The LIES of Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson
Following on from this man`s witness statement I have cut out all of his LIE`S and pasted them here with my reasoning behind each LIE, let`s not forget that it is these very LIE`S that hoodwinked Judge Burton into his decision to find in favour of TransPennine Express.
Perjury, By section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911, perjury is committed when:
a lawfully sworn witness or interpreter, in judicial proceedings, willfully 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.
This is without doubt PERJURY, these LIE`S are there in the section of Mark Atkinson`s witness statement. and displayed below.
THESE STATEMENTS ARE "WILLFULLY MADE" FALSE STATEMENTS. PROVEN BY THIS MAN`S POSITION WITHIN THIS COMPANY AND
HIS KNOWLEDGE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS. ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE RULE BOOK AND TRANSPENNINE EXPRESS CONTINGENCY PLANS CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT A BLATANT LIAR ROUTE DRIVER MANAGER MARK ATKINSON IS.
"Lying when giving oral evidence, is Perjury, contrary to s1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911".
Below I have listed all Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson`s LIE`S, I challenge Mark Atkinson to produce his version in writing of why these statements are not LIE`S. I will gladly post it on this website for all to see.
3 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 track workers 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.
Defective warning horn: Extremely non specific, its either a complete or partial failure. Mark Atkinson was told numerous times in my hearing that it was a "partial failure". But looking at this, TPE should have known what type of warning horn failure this was when charging me. The only reason why they didn`t know was because Stephen Percival was too involved with a character assassination than compiling a factual report.
The train remained in service, when it should have been removed: A complete LIE, as the rule book and contingency plans do not state this at all.
Other drivers were unaware of the defects: Because they never materialised again, in other words the train was safe to run.
The train remained in service, when it should have been removed: A complete LIE, as the rule book and contingency plans do not state this at all.
Other drivers were unaware of the defects: Because they never materialised again, in other words the train was safe to run.
8.1 “on Wednesday 14 January you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn”;
Defective warning horn: Not a complete or partial failure or as Mark Atkinson states later on (a FULL failure) but just a defective warning horn.
1. “You didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaller”.
Mark Atkinson LIE`S again, why would I stop at the controlling signaller for a partial failure of the warning horn?
A FURTHER VALID POINT: Where in the disciplinary hearing outcome letter does it mention, “You didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaller”? FURTHER EVIDENCE OF WHAT A BLATANT LIAR THIS MAN IS AND FURTHER PROOF OF ATTEMPTING TO MAKE ANYTHING STICK.
Mark Atkinson LIE`S again, why would I stop at the controlling signaller for a partial failure of the warning horn?
A FURTHER VALID POINT: Where in the disciplinary hearing outcome letter does it mention, “You didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaller”? FURTHER EVIDENCE OF WHAT A BLATANT LIAR THIS MAN IS AND FURTHER PROOF OF ATTEMPTING TO MAKE ANYTHING STICK.
3. “At no point did you reduce the train speed”.
Yet another Mark Atkinson LIE, why would I need to "reduce the train speed"? Mark Atkinson is still after everything that was said in my hearing charging me with a Complete Failure of the Warning Horn, ask yourselves why? The answer is so plainly obvious, they were all so blinkered with their agenda to get rid of me at any cost, they make deliberate LIE`S like this.
ANOTHER VALID POINT: Where in the disciplinary hearing outcome letter does it mention, “At no point did you reduce the train speed”. YOU HONESTLY COULDN'T`T MAKE UP THIS MAN`S ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT ME, LIE AFTER LIE AND ALL WITH DOCUMENTED PROOF.
Yet another Mark Atkinson LIE, why would I need to "reduce the train speed"? Mark Atkinson is still after everything that was said in my hearing charging me with a Complete Failure of the Warning Horn, ask yourselves why? The answer is so plainly obvious, they were all so blinkered with their agenda to get rid of me at any cost, they make deliberate LIE`S like this.
