KEY QUESTIONS - PAGE 3
For LIE'S 21 - 30
1. From this statement, “37 In relation to charge one, I found that it had been proven that he had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn as he had not done so as soon as the matter arose and that as a result of this action the train had stayed in service which was a risk to those on or about the railway infrastructure”. You once again use the generic term of a "defective" warning horn, which type of failure was this? PARTIAL or COMPLETE? (LIE NO 21).
2. Which ruling states a driver reports a warning horn fault as soon as the matter arises?
3. Why was this particular train that stayed in service a "risk" to those on or about the railway infrastructure?
4. What do the contingency plans in conjunction with the rule book say about a train that has a PARTIAL failure of the warning horn like this train encountered that January morning?
(LIE NO 22).
5. If as you state this train staying in service with a PARTIAL failure of the warning horn is a danger to people on or about railway infrastructure why to this very day have you allowed possibly thousands of class 185 units that have PARTIAL failures of the warning horn to remain in service and run at speeds up to 100mph?
6. Not only trains run by TransPennine Express but do you realise the implications concerned for you (and others who have been informed) if a train from any rail operating company in this country is involved in a fatality through the remaining warning horn failing when this train already had a PARTIAL failure?
1. From this statement, “37 In relation to charge one, I found that it had been proven that he had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn as he had not done so as soon as the matter arose and that as a result of this action the train had stayed in service which was a risk to those on or about the railway infrastructure”. You once again use the generic term of a "defective" warning horn, which type of failure was this? PARTIAL or COMPLETE? (LIE NO 21).
2. Which ruling states a driver reports a warning horn fault as soon as the matter arises?
3. Why was this particular train that stayed in service a "risk" to those on or about the railway infrastructure?
4. What do the contingency plans in conjunction with the rule book say about a train that has a PARTIAL failure of the warning horn like this train encountered that January morning?
(LIE NO 22).
5. If as you state this train staying in service with a PARTIAL failure of the warning horn is a danger to people on or about railway infrastructure why to this very day have you allowed possibly thousands of class 185 units that have PARTIAL failures of the warning horn to remain in service and run at speeds up to 100mph?
6. Not only trains run by TransPennine Express but do you realise the implications concerned for you (and others who have been informed) if a train from any rail operating company in this country is involved in a fatality through the remaining warning horn failing when this train already had a PARTIAL failure?
7. Regarding this statement, “38 In relation to charge two, I found that it had been proven. It was clear that Mr Webb had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident as he had not completed the form correctly and had not reported the incident to Control or the signaller as soon as it had allegedly occurred". (LIE NO 23). In which publication can a set procedure giving precise guidelines for reporting a near miss incident be found?
8. Which form did I supposedly not complete correctly?
9. If an incident never happened, how can it be reported?
10. Did you read the investigation report? YES/NO?
11. Of course your answer should be YES, because you have already stated that you considered the investigation report. In that report I stated from the outset that THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY NEAR MISS, so how can I be charged with not following a procedure for an event that DID NOT HAPPEN?
12. As for this statement, “indicated that he had previously fabricated other incidents”.
(LIE NO 24), where is your evidence that I indicated to previously fabricating other incidents?
13. Continuing with (LIE NO 25), “Above all, I noted that Mr Webb had demonstrated a wilful and blatant disregard for the procedures". I behaved that morning with that PARTIAL failure of the warning horn how I had done for every other PARTIAL failure, it was my understanding of the common situation that I was in, how can you call this a willful and blatant disregard for procedures?
14. Which procedures is this supposedly a willful and blatant disregard of?
15. I have evidence to show that every other driver behaved the same way, if not worse when it came to reporting warning PARTIAL & COMPLETE warning horn failures, I tried to give you that evidence in the hearing, why did you IGNORE it?
16. Do you understand the meaning of EQUITY?
17. Regarding this statement, “40.2 in relation to the allegation that the outcome of the hearing was predetermined, on the basis of his Trade Union activities, I confirmed that I was present to listen to his responses and judge the matter on the information I received that day". As mentioned above, aside from witnessing Mr Webb representing an employee at a disciplinary hearing I had no knowledge of his previous Trade Union activities. I saw no evidence to suggest that the matter was predetermined. Certainly I had not predetermined it”; (LIE NO 26).
18. When asked to "define your company’s definition of gross misconduct", if I was as guilty as you made out, why didn't you know which area's from the disciplinary procedures I had allegedly breached?
19. When I accused others of being supposedly equally guilty, you said it was a serious allegation, what did you do about this "SERIOUS ALLEGATION"?
20. You eventually found three points from the disciplinary procedures that you said I was guilty of, the first one was, "deliberate falsification of records", what did I supposedly falsify?
21. Second point, “serious negligence which cause, might cause loss (?) of might cause damage or injury”, can you explain the relevance of this statement to what I was being charged with?
22. The third point, “ Breaches of health and safety rules and procedures, they all fall in the context of gross misconduct charges”. Which health & safety rules and procedures did I allegedly
breach?
