QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERING PAGE 2
Why back in 2004 did TPE ignore the railway doctors request to give me a clear the air meeting?
In 2004 your management asked specific questions to the railway doctor about my sanity, the following is from her notes. Questions after the doctors notes.
"Health & Safety Rep for 5 years, feels confident".
"Reports put in about issues, but comments nothing ever done. Still persistently ignored".
"Angry & frustrated in work issues".
"Specifically perceives his line management do not talk to him and explain why his queries are dealt with".
"Presented to me 13 vehicle repair sheets, Arriva, states all these TransPennine. (Arriva mentioned because the repair book was written by Arriva.)"
"His problem is, H&S Rep is voice of people".
"His perception, problem is being ignored".
"Perry presented calm and rational and feels frustrated as Health & Safety Rep. Unable to support his colleagues on numerous issues, re health and safety issues he brings to your attention. There are no medical reasons to prevent him driving. I would suggest that a case conference be had to review the management issues he is focusing on".
(para 2) “I would suggest that a way forward with this situation would be a case conference with him to review the management issues that he is focusing on”.
(para 3) “I do feel that counselling would help but, much more specifically, with regard to dealing with the frustrations that he clearly perceives within his job”.
(para 4) “All that I can advise is that an individual risk assessment be undertaken by the driver team manager and liaison be had with him regarding his other concerns of management issues”.
SO TELL ME WHY TPE TOTALLY IGNORED THIS DOCTORS RECOMMENDATIONS?
No case conference, WHY NOT?
"Individual risk assessment", not carried out, WHY NOT?
Bearing in mind the above was 2004, how did you think I felt in 2009 with a further 5 years of IGNORANCE?
In your own mind, if there had been dialogue back in 2004 and regular feedback since, do you honestly think these events would have taken place?
Now think about this statement you made, “What I said to Perry before , about being frustrated in all this, the way he`s gone about it highlighting his frustration is completely off the mark”. TPE had a chance 5 year previous to PUT A STOP TO THIS FRUSTRATION and every day of the following 5 years, yet not once did anyone have the decency to speak with me, WHY?
Amazingly you then state, “What prevents this frustration from building up again and you doing it again"? WHY WASN`T THE ANSWER HITTING YOU IN THE FACE?
Do you remember these words? “That is why I want to put a stop to it now”, and “this is where a stop could be put to it”.
Why did your management let this situation escalate this far?
We get to nearly the end of this hearing and you state, “I can understand your frustration because clearly it`s there”. Did you really understand just how this frustration affected me?
When I explained that all other drivers behaved the same as me, you actually stated, “But your actions have decided to go down the same line as the others”. So why didn`t the “others” face the same charges?
QUESTIONS ON THE CHARGES:
“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”.
How can you state such a blatant and obvious LIE?
Explain how that train by staying in service put the safety of staff on the railway at risk?
Why did you totally IGNORE my representations when I said the fault was a partial failure?
How can you state this when you know that TPE contingency plans ALLOW this train to stay in service?
How can you state this when you know that because that train was being driven from the OTHER CAB, that train would have remained in service?
So do you therefore consider that running a train with a partially defective warning horn is actually putting peoples lives at RISK?
If you do think it is putting peoples lives at risk and remembering the following, "That any unsafe activity is immediately stopped and prevented from continuing until adequate measures have been taken to reduce the risk associated with that activity to as low as reasonably practicable”. What have you done about this?
Should MY TRUMPED UP CHARGES REALLY be worthy of gross misconduct?
Should you actually be CHARGED with gross misconduct for WILLFULLY being a LIAR and CONSPIRING with others to DAMAGE a man`s reputation and DEPRIVE him of a normal LIFE?
CHARGE 2:
“It is my belief that this is proven because the whole incident was a premeditated fabrication”. How can you warrant this comment, where is your evidence?
“You clearly failed to follow the correct process for following and reporting a near miss”. If the near miss never occurred, how can I go through a process and then report something that never happened?
“when the fault came to light, the train was taken out of service for investigation and repair”.
When was this train TAKEN out of service?
What did you have to INVESTIGATE once it was established there was no near miss?
Wouldn`t a repair be a MANDATORY outcome?
“I am also disturbed by your admittance of previous events ". What admittance? What previous events are you talking about?
"and a lack of remorse shown in this hearing over this one". This hearing was unlike any hearing I have ever attended, you ignored my representations, you were rude and aggressive, how do you expect me to show remorse when you charged me with something that never happened?
"which fails to convince me that the fabrication will stop". Remember back a little way, when I stated, “That is why I want to put a stop to it now”, and “this is where a stop could be put to it”. Do you not think that basic communication is all that was required?
"I`m also concerned that you freely admit to fabricating previous reports". Show me where I freely admitted to fabricating reports?
Why would you be allowed (I know we had to abide by your bully boy rules) to use anything "previous" that suited you because you thought it was damaging to my defence, when you in true TPE fashion IGNORED my representations that involved previous evidence?
This was one of many, “I am not interested in previously”. What chance did I stand?