ANOTHER VALID POINT: Where in the disciplinary hearing outcome letter does it mention, “At no point did you reduce the train speed”. YOU HONESTLY COULDN'T`T MAKE UP THIS MAN`S ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT ME, LIE AFTER LIE AND ALL WITH DOCUMENTED PROOF.
ALL COMPLETE LIES, because as Judge Burton states in his Written Reasons and from page 48 of the paperwork TPE used in the Tribunal said the following:-
4. Mr Webb knew what he had to do. The rule book, of which he was very much aware, makes that plain. We see the relevant rule at Page 48 of the bundle. When there is a partial failure of his horn at the first convenient opportunity he must stop the train and he must tell the train operator's control. The first convenient opportunity may include the next schedule station or some other stopping point of the journey or when detained at a signal. If by stopping the train delays occur the driver must inform the signaller of the reason for that delay.
4. Mr Webb knew what he had to do. The rule book, of which he was very much aware, makes that plain. We see the relevant rule at Page 48 of the bundle. When there is a partial failure of his horn at the first convenient opportunity he must stop the train and he must tell the train operator's control. The first convenient opportunity may include the next schedule station or some other stopping point of the journey or when detained at a signal. If by stopping the train delays occur the driver must inform the signaller of the reason for that delay.
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. You subsequently admitted that this was a false allegation”; and
LIE: There is no set down procedure for reporting a near miss incident. There is email evidence on this site that shows when I requested this so called procedure, Charlotte Pears (Mayne) said it was as per the rule book, when I said there is no such procedure in the rule book she then replied that it was in the Driver Standards Booklet, again there is no procedure in this booklet.
LIE: There is no set down procedure for reporting a near miss incident. There is email evidence on this site that shows when I requested this so called procedure, Charlotte Pears (Mayne) said it was as per the rule book, when I said there is no such procedure in the rule book she then replied that it was in the Driver Standards Booklet, again there is no procedure in this booklet.
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.
Yet another LIE, my sick pay was stopped well before then, the following is taken from an email sent to me by Charlotte Pears (Mayne).
"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".
The reason that Mark Atkinson LIE`S is because of what Manager Ged Higgins told Driver Geoff Lee about the company stopping my wages, which was said on the 25th May.
Yet another LIE, my sick pay was stopped well before then, the following is taken from an email sent to me by Charlotte Pears (Mayne).
"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".
The reason that Mark Atkinson LIE`S is because of what Manager Ged Higgins told Driver Geoff Lee about the company stopping my wages, which was said on the 25th May.
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.
ALL LIE`S:
a, How could Mark Atkinson have considered the Investigation Report? It is not mentioned anywhere in that report about the state of the warning horn on the day in question. LIE.
b, So where did Mark Atkinson come up with the notion that I failed to report a Complete Failure of the Warning Horn from? Again this highlights that everything they did was made to fit.
c. Even when it was explained time and time again that the warning horn failure was a partial failure, why did this man continually refer to the Rule Book and treat the warning horn as being a complete failure?
d. The Company`s procedures, why didn`t he refer to the Contingency Plans? Which allows that train to remain in service.
ALL LIE`S:
a, How could Mark Atkinson have considered the Investigation Report? It is not mentioned anywhere in that report about the state of the warning horn on the day in question. LIE.
b, So where did Mark Atkinson come up with the notion that I failed to report a Complete Failure of the Warning Horn from? Again this highlights that everything they did was made to fit.
c. Even when it was explained time and time again that the warning horn failure was a partial failure, why did this man continually refer to the Rule Book and treat the warning horn as being a complete failure?
d. The Company`s procedures, why didn`t he refer to the Contingency Plans? Which allows that train to remain in service.
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:
What type of horn defect is Mark Atkinson talking about? Why such a generic response, "horn defect ". Because Barry Cook who laid the charges didn`t know what type of horn defect the train had, because Stephen Percival`s investigation failed to establish the key fact.