23. You made this statement, "I saw no evidence to suggest that the matter was predetermined. Certainly I had not predetermined it”. How can you therefore say, “THESE CLEARLY COMPLY WITH GROSS MISCONDUCT”, before I give my defence to the allegations?
24. How can my charges clearly comply with gross misconduct before you listen to what I have to say, is your statement insinuating a predetermined outcome? YES or NO? We all know that you cannot answer YES and we all know from basic English that an outcome had already been decided by you because until you hear my defence the charges are only allegations.
8. Which form did I supposedly not complete correctly?
9. If an incident never happened, how can it be reported?
10. Did you read the investigation report? YES/NO?
11. Of course your answer should be YES, because you have already stated that you considered the investigation report. In that report I stated from the outset that THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY NEAR MISS, so how can I be charged with not following a procedure for an event that DID NOT HAPPEN?
12. As for this statement, “indicated that he had previously fabricated other incidents”.
(LIE NO 24), where is your evidence that I indicated to previously fabricating other incidents?
13. Continuing with (LIE NO 25), “Above all, I noted that Mr Webb had demonstrated a wilful and blatant disregard for the procedures". I behaved that morning with that PARTIAL failure of the warning horn how I had done for every other PARTIAL failure, it was my understanding of the common situation that I was in, how can you call this a willful and blatant disregard for procedures?
14. Which procedures is this supposedly a willful and blatant disregard of?
15. I have evidence to show that every other driver behaved the same way, if not worse when it came to reporting warning PARTIAL & COMPLETE warning horn failures, I tried to give you that evidence in the hearing, why did you IGNORE it?
16. Do you understand the meaning of EQUITY?
17. Regarding this statement, “40.2 in relation to the allegation that the outcome of the hearing was predetermined, on the basis of his Trade Union activities, I confirmed that I was present to listen to his responses and judge the matter on the information I received that day". As mentioned above, aside from witnessing Mr Webb representing an employee at a disciplinary hearing I had no knowledge of his previous Trade Union activities. I saw no evidence to suggest that the matter was predetermined. Certainly I had not predetermined it”; (LIE NO 26).
18. When asked to "define your company’s definition of gross misconduct", if I was as guilty as you made out, why didn't you know which area's from the disciplinary procedures I had allegedly breached?
19. When I accused others of being supposedly equally guilty, you said it was a serious allegation, what did you do about this "SERIOUS ALLEGATION"?
20. You eventually found three points from the disciplinary procedures that you said I was guilty of, the first one was, "deliberate falsification of records", what did I supposedly falsify?
21. Second point, “serious negligence which cause, might cause loss (?) of might cause damage or injury”, can you explain the relevance of this statement to what I was being charged with?
22. The third point, “ Breaches of health and safety rules and procedures, they all fall in the context of gross misconduct charges”. Which health & safety rules and procedures did I allegedly
breach?
23. You made this statement, "I saw no evidence to suggest that the matter was predetermined. Certainly I had not predetermined it”. How can you therefore say, “THESE CLEARLY COMPLY WITH GROSS MISCONDUCT”, before I give my defence to the allegations?
24. How can my charges clearly comply with gross misconduct before you listen to what I have to say, is your statement insinuating a predetermined outcome? YES or NO? We all know that you cannot answer YES and we all know from basic English that an outcome had already been decided by you because until you hear my defence the charges are only allegations.
25. On to (LIE NO 27), “40.3 in relation to the suggestion by Mr Webb that the Company's alleged failures to respond to his defect reports had forced him to take the actions he did, I found that even if he was right (which I did not find was the case) that there were a number of issues with the trains which the Company was failing to respond to, that did not justify his fabrication of a near miss incident” Can you explain the statement, "I found that even if he was right (which I did not find was the case)"? (LIE NO 27).
26. Why would you even contemplate the notion that I was right?
27. From where did you get your evidence that obviously suggested to you that TPE DID respond
to my defect reports? Especially when earlier you reckoned that you approached this hearing with no prior knowledge!
28. From this statement, “40.4 having considered Mr Webb's admission that he had fabricated incidents before and reported them without disciplinary sanction, I confirmed, following consideration of further documentation, that such fabrications had not been apparent to the Company and therefore it could not have responded. If such fabrication had been established, I would have expected the Company to act in the same way again due to the potential seriousness of the impact upon the business”. Where in the hearing did I ever say that I had specifically fabricated incidents before? (LIE NO 28).
29. Why would you refer to something that can be regarded previous to the event when all throughout my hearing you dismissed evidence I tried to give you because in your own words you described it as PREVIOUS?
30. Regarding this statement, “following consideration of further documentation”, what did this supposed further documentation state? (LIE NO 29).
