QUESTIONS FOR MANAGER STEPHEN PERCIVAL
Stephen, you should be able to answer the following questions with ease, but I would bet any amount of money on it, that you cannot answer any of them, do you know why? Because it will prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that you are also a LIAR. If you carried out your investigation above board, without any lie's or conspiring with other's what have you got to lose? What on the other hand have you got to gain? The answer to this is simple, INTEGRITY, but you like the rest of them know, that by truthfully answering the questions it vindicates me, it would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that 8 out of 9 of you conspired against me to get me dismissed. The only one missing is Ged Higgins who nonetheless is a proven LIAR.
Why not let this audience of driver's and other`s judge your answers? I will gladly display your answers on this website, but we both know that you won't let that happen, Barry Cook wouldn`t let that happen, no manager at TPE would let that happen, why? Because YOU KNOW deep down the truth.
QUESTIONS
Why not let this audience of driver's and other`s judge your answers? I will gladly display your answers on this website, but we both know that you won't let that happen, Barry Cook wouldn`t let that happen, no manager at TPE would let that happen, why? Because YOU KNOW deep down the truth.
QUESTIONS
Would you say that you established all the relevant facts of this case, or in hindsight would you have approached this any different?
Can you show me anywhere in that investigation report where you once looked for evidence to support my side of this?
Have you ever received training on ACAS Guidelines?
Do you fully understand ACAS Guidelines?
Do you have the same attitude as Route Driver Mark Atkinson in that you don`t abide by ACAS Guidelines?
What training did you have that enabled you to formulate this investigation report?
Did you still stand by your opening statement, “that the objective of the meeting was to investigate an incident whereby unit no 185119 had been withdrawn from traffic due to allegations about defects”?
Can you show me anywhere in that investigation report where you once looked for evidence to support my side of this?
Have you ever received training on ACAS Guidelines?
Do you fully understand ACAS Guidelines?
Do you have the same attitude as Route Driver Mark Atkinson in that you don`t abide by ACAS Guidelines?
What training did you have that enabled you to formulate this investigation report?
Did you still stand by your opening statement, “that the objective of the meeting was to investigate an incident whereby unit no 185119 had been withdrawn from traffic due to allegations about defects”?
Did I confirm with you almost immediately that there had NOT been a near miss?
Did I fully explain to you the reason why I didn't complete the vehicle repair sheet fully?
Please explain how the nature of a report (what is written) can keep a train out of service?
Is a train that is involved in a near miss ever taken out of service?
Have you ever known one be taken out of service?
If yes, give the reasoning behind taking a train out of service?
Do you honestly think that my “desired reaction” was to get that train out of service?
If that was the case, don`t you think I would have requested this on arrival in York?
What would happen if on arrival in York, I complain about a partial failure of the warning horn and request that the train is taken out of service immediately?
Would that train have been removed from service?
If a driver brings a train into York station and has a complete warning horn failure, but on arrival the train is to be driven from the other cab, would that train be allowed to depart York?
Would that train have been removed from service?
Why do you think that my standard report form made no mention of the “near miss”? After all did a “near miss” actually happen?
Did I explain to you that I had tried numerous ways to get this type of defect rectified?
You reminded me that TPE took a “near miss” incident very seriously, but did I have a “near miss”?
With a warning horn that is proven to totally malfunction at any time, is it safe to run trains bearing in mind the following scenario?
It is a cold damp day, you already have a partial failure of the warning horn, you are travelling at 100mph because TPE contingency plans in conjunction with the rule book allow this to happen, 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! Would or should anyone have to go through this sort of event? WHAT NEXT? Spare a thought for the driver, the emergency service personnel, the police and the relatives and friends of the deceased, and all because a group of managers displayed their normal trait of IGNORANCE!
Let me ask you Stephen, could the above scenario happen?
If no, please explain why not?
Is it therefore safe to run trains where this could happen?
In running trains, is this putting the whole of the railway at risk?
Where can anyone find the correct procedure for reporting a “near miss”?
Why in that first interview didn’t you ask me once about how the warning behaved that morning?
Do you think on the second interview that the questions you asked should have been ascertained in the first interview while the facts remained clear in the mind?