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; LIAR
Talk about keeping your options open. This shows he still didn`t understand the situation!
18.3 he did not reduce speed;
It was a partial failure. Or is this a case of Mark Atkinson changing the rules to fit his needs? He is a LIAR.
Mark Atkinson is a Route Driver Manager, he knows the rule book and TransPennine Express contingency plans. Again this is a "Wilfully made LIE".
18.5 his actions ensured that the unit remained in public service until it reached the depot.
LIE: This unit would have stayed in service regardless because,
a, Lets just say that I had managed to talk to control, I explain that I have a warning horn that I consider a partial failure, and when I arrive in York the train will be driven from the other cab. I explain that in my experience the cold weather is to blame and that the horn is now functioning correctly due to the rise in temperature.
b, TPE Control in my experience would have left the train to run, but if they had used their Contingency Plans, this train would have been allowed to run at 100mph to complete its diagrammed work.
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;
ANOTHER LIE, when is a unit ever taken out of service for a near miss? Where is the procedure for reporting a near miss?
Let me open this up to every Train Driver who reads this, no matter which company you work for. Ladies and Gentlemen, in your experience as a fully qualified Train Driver, are trains taken out of service after a near miss? Please email me and rectify me if I am wrong, but with well over 20 years front end experience I have never come across one instance of a train being taken out of service for a near miss.
I personally think that the amount of LIES Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson has made in his attempt to basically crucify me is disgusting, this man is clearly struggling with the basics in understanding the investigation report, the rule book and is making his own procedures to fit my execution. Yet this man is in
charge of many Drivers!
What type of horn defect is Mark Atkinson talking about? Why such a generic response, "horn defect ". Because Barry Cook who laid the charges didn`t know what type of horn defect the train had, because Stephen Percival`s investigation failed to establish the key fact.
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; LIAR
Talk about keeping your options open. This shows he still didn`t understand the situation!
18.3 he did not reduce speed;
It was a partial failure. Or is this a case of Mark Atkinson changing the rules to fit his needs? He is a LIAR.
Mark Atkinson is a Route Driver Manager, he knows the rule book and TransPennine Express contingency plans. Again this is a "Wilfully made LIE".
18.5 his actions ensured that the unit remained in public service until it reached the depot.
LIE: This unit would have stayed in service regardless because,
a, Lets just say that I had managed to talk to control, I explain that I have a warning horn that I consider a partial failure, and when I arrive in York the train will be driven from the other cab. I explain that in my experience the cold weather is to blame and that the horn is now functioning correctly due to the rise in temperature.
b, TPE Control in my experience would have left the train to run, but if they had used their Contingency Plans, this train would have been allowed to run at 100mph to complete its diagrammed work.
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;
ANOTHER LIE, when is a unit ever taken out of service for a near miss? Where is the procedure for reporting a near miss?
Let me open this up to every Train Driver who reads this, no matter which company you work for. Ladies and Gentlemen, in your experience as a fully qualified Train Driver, are trains taken out of service after a near miss? Please email me and rectify me if I am wrong, but with well over 20 years front end experience I have never come across one instance of a train being taken out of service for a near miss.
I personally think that the amount of LIES Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson has made in his attempt to basically crucify me is disgusting, this man is clearly struggling with the basics in understanding the investigation report, the rule book and is making his own procedures to fit my execution. Yet this man is in
charge of many Drivers!
19.2 he had admitted that he had made a false allegation;
19.3 he did not stop at the signal box/controlling signal to report the matter; And
Why would I need to stop and report an incident that never occurred, that would have possibly been a Gross Misconduct charge.
19.4 he had failed to report the matter to the train operating company's control.
Again, how can I report something that never happened.
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; (LIE)
20.2 he did not stop and report the safety defects correctly; (LIE)
a, Again, ANOTHER LIE, when would a Driver ever stop and report a noisy cab or a wiper that works
intermittently? Does it tell a Driver in the rule book to STOP and report the above 2 defects? Where throughout my hearing did Mark Atkinson once mention charge 3?
