KEY QUESTIONS - PAGE 2
Questions from the section titled (LIES 11 - 20).
1. You stated the following, “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: 18.3 he did not reduce speed”; Would I really have to reduce speed for a PARTIALLY defective warning horn fault?
2. Why after a hearing, appeal and then in an employment tribunal do you insist with your LIES and keep referring to the warning horn as being a COMPLETE FAILURE? (LIE NO 11).
3. You also stated, “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: “18.5 his actions ensured that the unit remained in public service until it reached the depot”. If I reported a PARTIAL failure of the warning to control what would they have said? (LIE NO 12).
4. Would that unit have stayed in public service with a PARTIAL failure?
5. You are saying that this train would have been removed from service, which ruling states this?
6. From the following statement, “19 In relation to charge two (the near miss incident), I stated that: 19.1 he had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting which resulted in the train not being taken out of service immediately”; We have covered this before, but quite simply, are trains taken out of service immediately that have been involved in a near miss? (LIE NO 13).
7. I have nearly 25 years front end experience and in all that time I have never known any train being taken out of service for a near miss apart from when the driver is suffering from shock, do you still ascertain that if a near miss had actually happened and I had reported it, this train would have been removed from traffic?
8. If the answer is YES - You would not be able to find one person even from TransPennine Express that would agree with you! Where can the laid down procedure be found for reporting a near miss?
9. How come when I asked for a copy of this supposed procedure you failed to supply me with one?
10. If an incident occurs, would you agree that you could report it? If an incident never happened, would it become something you could report?
11. I wrote about an hypothetical event that in my mind had and still has the potential that one day someone will eventually be killed or badly injured, this event never happened, it is in my imagination, I explained from my immediate interviews that this near miss never occurred. So how can I be charged with failing to use a procedure for an incident that never happened?
12. You stated, “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”; Please supply the rule book evidence that states I should STOP and report the defects to control and the signaller. (LIE NO 14).
13. Where in the rule book does it tell a train driver to STOP and report a noisy door or a windscreen wiper that works intermittently? Supply the ruling that states this.
14. The next is a very interesting statement, “22.1 the full warning horn failure was as a result of low temperatures that day. Mr Webb suggested that the failure was caused by the weather and that as he could see that the weather was clearing up it would not have affected the train and therefore did not need reporting”; Where do we find the terminology, "FULL WARNING HORN FAILURE" in the rule book? (LIE NO 15).
15. Did you believe the PARTIALLY defective warning horn was caused by low temperatures or are you stating this on my belief?
16. How can you still refer to this warning horn failure as a "FULL WARNING HORN FAILURE" in other words a COMPLETE FAILURE?
17. I challenge Mark Atkinson to show the section from which part of the hearing I supposedly said, "did not need reporting"?
18. Many questions arise from this statement, MA: “23 Mr Webb referred to a Fleet Newsletter, which stated, in relation to the Company's 185 trains, that “since introduction warning (horn) faults had become prevalent during the winter months, especially during damp conditions”. He suggested that if such faults are so prevalent then he should not have to report such problems. I did not find this argument credible as Mr Webb, as former health and safety representative, was fully aware that all safety incidents need to be reported to allow the Company to respond”. (LIE NO 16).
From this part of the above statement please show where I supposedly said, "He suggested that if such faults are so prevalent then he should not have to report such problems".
19. As a company, when did you ever respond to any of my reports?
20. From a Case Management discussion meeting with Judge Colin Grazin. What do you make of the statement from yourselves (TPE) that said in relation to a list of safety reports you were given (again), "NO RESPONSE OR COMMENTS PROVIDED TO THE CLAIMANT BY THE RESPONDENT".
21. Do you have any idea why there was such an ignorant response?
21. What do you make of the remark made by Judge Colin Grazin in that case management
meeting where he said, "It is equally not in dispute that in the vast majority, if not all, of those cases, the Respondent (TPE) simply did not respond to them".
22. Regarding this next statement, “24 In relation to the false reporting of a near miss incident, Mr Webb stated on numerous occasions that he had made similar false reports previously but had never been disciplined". Does he honestly think if I had made allegations before they would have been overlooked? I challenge Mark Atkinson to show me "similar false reports". (LIE NO 17).