Do you still stand by your statement that, “your role as investigating officer was not to be judgmental or apportion blame, but to ascertain the facts so a full and accurate report could be formulated”?
Do you not think that by already covering my job that evening you had been judgmental?
Would you call it a premeditated response?
Why would you ask me which driving cab I used when you already knew the answer?
What was the point of that question?
Why didn’t you write the truth about how I described the weather conditions during that journey? WHY LIE?
Do you think on the second interview that the questions you asked should have been ascertained in the first interview while the facts remained clear in the mind?
Do you still stand by your statement that, “your role as investigating officer was not to be judgmental or apportion blame, but to ascertain the facts so a full and accurate report could be formulated”?
Do you not think that by already covering my job that evening you had been judgmental?
Would you call it a premeditated response?
Why would you ask me which driving cab I used when you already knew the answer?
What was the point of that question?
Why didn’t you write the truth about how I described the weather conditions during that journey? WHY LIE?
Again why leave these questions till the second interview when these questions should have been asked in the first interview?
If my allegations were that serious, why wasn’t any other driver who drove that train asked for a report on those defects and if they were apparent?
Did I fax that report form to control? Did I actually say I had faxed it to control?
When I informed you about the set swap in York and all the confusion it caused why didn’t you ask for a report from the DOM and the conductor?
Are you aware that ACAS guidelines states, “Any investigatory meeting should be conducted by a management representative and should be confined to establishing the facts of the case”?
What relevance did an informal chat with Driver Manager Peter Turpin about an unrelated issue have to do with this incident?
Is the above a fact about this incident?
Yet again, why ask, “why he had not followed P. Turpin’s advice regarding reports”?
Is the above a fact about this incident?
Is the following statement you made, “he felt it justified owing to the seriousness of the allegations and the impact that it had on the business”, proof that profit becomes before
safety?
If the above statement in your mind isn’t true, then why did TPE and Siemens allow every other train with horn failures to remain in traffic and run?
If my allegations were that serious, why wasn’t any other driver who drove that train asked for a report on those defects and if they were apparent?
Did I fax that report form to control? Did I actually say I had faxed it to control?
When I informed you about the set swap in York and all the confusion it caused why didn’t you ask for a report from the DOM and the conductor?
Are you aware that ACAS guidelines states, “Any investigatory meeting should be conducted by a management representative and should be confined to establishing the facts of the case”?
What relevance did an informal chat with Driver Manager Peter Turpin about an unrelated issue have to do with this incident?
Is the above a fact about this incident?
Yet again, why ask, “why he had not followed P. Turpin’s advice regarding reports”?
Is the above a fact about this incident?
Is the following statement you made, “he felt it justified owing to the seriousness of the allegations and the impact that it had on the business”, proof that profit becomes before
safety?
If the above statement in your mind isn’t true, then why did TPE and Siemens allow every other train with horn failures to remain in traffic and run?
When you suspended me you said the following, “it was his decision and that he felt it justified owing to the seriousness of the allegation and the impact it had on business”, What happened to not being judgmental?
When I requested accompaniment why was this refused?
Why nowhere in these 2 investigatory interviews was I once asked about the behaviour of the warning horn?
When compiling your investigation report did you look for evidence which supported my claims, especially my claim of ignoring reports?
Was the “false allegation of a near miss incident on a unit defect slip”, the only issue of this investigation report?
Explain how the “severity” of an allegation can keep a unit out of traffic?
Have I ever wrote report forms stating “severity” previously and if so were trains taken out of traffic through this “severity”?
When I requested accompaniment why was this refused?
Why nowhere in these 2 investigatory interviews was I once asked about the behaviour of the warning horn?
When compiling your investigation report did you look for evidence which supported my claims, especially my claim of ignoring reports?
Was the “false allegation of a near miss incident on a unit defect slip”, the only issue of this investigation report?
Explain how the “severity” of an allegation can keep a unit out of traffic?
Have I ever wrote report forms stating “severity” previously and if so were trains taken out of traffic through this “severity”?
In your mind and with hindsight did you “determine all the (relevant) facts of this case?
One recommendation came out of your investigation, for something you considered so severe to dismiss me, why only one recommendation?
Why did you fail to implement this recommendation? Unless of course the 12 drivers who responded to me are liars.