20.3 he did not inform the company's control/the signal box or controlling signal;
a, Yet ANOTHER LIE, for the above defects where does it state that I have to inform the signaller?
b, As is there, for all to witness, Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson is clearly using procedures that he has made up himself. As a Driver, you would fail your rules with mistakes (LIE`S) like these!
20.1 he failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting train defects; (LIE)
20.2 he did not stop and report the safety defects correctly; (LIE)
a, Again, ANOTHER LIE, when would a Driver ever stop and report a noisy cab or a wiper that works
intermittently? Does it tell a Driver in the rule book to STOP and report the above 2 defects? Where throughout my hearing did Mark Atkinson once mention charge 3?
20.3 he did not inform the company's control/the signal box or controlling signal;
a, Yet ANOTHER LIE, for the above defects where does it state that I have to inform the signaller?
b, As is there, for all to witness, Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson is clearly using procedures that he has made up himself. As a Driver, you would fail your rules with mistakes (LIE`S) like these!
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;
a, "The FULL warning horn failure"! This is unbelievable, rather like the "soonest convenience". LIE.
b, We get all this way, investigation, hearing, appeal, tribunal, I never once said that I had a COMPLETE failure of the warning horn, the temperatures were below freezing until York (Partial failure) where they were above freezing, the horn started functioning normally due to the rise in temperature.
c, Again I ask every TPE Driver, in your opinion, if the horn is now working and when you arrive in York the train is being driven from the other cab, if you forget to inform control, is there any damage? Does this deserve dismissal?
d, Forgot to say, Mark Atkinson you are once again telling a LIE, it was not a "FULL" or indeed a
COMPLETE failure of the warning horn. It was a PARTIAL FAILURE.
a, "The FULL warning horn failure"! This is unbelievable, rather like the "soonest convenience". LIE.
b, We get all this way, investigation, hearing, appeal, tribunal, I never once said that I had a COMPLETE failure of the warning horn, the temperatures were below freezing until York (Partial failure) where they were above freezing, the horn started functioning normally due to the rise in temperature.
c, Again I ask every TPE Driver, in your opinion, if the horn is now working and when you arrive in York the train is being driven from the other cab, if you forget to inform control, is there any damage? Does this deserve dismissal?
d, Forgot to say, Mark Atkinson you are once again telling a LIE, it was not a "FULL" or indeed a
COMPLETE failure of the warning horn. It was a PARTIAL FAILURE.
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.
a. This statement is again untrue, if Mark Atkinson could have been bothered to look through my files, he would see one other report about a near miss that happened and was reported, 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".
b, The predetermination is evident for all to see, why would there be so many glaring errors by Mark Atkinson alone, that's before every other named Manager is highlighted. Mark Atkinson`s hearing minutes clearly show that his decision was predetermined, it comes from his own mouth and his behaviour in that hearing.
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.
a, When did anyone from TPE ever take notice of my concerns?
b. Have you ever known a train be taken out of service through a driver’s concerns? (LIAR)
c, yet again, (LIAR) what procedure says that I should report a partially defective warning horn immediately?
d, What would have happened with the unit only having a partially defective warning horn and I say that this unit should not go any further and prevent another driver from moving that train? Can any Driver say that they have known TPE remove a train from service for a partial warning horn failure?
e, Mark Atkinson says, "He should have reported the matter immediately", the rule book states, "tell the train operator’s control at the first convenient opportunity". How can this Route Driver Manager get this so fundamentally wrong? (LIAR)
a. This statement is again untrue, if Mark Atkinson could have been bothered to look through my files, he would see one other report about a near miss that happened and was reported, 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".
b, The predetermination is evident for all to see, why would there be so many glaring errors by Mark Atkinson alone, that's before every other named Manager is highlighted. Mark Atkinson`s hearing minutes clearly show that his decision was predetermined, it comes from his own mouth and his behaviour in that hearing.