31. Where did you obtain it from?
32. Was this documentation in your possession before, during or after my hearing?
33. Regarding, “41 I summarily dismissed Mr Webb on two counts of gross misconduct and informed him of his right to appeal. I took a lot of time to come to this decision, I adjourned the hearing for approximately 1 hour 30 minutes to consider the options available to me but in light of his lack of remorse, blatant admission that he had made up the incident and that he would do it
again I felt dismissal was the appropriate sanction”. What did you want me to show remorse about? (LIE NO 30).
34. Why is there no mention of failing to follow any procedures?
35. Where did I ever say, "I WOULD DO IT AGAIN"?
The final LIE, that I supposedly said, "I WOULD DO IT AGAIN", is something that has been a trait throughout this whole episode, it is something that each individual manager did to me at every chance, it was clearly done to make me look as bad as humanely possible in the eyes of others, yet they forgot one small issue, when you make these statements and actions you need real evidence to back them up and that is what they forgot in their stampede to run me into the ground.
Their vindictiveness not only affected me, it had a major impact on all those around me, especially my family. Both my parents are seriously ill, my mother is crippled and wheelchair bound with arthritis and my dad has prostate cancer, they would dearly like to see my wife and son, but due to financial restraints caused by employment problems I cannot afford the journey this would involve as they live in Thailand.
I have seen my wife and son 3 times in 6 years, they lost their home because I couldn't afford the mortgage payments, they suffer when they are ill because I cannot afford the medication and I cannot afford to send my son to school all of the time.
TPE blacklisted me with every rail operating company in this country, I wrote to everyone of them for employment as a driver, only one rail operating company responded, when they eventually realised who I was they lied about their vacancies, two managers from other rail operating companies have told me I stand no chance of employment in the rail industry, the vindictiveness of TPE runs deeper than people think.
THAT IS WHY WHEN YOU KNOW DEEP INSIDE YOURSELF THAT YOU DID NOT DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED, YOU HAVE EVIDENCE IN ABUNDANCE THAT SHOWS THIS, EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION AND BLATANT LIE'S, YOU HAVE HOPE, BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT HOPE HAS GONE?
26. Why would you even contemplate the notion that I was right?
27. From where did you get your evidence that obviously suggested to you that TPE DID respond
to my defect reports? Especially when earlier you reckoned that you approached this hearing with no prior knowledge!
28. From this statement, “40.4 having considered Mr Webb's admission that he had fabricated incidents before and reported them without disciplinary sanction, I confirmed, following consideration of further documentation, that such fabrications had not been apparent to the Company and therefore it could not have responded. If such fabrication had been established, I would have expected the Company to act in the same way again due to the potential seriousness of the impact upon the business”. Where in the hearing did I ever say that I had specifically fabricated incidents before? (LIE NO 28).
29. Why would you refer to something that can be regarded previous to the event when all throughout my hearing you dismissed evidence I tried to give you because in your own words you described it as PREVIOUS?
30. Regarding this statement, “following consideration of further documentation”, what did this supposed further documentation state? (LIE NO 29).
31. Where did you obtain it from?
32. Was this documentation in your possession before, during or after my hearing?
33. Regarding, “41 I summarily dismissed Mr Webb on two counts of gross misconduct and informed him of his right to appeal. I took a lot of time to come to this decision, I adjourned the hearing for approximately 1 hour 30 minutes to consider the options available to me but in light of his lack of remorse, blatant admission that he had made up the incident and that he would do it
again I felt dismissal was the appropriate sanction”. What did you want me to show remorse about? (LIE NO 30).
34. Why is there no mention of failing to follow any procedures?
35. Where did I ever say, "I WOULD DO IT AGAIN"?
The final LIE, that I supposedly said, "I WOULD DO IT AGAIN", is something that has been a trait throughout this whole episode, it is something that each individual manager did to me at every chance, it was clearly done to make me look as bad as humanely possible in the eyes of others, yet they forgot one small issue, when you make these statements and actions you need real evidence to back them up and that is what they forgot in their stampede to run me into the ground.
Their vindictiveness not only affected me, it had a major impact on all those around me, especially my family. Both my parents are seriously ill, my mother is crippled and wheelchair bound with arthritis and my dad has prostate cancer, they would dearly like to see my wife and son, but due to financial restraints caused by employment problems I cannot afford the journey this would involve as they live in Thailand.
I have seen my wife and son 3 times in 6 years, they lost their home because I couldn't afford the mortgage payments, they suffer when they are ill because I cannot afford the medication and I cannot afford to send my son to school all of the time.
TPE blacklisted me with every rail operating company in this country, I wrote to everyone of them for employment as a driver, only one rail operating company responded, when they eventually realised who I was they lied about their vacancies, two managers from other rail operating companies have told me I stand no chance of employment in the rail industry, the vindictiveness of TPE runs deeper than people think.
THAT IS WHY WHEN YOU KNOW DEEP INSIDE YOURSELF THAT YOU DID NOT DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED, YOU HAVE EVIDENCE IN ABUNDANCE THAT SHOWS THIS, EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION AND BLATANT LIE'S, YOU HAVE HOPE, BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT HOPE HAS GONE?