When you stated, “preventing or reducing the likelihood of recurrence”, explain exactly what this means?
Required action for “non compliance”, “The allegations that were the subject of this investigation”. Making a false allegation that I readily admitted never occurred, is a “non compliance with what?
“By not following the correct reporting procedure the driver allowed the unit to remain in traffic, with faults that he believed to be serious and potentially capable of contributing to a safety of the line incident”.
Which reporting procedure are you talking about and where can it be found?
Are rules allowed to be altered because someone comes along with a belief?
How did you evaluate that I never followed a correct reporting procedure from your 2 interviews with me?
One recommendation came out of your investigation, for something you considered so severe to dismiss me, why only one recommendation?
Why did you fail to implement this recommendation? Unless of course the 12 drivers who responded to me are liars.
When you stated, “preventing or reducing the likelihood of recurrence”, explain exactly what this means?
Required action for “non compliance”, “The allegations that were the subject of this investigation”. Making a false allegation that I readily admitted never occurred, is a “non compliance with what?
“By not following the correct reporting procedure the driver allowed the unit to remain in traffic, with faults that he believed to be serious and potentially capable of contributing to a safety of the line incident”.
Which reporting procedure are you talking about and where can it be found?
Are rules allowed to be altered because someone comes along with a belief?
How did you evaluate that I never followed a correct reporting procedure from your 2 interviews with me?
What would TPE Control have said if I told them, “I had a partial failure of the warning horn which has now rectified itself and the warning horn is functioning correctly”?
What do the TPE contingency plans state for a partial failure of the warning horn?
Furthermore, with that train being driven from the “other” cab, would TPE control have taken the train out of service with a partial warning horn failure in the rear cab?
With that train being driven from the “other” cab, would TPE control have taken the train out of service with a complete warning horn failure in the rear cab?
If I had explained to TPE control the fact that I thought running trains with partially defective warning horns was so unbelievably dangerous that someone could be killed, would they take that train out of service?
Why did all my reports get ignored that stated someone will be injured or killed, especially if you are so concerned as a manager that this allegation was, “so serious and potentially capable of contributing to a safety of the line incident”? When all of my mountains of reports state exactly this!
Why did you take the assumption of Engineering Manager Steve Bridge that the temperature on the day was such that it would not cause a problem with the warning horn?
What do the TPE contingency plans state for a partial failure of the warning horn?
Furthermore, with that train being driven from the “other” cab, would TPE control have taken the train out of service with a partial warning horn failure in the rear cab?
With that train being driven from the “other” cab, would TPE control have taken the train out of service with a complete warning horn failure in the rear cab?
If I had explained to TPE control the fact that I thought running trains with partially defective warning horns was so unbelievably dangerous that someone could be killed, would they take that train out of service?
Why did all my reports get ignored that stated someone will be injured or killed, especially if you are so concerned as a manager that this allegation was, “so serious and potentially capable of contributing to a safety of the line incident”? When all of my mountains of reports state exactly this!
Why did you take the assumption of Engineering Manager Steve Bridge that the temperature on the day was such that it would not cause a problem with the warning horn?
Why were the download data sheets from that unit used against me stating that, “no evidence of the NRN radio being used”, when you knew all along that this information doesn’t show up on a download? WHY LIE?
Why did you state that the train arrived in York at 10.21 which was its booked arrival time when it actually arrived in York at 10.30? Again WHY LIE?
As 4.23 states, what additional investigations were carried out?
What time did you ascertain that there had not been a near miss incident reported to Network Rail?
What time were the necessary safety checks completed?
5.2 “On both occasions the driver readily agreed to be interviewed and made no request for accompaniment at any time”. WHY LIE?
Why was I never given any copy of both interview minutes to sign off as verbatim?
What relevance to this investigation is paragraph 5.8? “The driver has a long standing and recorded history of submitting reports containing sarcastic and derogatory comments
etc”?
“Tested on depot, ok to run”, I thought this was no longer to be used?
What reason did TPE decide that the above response was no longer to be used?
What has 5.12, 2 completely unrelated incidents have to do with the facts of this case?
Can you explain where the correct procedure for submitting a defect slip can be found?
Why did you state that the train arrived in York at 10.21 which was its booked arrival time when it actually arrived in York at 10.30? Again WHY LIE?