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.
a, When did anyone from TPE ever take notice of my concerns?
b. Have you ever known a train be taken out of service through a driver’s concerns? (LIAR)
c, yet again, (LIAR) what procedure says that I should report a partially defective warning horn immediately?
d, What would have happened with the unit only having a partially defective warning horn and I say that this unit should not go any further and prevent another driver from moving that train? Can any Driver say that they have known TPE remove a train from service for a partial warning horn failure?
e, Mark Atkinson says, "He should have reported the matter immediately", the rule book states, "tell the train operator’s control at the first convenient opportunity". How can this Route Driver Manager get this so fundamentally wrong? (LIAR)
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.
a, I challenge Mark Atkinson to show me where we had a discussion on whether or not the horn defect was a
partial failure or a full failure. ANOTHER MASSIVE LIE. (EXTREMELY RELEVANT). READ THE HEARING MINUTES!
b. In which procedure does it state report the issue at the "soonest" convenience?
c, Here we have a Route Driver Manager, a Senior Manager in rank, he makes up his own wording for his own procedures. But more importantly this Manager cannot see the dangers of his companies own contingency
plans. As all Drivers are aware, these plans allow the class 185 trains which have a partial failure of the warning horn to run at 100mph. No matter how serious I deemed this, it makes no difference, if I reported a partial failure and then ran my train at a reduced speed enabling me to stop short of any p way men or
obstructions of any sort I would be charged with Gross Misconduct because the rule book and TPE Contingency plans allow this train to run at 100mph.
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.
a, What a BLATANT LIAR this man is, and I CHALLENGE Mark Atkinson once again to show me where we agreed my actions were different?
b, A further LIAR, I had numerous repair slips in my hand, which I tried to give him and laid them on the table in front of him, he totally ignored them. I refer to number (389) in the hearing minutes, where I said, “ 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”. Yet above he blatantly LIES and says, "but did not provide examples".
I actually had with me, 2 A4 binders, one was full of reports and the other full of repair slips.
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.
a, "a risk to those on or about the railway infrastructure". So I assume every train that runs round with a partially defective warning horn will be classed as a risk to those on or about the railway infrastructure?
b, What has Mark Atkinson done about this? are class 185 trains still allowed to run at 100mph with a partially defective warning horn? I personally would have thought that being such a safety conscious company plans would be put in place to reduce the risk should the other tone of the warning horn fail to work, as Mark
Atkinson quite rightly pointed out earlier.
c, How very relevant, notice that all Mark Atkinson says here is, "defective warning horn ", not "Full " or complete or even partial.
d. The rule book does not tell me to report a partial failure of the warning horn as soon as the matter arises, another LIE.
e. The following is what you stated at the hearing, MA 206: “Hang on a minute, if your so concerned about the train having faults on it, at the point when you arrived in York, that is the time and place to make sure the train doesn't go any further”. This means that number 37 above or this statement is a LIE, is there any wonder I call you an HABITUAL LIAR?
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. I also noted that he had admitted that he had fabricated the incident, had shown no remorse for his actions, indicated that he had previously fabricated other incidents and that ultimately he had lied to the Company.
a, How on earth could I possibly have failed to follow a procedure that I informed TPE about as soon as I was questioned that never happened?
b, You have the opportunity to read my hearing minutes and listen to the audio tape of that interview, I had never come across such a rude and aggressive Hearing Officer as how Mark Atkinson behaved. Despite explaining to this man so many times that I did not have a complete failure of the warning horn it became apparent that no matter what I said, the outcome was predetermined.
c, I never once said that I had previously fabricated other incidents.