23. Regarding the following, "Mr Trumm also stated that he did not think Mr Webb would get a fair hearing as he felt that the outcome was predetermined due to Mr Webb's previous Trade Union activities”. Why would you engage the use of a solicitor against me?
24. How could I possibly have a fair hearing and appeal when you are using a solicitor to make your case against me?
25. If my charges really warranted gross misconduct would you really need to use a solicitor before my hearing and appeal?
26. Regarding this, “29 I asserted during the hearing that if Mr Webb was as concerned about the horn defects as he alleged he was, then prior to arriving in York he should have reported the matter immediately and made sure the train did not go any further. In response to this, he admitted that he did not report the matter at the first available opportunity”. (LIE NO 18).
When were any of my concerns ever taken into consideration?
27. Which rules state I should report immediately and make sure the train doesn't go any further?
28. Where did I ever state, that I didn't report the matter at the first available opportunity?
LIE NO 19
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND EVIDENCE ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO MY ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY, THEY MUST BE THOROUGHLY EXAMINED. THIS SECTION ALSO HAS MASSIVE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS WHICH MANY YEARS ON HAVE STILL NOT BEEN ADDRESSED!
29. What can I say about this statement! “32 There was a discussion as to whether or not the horn defect was a partial failure or a full failure. This was in reference to the fact that the 185 trains have two tones on their horns. If there is a partial failure, i.e. one of the horn tones fails but the other remains working, then the procedure for Drivers is to report the issue at the soonest convenience as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail". (LIE NO 19).
Show me where in the minutes we had this discussion?
30. If we did have this discussion, what was the outcome? Did my train have a PARTIAL or COMPLETE failure?
31. If you answer COMPLETE - Then you produce the section in the hearing minutes where this conversation took place, there is the audio available if you dispute the minutes. I NEVER ONCE SAID THAT I HAD A COMPLETE FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN.
32. If you answer PARTIAL - Then once again produce the section from the hearing minutes where this was decided. If PARTIAL is your answer then as the whole world can see, you are the most HABITUAL LIAR I have ever come across!
33. Why would you use the SLANG terminology "soonest"? In which ruling is this used?
34. Do you still stand by your statement, "as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail"? Do you realise what implications this carries?
35. We all know that a train under the rule book and TPE contingency plans can run round all day with only one tone of the horn working, in other words it has a PARTIAL failure. This train can run up to a maximum speed of 100mph like this, but what happens when your statement becomes reality?
36. This is a SCENARIO SITUATION that could easily happen in the real world. Do you agree or disagree with this scenario?
SCENARIO: It is a cold damp day, you are travelling at 100mph when you encounter an area
of bends and bridges, as you travel round one of these bends you see in front of you approximately 1000 feet away a group of track workers (this could be young children or anyone), you immediately push your warning horn upwards, you get no response!
Remembering at this speed you are travelling at 150 feet per second, (approximately 7 seconds to impact). If you don't actually freeze through the shock, (150 feet per second), you then push the lever downwards, (150 feet per second), nothing happens!
37. Would you agree the possible outcome could be DEATH?
38. What have you done to try and stop this from happening? Especially bearing in mind your statement, "as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail"?
39. In relation to, “33 Mr Webb also referred to recent incidents where defects had not been reported by other Drivers but did not provide examples. He initially alleged that those employees were as guilty as he was but after discussion, he agreed that his actions had differed to the comparators he raised in that he had reported an incident which did not take place”. (LIE NO 20).
"but did not provide examples". What does the following statement prove?
“There’s so many of these reports that will not have been rung in and dealt with properly. Some of these here, with what the drivers say”.
40. Have another try, did I provide examples? YES/NO?
41. If you answer NO - What do the following statements mean?
"Can I let you read that Mark Please".
"I have tried with so many reports".
"But its relevant Mark, its evidence".
"Would you like to look through some of this evidence Mark, it just highlights some of my frustrations".
"There are so many of these reports that will not have been rung in and dealt with properly. Some of these here with what the drivers say".
"I've brought a sample of reports that I have put in, I have numerous reports, numerous repair book slips".
I ALWAYS USE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP ANY STATEMENT I MAKE.