"and it disturbs me to think of how much of your reporting is truthful ". So you are now saying that all or most of my IGNORED reports over 5 years were made up? I told you how to avoid the "SUMMIT TUNNEL ACCIDENT" was that made up?
"and it’s not just a way of getting attention in these matters”. My god! When did I ever state that this was about me getting attention? I never received any attention to the hundreds of reports I put in over the years, so why would I expect any ATTENTION now?
CHARGE 3:
“It is my belief that this issue was covered in charge one as you represented Steve and I will withdraw it on this occasion”. Did you actually say this because nowhere in the hearing did you mention this charge?
Was it a case of, you clearly thought you had done enough to dismiss me?
You further stated, “My view is the relationship between FTPE and yourself has irrevocably broken down to the effect that you have deemed it necessary to sit there and promote the fact that you falsify reports in relation to this incident, and have done previously. With regard to this, it is my decision today to summarily dismiss you from service with immediate effect”.
Did we ever have a "relationship"?
Do you call, blatant IGNORANCE a "relationship"?
Did I actually try and cement a "relationship" by writing my thoughts out and handing them to TPE management?
How did I "deem it necessary"? Did I actually falsify a report? Did I actually state that I had previously falsified reports in relation to this incident or any other incident?
Why did you tell Driver Geoff Lee, "I didn`t want to sack Perry"?
Is that suggesting that you were made to make that decision?
Were you told to dismiss me regardless of my representations?
Why did what you actually charged me with in the disciplinary hearing change so much when you outlined my supposed deficiencies in the disciplinary outcome letter?
And then why did these supposed deficiencies change again in your witness statement?
When did solicitor Simon Robinson become involved against me?
Do you think I had a fair hearing and appeal if you are using a solicitor against me before before I
am dismissed?
How would you treat an employee if they head butted another employee while acting as an ambassador for the company?
How do you feel when you look back on this blatant LIE, "The train remained in service, when it should have been removed"?
How does it feel knowing that if you had to answer these questions it would prove what a blatant liar you are and more importantly completely vindicate me?
How does it feel reading that I am showing the world what a complete LIAR you are and also highlighting how you treat issues of safety with IGNORANCE.
Why don`t you do something about this website if you are a man of integrity, an honest, decent person?
Or is it because I portray you as exactly the opposite and you cannot dispute the evidence that I display on this website?
How does it feel having the threat of corporate manslaughter hanging over you?
Do you understand why I say the above? Do you now also realise that through your inaction's you have also put other individuals at the same risk of a corporate manslaughter charge?
Are you also aware that it doesn`t have to be an issue or an accident involving TPE, you will still be held liable?
Are You aware that you MUST change the TPE contingency plans for a partial failure of the warning horn?
Do you also realise that this should have been done 4 years ago and that only luck has saved you?
Amazingly you then state, “What prevents this frustration from building up again and you doing it again"? WHY WASN`T THE ANSWER HITTING YOU IN THE FACE?
Do you remember these words? “That is why I want to put a stop to it now”, and “this is where a stop could be put to it”.
Why did your management let this situation escalate this far?
We get to nearly the end of this hearing and you state, “I can understand your frustration because clearly it`s there”. Did you really understand just how this frustration affected me?
When I explained that all other drivers behaved the same as me, you actually stated, “But your actions have decided to go down the same line as the others”. So why didn`t the “others” face the same charges?
QUESTIONS ON THE CHARGES:
“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”.
How can you state such a blatant and obvious LIE?
Explain how that train by staying in service put the safety of staff on the railway at risk?
Why did you totally IGNORE my representations when I said the fault was a partial failure?
How can you state this when you know that TPE contingency plans ALLOW this train to stay in service?
How can you state this when you know that because that train was being driven from the OTHER CAB, that train would have remained in service?
So do you therefore consider that running a train with a partially defective warning horn is actually putting peoples lives at RISK?
If you do think it is putting peoples lives at risk and remembering the following, "That any unsafe activity is immediately stopped and prevented from continuing until adequate measures have been taken to reduce the risk associated with that activity to as low as reasonably practicable”. What have you done about this?
Should MY TRUMPED UP CHARGES REALLY be worthy of gross misconduct?
Should you actually be CHARGED with gross misconduct for WILLFULLY being a LIAR and CONSPIRING with others to DAMAGE a man`s reputation and DEPRIVE him of a normal LIFE?
CHARGE 2:
“It is my belief that this is proven because the whole incident was a premeditated fabrication”. How can you warrant this comment, where is your evidence?
“You clearly failed to follow the correct process for following and reporting a near miss”. If the near miss never occurred, how can I go through a process and then report something that never happened?
“when the fault came to light, the train was taken out of service for investigation and repair”.
When was this train TAKEN out of service?
What did you have to INVESTIGATE once it was established there was no near miss?
Wouldn`t a repair be a MANDATORY outcome?
“I am also disturbed by your admittance of previous events ". What admittance? What previous events are you talking about?