40 Above all, I noted that Mr Webb had demonstrated a willful and blatant disregard for the procedures. Although I noted that he blamed this on his frustration at not receiving a response from the Company in relation to his previous reports, I did not feel that this was a sufficient excuse for his actions and that it appeared that the relationship between him and the Company had broken down as he seemed to have breached procedures in order to punish the Company. In relation to the various points which Mr Webb and Mr Trumm raised during the hearing I found the following:
a, Where did I ever give the impression, where did I ever state, that I was out to punish the company?
b, How can he say that I demonstrated a willful and blatant disregard for the procedures? I behaved that day as I always had in relation to that partial failure, if I was doing something wrong, why wasn’t this picked up before? As I have shown throughout these LIE`S, Mark Atkinson is so unbelievably (deliberately) mixed up with these procedures.
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;
a, Please read the following passage of dialogue from my hearing and then make your own decision on
predetermination. The audio is available on this site, you will notice how the silence lasts an eternity because he was clueless.
ST = Steve Trumm, ATCU Rep
MA = Mark Atkinson
PW = Perry Webb
ST asks MA (ST 88) to, “Define your company’s definition of gross misconduct”?
MA responds (MA 89) with, “yes”. (No other reply is given, 5 seconds elapse.)
ST prompts MA (ST 90) asking, “What is it”?
MA responds (MA 91) with, “These clearly comply with gross misconduct”.
ST asks again (ST 92), “What is your definition of gross misconduct that you are applying to these
charges”? (6 seconds elapse without any response). 3 charges levelled against me of gross misconduct and MA cannot think or indeed does not know to what specific area of gross misconduct these come under in TPE disciplinary procedures.
I interrupt the silence (PW 93), explaining if these are gross misconduct then you have a lot more people to charge the same, because they are all guilty.
MA responds (MA 94), “That’s a serious allegation, Perry”. If this allegation is that serious then why didn’t MA follow it up?
I agreed, (PW 95), and reiterate that they are all guilty.
MA eventually finds what he thinks my charges relate to, and states (MA 96), “Examples of gross misconduct that these charges are for”, (3 seconds of silence elapse) then MA says “deliberate falsification of records”, (there is then 6 seconds of silence) before MA says Serious negligence which cause, might cause loss (?) of might cause damage or injury”, (there is then a further 7 seconds silence) before MA says “ Breaches of health and safety rules and procedures, they all fall in the context of gross misconduct charges”.
It is blatantly obvious that he did not have the slightest clue why I was being charged with gross misconduct, MA had to read through TPE`s disciplinary procedures of examples of gross misconduct, (105 & 105a) to find the section under number 9 of these procedures. The time lapses show that he had to read through the examples and pick out what he thought was appropriate, hardly professional for such severe and serious charges.
Going back to (MA 91) where MA states that, “ THESE CLEARLY COMPLY WITH GROSS MISCONDUCT”, that says it all, in his mind he already knows the outcome. Before he even listens to my defence, he admits the charges are CLEARLY GROSS MISCONDUCT. Let’s remember, at that present time, the charge is only,
“if established”.
a, I challenge Mark Atkinson to show me where we had a discussion on whether or not the horn defect was a
partial failure or a full failure. ANOTHER MASSIVE LIE. (EXTREMELY RELEVANT). READ THE HEARING MINUTES!
b. In which procedure does it state report the issue at the "soonest" convenience?
c, Here we have a Route Driver Manager, a Senior Manager in rank, he makes up his own wording for his own procedures. But more importantly this Manager cannot see the dangers of his companies own contingency
plans. As all Drivers are aware, these plans allow the class 185 trains which have a partial failure of the warning horn to run at 100mph. No matter how serious I deemed this, it makes no difference, if I reported a partial failure and then ran my train at a reduced speed enabling me to stop short of any p way men or
obstructions of any sort I would be charged with Gross Misconduct because the rule book and TPE Contingency plans allow this train to run at 100mph.
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.
a, What a BLATANT LIAR this man is, and I CHALLENGE Mark Atkinson once again to show me where we agreed my actions were different?
b, A further LIAR, I had numerous repair slips in my hand, which I tried to give him and laid them on the table in front of him, he totally ignored them. I refer to number (389) in the hearing minutes, where I said, “ 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”. Yet above he blatantly LIES and says, "but did not provide examples".