As 4.23 states, what additional investigations were carried out?
What time did you ascertain that there had not been a near miss incident reported to Network Rail?
What time were the necessary safety checks completed?
5.2 “On both occasions the driver readily agreed to be interviewed and made no request for accompaniment at any time”. WHY LIE?
Why was I never given any copy of both interview minutes to sign off as verbatim?
What relevance to this investigation is paragraph 5.8? “The driver has a long standing and recorded history of submitting reports containing sarcastic and derogatory comments
etc”?
“Tested on depot, ok to run”, I thought this was no longer to be used?
What reason did TPE decide that the above response was no longer to be used?
What has 5.12, 2 completely unrelated incidents have to do with the facts of this case?
Can you explain where the correct procedure for submitting a defect slip can be found?
It was 2009 and horn faults were exactly the same as previous years going back to 2006, if Siemens and TPE are not to blame for this, then who is?
Was the train kept out of service because the 5 issues had not been dealt with?
How would a near miss if one had occurred keep this train out of service?
8.2, Why would the train be kept out of traffic any longer than for rectifying the faults?
8.3, So because I never informed control about a partially defective warning horn, I allowed that train to stay in service?
If I had informed control about the partially defective warning horn, would that train have stayed in service without restrictions to its speed till it finished its diagrammed work?
What do TPE contingency plans say about a partially defective warning horn?
How is, “if the unit had stayed out of service for a longer period there may have been cancellations to services”, deemed to be a risk?
Was the train kept out of service because the 5 issues had not been dealt with?
How would a near miss if one had occurred keep this train out of service?
8.2, Why would the train be kept out of traffic any longer than for rectifying the faults?
8.3, So because I never informed control about a partially defective warning horn, I allowed that train to stay in service?
If I had informed control about the partially defective warning horn, would that train have stayed in service without restrictions to its speed till it finished its diagrammed work?
What do TPE contingency plans say about a partially defective warning horn?
How is, “if the unit had stayed out of service for a longer period there may have been cancellations to services”, deemed to be a risk?
The meaning of a RISK is: A factor, thing, element, or course involving uncertain danger; a hazard, how does a train staying out of service constitute an uncertain danger or hazard?
8.3 & 9.1 Why is it faults that I believe to be serious?
When has it ever mattered what I believe?
Is the ignorance to my reports proof of the above?
What do you think of the responses I received in the emails from drivers stating your recommendation was never implemented?
Are these drivers liars?
What do you think about the drivers who said they cannot remember when they last had a safety brief?
Am I right in saying that by 00.30 you were aware that no near miss had occurred.
So Siemens depot knew that by 00.30 there had been no near miss, what is the full investigation mentioned in the TPE log that Siemens had to carry out?
Wouldn’t a full investigation and testing be normal for such defects?
Was that control log a cut and paste job? If not, why the errors?
Appendix H, states, “resulted in the train being unavailable for traffic the following day to undergo the necessary safety checks”. Are necessary safety checks mandatory?
8.3 & 9.1 Why is it faults that I believe to be serious?
When has it ever mattered what I believe?
Is the ignorance to my reports proof of the above?
What do you think of the responses I received in the emails from drivers stating your recommendation was never implemented?
Are these drivers liars?
What do you think about the drivers who said they cannot remember when they last had a safety brief?
Am I right in saying that by 00.30 you were aware that no near miss had occurred.
So Siemens depot knew that by 00.30 there had been no near miss, what is the full investigation mentioned in the TPE log that Siemens had to carry out?
Wouldn’t a full investigation and testing be normal for such defects?
Was that control log a cut and paste job? If not, why the errors?
Appendix H, states, “resulted in the train being unavailable for traffic the following day to undergo the necessary safety checks”. Are necessary safety checks mandatory?
If they are mandatory, then this unit cannot move until they are complete and because they were not finished in time, is this the real reason this train remained out of service?
Why did you get Manager Peter Turpin to supply you with a made to order letter that was totally irrelevant to this investigation?
What did the contents of that letter have to do with the events of the 14th January 2009?
Why did you get Manager Peter Turpin to supply you with a made to order letter that was totally irrelevant to this investigation?
What did the contents of that letter have to do with the events of the 14th January 2009?