KEY QUESTIONS - PAGE 3 TO FOLLOW
23. Regarding the following, "Mr Trumm also stated that he did not think Mr Webb would get a fair hearing as he felt that the outcome was predetermined due to Mr Webb's previous Trade Union activities”. Why would you engage the use of a solicitor against me?
24. How could I possibly have a fair hearing and appeal when you are using a solicitor to make your case against me?
25. If my charges really warranted gross misconduct would you really need to use a solicitor before my hearing and appeal?
26. Regarding this, “29 I asserted during the hearing that if Mr Webb was as concerned about the horn defects as he alleged he was, then prior to arriving in York he should have reported the matter immediately and made sure the train did not go any further. In response to this, he admitted that he did not report the matter at the first available opportunity”. (LIE NO 18).
When were any of my concerns ever taken into consideration?
27. Which rules state I should report immediately and make sure the train doesn't go any further?
28. Where did I ever state, that I didn't report the matter at the first available opportunity?
LIE NO 19
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND EVIDENCE ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO MY ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY, THEY MUST BE THOROUGHLY EXAMINED. THIS SECTION ALSO HAS MASSIVE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS WHICH MANY YEARS ON HAVE STILL NOT BEEN ADDRESSED!
29. What can I say about this statement! “32 There was a discussion as to whether or not the horn defect was a partial failure or a full failure. This was in reference to the fact that the 185 trains have two tones on their horns. If there is a partial failure, i.e. one of the horn tones fails but the other remains working, then the procedure for Drivers is to report the issue at the soonest convenience as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail". (LIE NO 19).
Show me where in the minutes we had this discussion?
30. If we did have this discussion, what was the outcome? Did my train have a PARTIAL or COMPLETE failure?
31. If you answer COMPLETE - Then you produce the section in the hearing minutes where this conversation took place, there is the audio available if you dispute the minutes. I NEVER ONCE SAID THAT I HAD A COMPLETE FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN.
32. If you answer PARTIAL - Then once again produce the section from the hearing minutes where this was decided. If PARTIAL is your answer then as the whole world can see, you are the most HABITUAL LIAR I have ever come across!
33. Why would you use the SLANG terminology "soonest"? In which ruling is this used?
34. Do you still stand by your statement, "as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail"? Do you realise what implications this carries?
35. We all know that a train under the rule book and TPE contingency plans can run round all day with only one tone of the horn working, in other words it has a PARTIAL failure. This train can run up to a maximum speed of 100mph like this, but what happens when your statement becomes reality?
36. This is a SCENARIO SITUATION that could easily happen in the real world. Do you agree or disagree with this scenario?
SCENARIO: It is a cold damp day, you are travelling at 100mph when you encounter an area
of bends and bridges, as you travel round one of these bends you see in front of you approximately 1000 feet away a group of track workers (this could be young children or anyone), you immediately push your warning horn upwards, you get no response!
Remembering at this speed you are travelling at 150 feet per second, (approximately 7 seconds to impact). If you don't actually freeze through the shock, (150 feet per second), you then push the lever downwards, (150 feet per second), nothing happens!
37. Would you agree the possible outcome could be DEATH?
38. What have you done to try and stop this from happening? Especially bearing in mind your statement, "as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail"?
39. In relation to, “33 Mr Webb also referred to recent incidents where defects had not been reported by other Drivers but did not provide examples. He initially alleged that those employees were as guilty as he was but after discussion, he agreed that his actions had differed to the comparators he raised in that he had reported an incident which did not take place”. (LIE NO 20).
"but did not provide examples". What does the following statement prove?
“There’s so many of these reports that will not have been rung in and dealt with properly. Some of these here, with what the drivers say”.
40. Have another try, did I provide examples? YES/NO?
41. If you answer NO - What do the following statements mean?
"Can I let you read that Mark Please".
"I have tried with so many reports".
"But its relevant Mark, its evidence".
"Would you like to look through some of this evidence Mark, it just highlights some of my frustrations".
"There are so many of these reports that will not have been rung in and dealt with properly. Some of these here with what the drivers say".
"I've brought a sample of reports that I have put in, I have numerous reports, numerous repair book slips".
I ALWAYS USE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP ANY STATEMENT I MAKE.
KEY QUESTIONS - PAGE 3 TO FOLLOW