I actually had with me, 2 A4 binders, one was full of reports and the other full of repair slips.
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.
a, "a risk to those on or about the railway infrastructure". So I assume every train that runs round with a partially defective warning horn will be classed as a risk to those on or about the railway infrastructure?
b, What has Mark Atkinson done about this? are class 185 trains still allowed to run at 100mph with a partially defective warning horn? I personally would have thought that being such a safety conscious company plans would be put in place to reduce the risk should the other tone of the warning horn fail to work, as Mark
Atkinson quite rightly pointed out earlier.
c, How very relevant, notice that all Mark Atkinson says here is, "defective warning horn ", not "Full " or complete or even partial.
d. The rule book does not tell me to report a partial failure of the warning horn as soon as the matter arises, another LIE.
e. The following is what you stated at the hearing, MA 206: “Hang on a minute, if your so concerned about the train having faults on it, at the point when you arrived in York, that is the time and place to make sure the train doesn't go any further”. This means that number 37 above or this statement is a LIE, is there any wonder I call you an HABITUAL LIAR?
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. I also noted that he had admitted that he had fabricated the incident, had shown no remorse for his actions, indicated that he had previously fabricated other incidents and that ultimately he had lied to the Company.
a, How on earth could I possibly have failed to follow a procedure that I informed TPE about as soon as I was questioned that never happened?
b, You have the opportunity to read my hearing minutes and listen to the audio tape of that interview, I had never come across such a rude and aggressive Hearing Officer as how Mark Atkinson behaved. Despite explaining to this man so many times that I did not have a complete failure of the warning horn it became apparent that no matter what I said, the outcome was predetermined.
c, I never once said that I had previously fabricated other incidents.
40 Above all, I noted that Mr Webb had demonstrated a willful and blatant disregard for the procedures. Although I noted that he blamed this on his frustration at not receiving a response from the Company in relation to his previous reports, I did not feel that this was a sufficient excuse for his actions and that it appeared that the relationship between him and the Company had broken down as he seemed to have breached procedures in order to punish the Company. In relation to the various points which Mr Webb and Mr Trumm raised during the hearing I found the following:
a, Where did I ever give the impression, where did I ever state, that I was out to punish the company?
b, How can he say that I demonstrated a willful and blatant disregard for the procedures? I behaved that day as I always had in relation to that partial failure, if I was doing something wrong, why wasn’t this picked up before? As I have shown throughout these LIE`S, Mark Atkinson is so unbelievably (deliberately) mixed up with these procedures.
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;
a, Please read the following passage of dialogue from my hearing and then make your own decision on
predetermination. The audio is available on this site, you will notice how the silence lasts an eternity because he was clueless.
ST = Steve Trumm, ATCU Rep
MA = Mark Atkinson
PW = Perry Webb
ST asks MA (ST 88) to, “Define your company’s definition of gross misconduct”?
MA responds (MA 89) with, “yes”. (No other reply is given, 5 seconds elapse.)
ST prompts MA (ST 90) asking, “What is it”?
MA responds (MA 91) with, “These clearly comply with gross misconduct”.
ST asks again (ST 92), “What is your definition of gross misconduct that you are applying to these
charges”? (6 seconds elapse without any response). 3 charges levelled against me of gross misconduct and MA cannot think or indeed does not know to what specific area of gross misconduct these come under in TPE disciplinary procedures.
I interrupt the silence (PW 93), explaining if these are gross misconduct then you have a lot more people to charge the same, because they are all guilty.
MA responds (MA 94), “That’s a serious allegation, Perry”. If this allegation is that serious then why didn’t MA follow it up?
I agreed, (PW 95), and reiterate that they are all guilty.