"and a lack of remorse shown in this hearing over this one". This hearing was unlike any hearing I have ever attended, you ignored my representations, you were rude and aggressive, how do you expect me to show remorse when you charged me with something that never happened?
"which fails to convince me that the fabrication will stop". Remember back a little way, when I stated, “That is why I want to put a stop to it now”, and “this is where a stop could be put to it”. Do you not think that basic communication is all that was required?
"I`m also concerned that you freely admit to fabricating previous reports". Show me where I freely admitted to fabricating reports?
Why would you be allowed (I know we had to abide by your bully boy rules) to use anything "previous" that suited you because you thought it was damaging to my defence, when you in true TPE fashion IGNORED my representations that involved previous evidence?
This was one of many, “I am not interested in previously”. What chance did I stand?
"and it disturbs me to think of how much of your reporting is truthful ". So you are now saying that all or most of my IGNORED reports over 5 years were made up? I told you how to avoid the "SUMMIT TUNNEL ACCIDENT" was that made up?
"and it’s not just a way of getting attention in these matters”. My god! When did I ever state that this was about me getting attention? I never received any attention to the hundreds of reports I put in over the years, so why would I expect any ATTENTION now?
CHARGE 3:
“It is my belief that this issue was covered in charge one as you represented Steve and I will withdraw it on this occasion”. Did you actually say this because nowhere in the hearing did you mention this charge?
Was it a case of, you clearly thought you had done enough to dismiss me?
You further stated, “My view is the relationship between FTPE and yourself has irrevocably broken down to the effect that you have deemed it necessary to sit there and promote the fact that you falsify reports in relation to this incident, and have done previously. With regard to this, it is my decision today to summarily dismiss you from service with immediate effect”.
Did we ever have a "relationship"?
Do you call, blatant IGNORANCE a "relationship"?
Did I actually try and cement a "relationship" by writing my thoughts out and handing them to TPE management?
How did I "deem it necessary"? Did I actually falsify a report? Did I actually state that I had previously falsified reports in relation to this incident or any other incident?
Why did you tell Driver Geoff Lee, "I didn`t want to sack Perry"?
Is that suggesting that you were made to make that decision?
Were you told to dismiss me regardless of my representations?
Why did what you actually charged me with in the disciplinary hearing change so much when you outlined my supposed deficiencies in the disciplinary outcome letter?
And then why did these supposed deficiencies change again in your witness statement?
When did solicitor Simon Robinson become involved against me?
Do you think I had a fair hearing and appeal if you are using a solicitor against me before before I
am dismissed?
How would you treat an employee if they head butted another employee while acting as an ambassador for the company?
How do you feel when you look back on this blatant LIE, "The train remained in service, when it should have been removed"?
How does it feel knowing that if you had to answer these questions it would prove what a blatant liar you are and more importantly completely vindicate me?
How does it feel reading that I am showing the world what a complete LIAR you are and also highlighting how you treat issues of safety with IGNORANCE.
Why don`t you do something about this website if you are a man of integrity, an honest, decent person?
Or is it because I portray you as exactly the opposite and you cannot dispute the evidence that I display on this website?
How does it feel having the threat of corporate manslaughter hanging over you?
Do you understand why I say the above? Do you now also realise that through your inaction's you have also put other individuals at the same risk of a corporate manslaughter charge?
Are you also aware that it doesn`t have to be an issue or an accident involving TPE, you will still be held liable?
Are You aware that you MUST change the TPE contingency plans for a partial failure of the warning horn?
Do you also realise that this should have been done 4 years ago and that only luck has saved you?
Are you also aware that you should have recommended changes to the rule book regarding a partially defective warning horn because the way it is written is open to interpretation and that in your eyes it could lead to catastrophe?
You should have done something 4 years ago, because it was you that stated, "The train remained in service, when it should have been removed", and "The unit stayed in service was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk”.
Yet I interpreted the rule book how I had always done for years previous to the day in question and YOUR concerns are the train should have been removed because it put peoples lives at risk, we have opinions that are extreme. Therefore this ruling is ambiguous to say the very least, WHY HAVEN`T YOU DONE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS as you believe it puts peoples safety at risk?
Why should I have to highlight just how dangerous this situation is?
From the quotes by yourself below, which one in your mind is true?
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”.
WITNESS STATEMENT: 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.
WITNESS 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".
For a partial failure of the warning horn would any of the above statements be true?
You should have done something 4 years ago, because it was you that stated, "The train remained in service, when it should have been removed", and "The unit stayed in service was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk”.
Yet I interpreted the rule book how I had always done for years previous to the day in question and YOUR concerns are the train should have been removed because it put peoples lives at risk, we have opinions that are extreme. Therefore this ruling is ambiguous to say the very least, WHY HAVEN`T YOU DONE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS as you believe it puts peoples safety at risk?
Why should I have to highlight just how dangerous this situation is?
From the quotes by yourself below, which one in your mind is true?
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”.
WITNESS STATEMENT: 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.
WITNESS 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".
For a partial failure of the warning horn would any of the above statements be true?