer is NO.
Therefore do I need to follow the procedure and, "flush immediately"? The answer is NO.
Why is the answer NO? Because out of the two options I had, USE/NOT USE, I decided NOT TO USE the toilet.
The £100 fine is only payable if you use the toilet and don't flush it.
SO MARK ATKINSON, CAN YOU FOLLOW THE REASONING ABOVE, IS IT MADE SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?
DID THE USE OF THE TOILET ACTUALLY HAPPEN?
DID I NEED TO FLUSH?
SHOULD I BE FINED £100?
JUST TO HELP YOU, THE ANSWER TO ALL THE ABOVE IS NO.
Lets try another procedure using the exact same LOGIC:
The following is a procedure for reporting a "near miss". "If as a train driver you are involved in a near miss incident, you must report this incident immediately to the controlling signaller".
On this day in question, I drive a train from Newcastle to York and during the journey I do not have a near miss.
So Mark Atkinson, should I be charged with gross misconduct for not reporting a near miss?
Procedure states, "if you are involved in a near miss incident".
Did I actually have a "near miss incident"? THE ANSWER IS NO.
Therefore do I need to follow the procedure and, "report this incident immediately to the controlling signaller? THE ANSWER IS NO.
WHY IS THE ANSWER NO? Because was there an actual near miss incident, YES/NO, NO THERE WASN'T.
Therefore should gross misconduct apply for an event THAT NEVER HAPPENED? LOGICALLY THE ANSWER HAS TO BE NO.
SO MARK ATKINSON CAN YOU SEE THE COMMON LOGIC APPLIED, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
SO THE MAIN QUESTION NOW IS, WHY THE HELL WAS I CHARGED WITH GROSS MISCONDUCT AND DISMISSED? YOU KNOW THE REAL TRUTH, I HOPE YOU ALSO REALISE THAT ONE DAY THIS TRUTH WILL EMERGE, WHEN IT DOES, WHERE WILL THAT LEAVE YOU?
Findings: How can you possibly form the opinion that if there had been a near miss I would have failed to report it? How can you possibly think that it was a premeditated fabrication, where do you get evidence from to form this opinion? Where did I ever say that I had previously false reported any issue? How can I show remorse for something I haven't done especially in light of your hostility towards me? What evidence do you have that warrants your statements that suggest it was about me getting noticed? YOUR FINDINGS ARE A COMPLETE PACK OF LIE'S.
The following is a procedure for "flushing a toilet":- "After using this toilet you must flush immediately, failure to flush will result in a £100 fine".
On this day in question I decide that I need the toilet, I walk inside and realise that I don't need to use it anymore, so I leave the toilet.
So Mark Atkinson, Should I be fined £100 for not flushing the toilet?
Procedure states, "After using the toilet".
Did I actually use this toilet? The answer is NO.
Therefore do I need to follow the procedure and, "flush immediately"? The answer is NO.
Why is the answer NO? Because out of the two options I had, USE/NOT USE, I decided NOT TO USE the toilet.
The £100 fine is only payable if you use the toilet and don't flush it.
SO MARK ATKINSON, CAN YOU FOLLOW THE REASONING ABOVE, IS IT MADE SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?
DID THE USE OF THE TOILET ACTUALLY HAPPEN?
DID I NEED TO FLUSH?
SHOULD I BE FINED £100?
JUST TO HELP YOU, THE ANSWER TO ALL THE ABOVE IS NO.
Lets try another procedure using the exact same LOGIC:
The following is a procedure for reporting a "near miss". "If as a train driver you are involved in a near miss incident, you must report this incident immediately to the controlling signaller".
On this day in question, I drive a train from Newcastle to York and during the journey I do not have a near miss.
So Mark Atkinson, should I be charged with gross misconduct for not reporting a near miss?
Procedure states, "if you are involved in a near miss incident".
Did I actually have a "near miss incident"? THE ANSWER IS NO.
Therefore do I need to follow the procedure and, "report this incident immediately to the controlling signaller? THE ANSWER IS NO.
WHY IS THE ANSWER NO? Because was there an actual near miss incident, YES/NO, NO THERE WASN'T.
Therefore should gross misconduct apply for an event THAT NEVER HAPPENED? LOGICALLY THE ANSWER HAS TO BE NO.
SO MARK ATKINSON CAN YOU SEE THE COMMON LOGIC APPLIED, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
SO THE MAIN QUESTION NOW IS, WHY THE HELL WAS I CHARGED WITH GROSS MISCONDUCT AND DISMISSED? YOU KNOW THE REAL TRUTH, I HOPE YOU ALSO REALISE THAT ONE DAY THIS TRUTH WILL EMERGE, WHEN IT DOES, WHERE WILL THAT LEAVE YOU?
Findings: How can you possibly form the opinion that if there had been a near miss I would have failed to report it? How can you possibly think that it was a premeditated fabrication, where do you get evidence from to form this opinion? Where did I ever say that I had previously false reported any issue? How can I show remorse for something I haven't done especially in light of your hostility towards me? What evidence do you have that warrants your statements that suggest it was about me getting noticed? YOUR FINDINGS ARE A COMPLETE PACK OF LIE'S.
Charge 3: Again another non descriptive charge without any rule book prefix. Is this worthy of gross misconduct.
Findings: This charge apart from being read out at the beginning of the hearing were never mentioned again, the following is what Mark Atkinson said about this charge, which as anyone with any rules knowledge knows is a complete pack of LIE'S.
"With this in mind you did NOT STOP and report them correctly, you did not inform the TOC Control, you did not complete the repair book procedure correctly, with those charges of gross misconduct the lack of correct reporting allowed the unit to remain in service with the alleged faults to the warning horn, wipers and excessive cab noise. You think this is safe"?
Witness Statement remarks on 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.
WHAT ELSE CAN I ADD THAT I HAVEN'T ALREADY SAID ABOUT THIS INDIVIDUAL, ANYONE WITH ANY COMMON SENSE CAN READ INTO THIS AND REALISE THIS WAS A COMPLETE AND UTTER STITCH UP.
Findings: This charge apart from being read out at the beginning of the hearing were never mentioned again, the following is what Mark Atkinson said about this charge, which as anyone with any rules knowledge knows is a complete pack of LIE'S.
"With this in mind you did NOT STOP and report them correctly, you did not inform the TOC Control, you did not complete the repair book procedure correctly, with those charges of gross misconduct the lack of correct reporting allowed the unit to remain in service with the alleged faults to the warning horn, wipers and excessive cab noise. You think this is safe"?
Witness Statement remarks on 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.
WHAT ELSE CAN I ADD THAT I HAVEN'T ALREADY SAID ABOUT THIS INDIVIDUAL, ANYONE WITH ANY COMMON SENSE CAN READ INTO THIS AND REALISE THIS WAS A COMPLETE AND UTTER STITCH UP.