MA eventually finds what he thinks my charges relate to, and states (MA 96), “Examples of gross misconduct that these charges are for”, (3 seconds of silence elapse) then MA says “deliberate falsification of records”, (there is then 6 seconds of silence) before MA says Serious negligence which cause, might cause loss (?) of might cause damage or injury”, (there is then a further 7 seconds silence) before MA says “ Breaches of health and safety rules and procedures, they all fall in the context of gross misconduct charges”.
It is blatantly obvious that he did not have the slightest clue why I was being charged with gross misconduct, MA had to read through TPE`s disciplinary procedures of examples of gross misconduct, (105 & 105a) to find the section under number 9 of these procedures. The time lapses show that he had to read through the examples and pick out what he thought was appropriate, hardly professional for such severe and serious charges.
Going back to (MA 91) where MA states that, “ THESE CLEARLY COMPLY WITH GROSS MISCONDUCT”, that says it all, in his mind he already knows the outcome. Before he even listens to my defence, he admits the charges are CLEARLY GROSS MISCONDUCT. Let’s remember, at that present time, the charge is only,
“if established”.
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;
a, You have in this statement insinuated that you have looked into my complaint that my defect reports were not responded to. So what did you do to justify your statement where you said, ("which I did not find was the case")? Earlier you reckoned that you approached this hearing with no prior knowledge?
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;
a, If you took other reports into account, which ones were they, how many mentioned a near miss?
b, Which documentation are you referring to where you state, "I confirmed, following consideration of
further documentation”.
c, The following is what I said in my hearing, “As I say, I have done these type of things previously, I’ve
not even had a warning. It’s not the first time”. Meaning, behaviour on the day in question, not informing control. But also by reporting using a scenario situation or referring to the hazards. Evidence will be shown
later.
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.
a, Lack of remorse? His volatile behaviour left no room for any remorse, but when you think about it, if these charges are that serious to justify Gross Misconduct then remorse would make no difference to the decision, otherwise we could all misbehave and say sorry.
b,"And that he would do it again", Mark Atkinson strikes again with a BLATANT LIE, I never once said that I would do it again, I challenge you once again, show me where I said this? LIAR.
SO HOW MANY LIE`S ARE REQUIRED TO SATISFY PERJURY?
YOU NOW NEED TO READ JUDGE BURTON`S WRITTEN REASONS, MY WITNESS STATEMENT CONTRADICTS THESE REASONS ALL WITH EVIDENCE TO BACK UP WHAT I SAY.
I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO READ OUT MY WITNESS STATEMENT.
YOU HAVEN`T GOT AWAY WITH PERJURY YET!!!
a, You have in this statement insinuated that you have looked into my complaint that my defect reports were not responded to. So what did you do to justify your statement where you said, ("which I did not find was the case")? Earlier you reckoned that you approached this hearing with no prior knowledge?
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;
a, If you took other reports into account, which ones were they, how many mentioned a near miss?
b, Which documentation are you referring to where you state, "I confirmed, following consideration of
further documentation”.
c, The following is what I said in my hearing, “As I say, I have done these type of things previously, I’ve
not even had a warning. It’s not the first time”. Meaning, behaviour on the day in question, not informing control. But also by reporting using a scenario situation or referring to the hazards. Evidence will be shown
later.
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.
a, Lack of remorse? His volatile behaviour left no room for any remorse, but when you think about it, if these charges are that serious to justify Gross Misconduct then remorse would make no difference to the decision, otherwise we could all misbehave and say sorry.
b,"And that he would do it again", Mark Atkinson strikes again with a BLATANT LIE, I never once said that I would do it again, I challenge you once again, show me where I said this? LIAR.
SO HOW MANY LIE`S ARE REQUIRED TO SATISFY PERJURY?
YOU NOW NEED TO READ JUDGE BURTON`S WRITTEN REASONS, MY WITNESS STATEMENT CONTRADICTS THESE REASONS ALL WITH EVIDENCE TO BACK UP WHAT I SAY.
I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO READ OUT MY WITNESS STATEMENT.
YOU HAVEN`T GOT AWAY WITH PERJURY YET!!!